International Police Reform

Although we have become accustomed to unnerving global cooperation in suppression of demonstrators by increasingly militarized riot police, transnational police standards stand to improve civil rights of an average citizen


Current painfully slow but steady movement towards a Type 1 civilization is demonstrated socially in development of increasingly global themes in movies, rapid transmission of underground music to every spot on earth, in continuing advancement of English as world's lingua franca (in parallel with decline of key English speaking countries), in social networking tools, and globalist orientation (world as one country) of generation Y among world's middle and upper classes.

On the state level, we see rapid globalist thrust towards common educational standards for wage slaves via the Bologna Process in the Northern hemisphere and in reorientation of Interpol towards terrorist threats from neo-luddites, religious reactionaries, and politically charged have nots. There's plenty of less glamorous "under the hood" efforts being conducted to internationalize the Internet and put it under UN regulation and of course to deal with communication, transport, energy, law, etc. 

One may argue endlessly whether some competition in standardization is in order (such as having 6 continents falling under 2-3 competing standardization models versus the whole world falling under one potentially faulty and stagnating model). What is clear is that historically, centralized standardized police action improved efficiency in administration of justice by often ignoring and being above the petty corruptions and concerns of localities. Obviously window for brand new abuses was opened up but generally centralization of power and justice was slightly to moderately less corrupt than decentralization of justice (1 rich man's government versus dozens of smaller rich man's governments). We usually hear this mentioned in history books in terms of somebody or a group unifying the tribes, colonies, feudal fiefdoms, etc under 1 relatively detached and impartial infrastructurally minded central authority. Transition from feudalism towards a modern state system was a welcome development in reducing abuses and arbitrary action.

The current relatively politically correct "soft" approach of the UN and Interpol is a demonstration of the above. Often one would rather be apprehended by some UN helmet policeman rather than a small town cop from Texas, Russia, or China. Same occurred when Federal police first appeared on the scene in United States in early 20th century. When it comes to bringing order to the wage slave plantations (or "countries" as they are known currently), global police force and rapid development of global policing standards will tend to increase autonomy for an average human and decrease civil rights abuses.

Major police reforms to be undertaken by individual countries under new global umbrella guidelines

1) Elimination and retiring of 50%+ of police forces. This is easily accomplished by transnational agreements to end the futile drug prohibition as well as hands off approach to consensual acts such as gambling, some forms of smuggling, sex work, etc. Such efforts are already underway in South America. A UN and Interpol commission to create a detailed list of "offenses" that are too absurd and socially damaging to continue being so called offenses. Then creating a hands off guidelines to shame other countries into compliance with new socially libertarian measures. End of drug prohibition in United States for instance will allow mass layoffs of policemen currently employed by the executive.

The current development of world's armed forces is to become "leaner and meaner" and same should and will apply to the police. Modern communication, educational (see below), robotics, and weapons technology makes majority of law enforcement employees obsolete.

In parallel, there will develop a need to absorb a large pool of young aggressive men and women into socially beneficial activities not revolving around military or law enforcement. Traditional venue of sports can save the day once again if new 21st century sports are developed (magnetic levitation football anyone?) that combine physical exertion with new innovative technological and infrastructure construction development. The young homo sapiens should be allowed to tinker with tools and gadgets, aggressively compete in teams, provide their social proof to the community, and get honors for it.

2) Doctorate's degree as a mandate to be a policeman and tripling of police wages. The responsibility of having the power to enforce justice with violence and to detain a fellow homo sapien is a heavy one. A policeman should be compensated as well as a doctor and be required to undergo many years of social psychology (herd dynamics), fitness, basic law, and various sensitivity conditioning alongside elite weapons training. Mass layoffs of police will free up resources to make remaining policemen as elite as possible. Now of course many human apes who join to serve will have restless aggressive physiologies and after being screened for psychopathy, they should be allowed to start serving in some capacity right away (guards of various facilities, etc) while having to complete their education in parallel. Thus for example, a well compensated 15 hour workweek in limited power capacity with classes towards a PhD. Nurturing sports and fitness should be provided in addition. We should see a lot of new highly motivated people join the force (similar to how post 2008 economic depression eliminated talent shortage problem in the armed forces). Obviously higher salary and more societal respect does not eliminate corruption (one just has to look at big pharma-doctor cooperation in US) but it does make entry to corruption a bit more difficult.

It is essential to create cooperation between transnational police and college standardizing entities concerning implementation.

3) 1 newly trained policeman being able to ideally replace up to 5 late 20th century policemen. Just as a modern policeman has as much cognitive ability, training, technology, and firepower to replace 5+ policemen in 19th century, a 21st century policeman should do the same to current batch of employees. The profession should be socially even more respected and with the end of prohibitions on consensual acts and rebalancing of power between haves and have nots, it will be. Strict fitness and dietary standards should be applied to new recruits and continual lifelong education and nurturing developed. Conditional well paid retirement at 40 is a good idea to reduce corruption, entrenched authoritarian thinking, and to keep supplying new blood to the force.

4) Strict separation between military and police. This is perhaps most difficult to accomplish considering the mass global Internet led awakening among the poor. However, eliminating the gray area of militarized police will be necessary to prevent even further civil unrest and angering of the mob. A society should either figure out how to allow a large crowd to gather peacefully with non-militarized police present (as if it was was New Year's eve) or it should throw away the mask of civility and bring out the military and tanks when there are large purposeful gatherings. The current gray area just creates militarization of the civilians and a multitude of various neurotic behavior in the herd. 

5) Training population to police themselves. This can be accomplished by reintroduction of firearms training in high schools, civil duty lessons, and following the Swiss model of citizen militia. The generation that will follow generation Y is more than ready to accomplish self policing as well as swelling the ranks of embryonic world police core.

Obviously applying some of these reforms on top of current society (especially #4) is not workable but will become increasingly doable with planet's continuing transition away from current socioeconomic system. This process is a multidecade one and will be most led by countries that emerge from the current financial crisis in their best shape.

American Identity Crisis

click to enlarge

The artificial "American" nationality created as an assimilating force is beginning to break down due to inequalities of education within the dominant ethnic coalition.





Many Americans are humorously reluctant to even approach the topic of race and cultural integration. When the French and Swedes (with far lower % of non-whites and immigrants) are actively discussing these issues, the citizenry within Home of the Brave runs for the hills. That's not necessarily an issue of an elephant in the room or fear of seeming offensive. There is a sustained historical reason for every American citizen to suppress his own thoughts on ethnic/racial groups. That reason is state ideology.

Lets briefly review the ideological process that has so far driven national integration in this country.  Ideological "equality" until 2009 has referred to cultural assimilation that expanded beyond Germans and Irish and moved onto all whites as well as select ethnic groups like Jews and Asians. For most of the 20th century, as long as whites remained the vast majority of the total population, neutral terminology like "American" (that didn't refer to any tribal/national origins) could be used to try to consolidate the vast geographic territory into one national fabric. Creation of a neutral national identify to serve as an umbrella nationality for many diverse peoples is standard practice for leaderships of very populous states. In this sense American is no different than the terms Chinese, Soviet, Indian (and these days European).

However, even in very diverse federal states like China or the Russian Federation, there is a ruling ethnic group or a coalition of a few groups that make smaller nationalities cluster around them by the use of force. In China it is the Mandarin speakers and in RF it is of course Russians (with 75% of the population). In US, the native Englishmen have long stopped being numerically dominant in the 19th century (although they remained qualitatively dominant in wealth and education). This pushed them into gradually expanding the ruling coalition by accepting Germans, Irish, Poles, Italians, and so on. Since "English" could not be used for numerical reasons for national identity building the way "German" or "French" is used today, the artificial concept of American had to be bolstered and gradually strengthened.

The power of the artificially constructed nationality rests on the ideology/reality that backs up its promises (how equal are all Europeans in EU, how equal are all Soviets, etc) as well as how much physical power those assimilated into the idea of the umbrella nationality really have. For most of the country's history, there were certain minority populations with whom assimilation was never tried (integration of relatively recently freed slaves and conquered ethnically cleansed natives). This was because it would drain national energies and political capital of elites within ruling ethnic groups and deprive them of divide and conquer tools for new arrivals (gradually offering the umbrella "American" and its promise of equality to some new immigrants like the Germans, Irish and Polish first but not to Italians and Jews until much later). This was not any conspiracy but a natural path of least resistance and an organic way for concept of American to really put down its roots (as opposed to just covering everybody with a term American right away). The gradual and imperial manner of rewarding the title of "American" allowed US leadership a tighter leash than the one Soviets possessed since the term felt and was more real psychologically to those who "earned it" (see the number of Irish and Germans who died in US Civil War, WW1, etc).

In the past few decades a couple of things began to strain the process of national integration that has worked well so far in terms of political stability:

A) Emergence of new culturalism for 20%-25% of the population which is based more on higher education and less on racial/ethnic affiliation.

This first factor was the increasing division amongst assimilated Americans in terms of education and consequently wealth. There was always a large wealth gap between tycoons/descendants of British elites and the rest which was heavily correlated with ethnic lineage. However the GI Bill and mass access to college in second half of the 20th century (particularly by 1960s) really gave a large number of whites of all stripes a way to leap into the power demographic. "Middle Class" as a term actually began to partially stop being an early 1950s cold war propaganda tool to mask and ease class tensions (by putting into peoples minds the idea that wealth is on a continuum with a fatty middle rather than a narrow pyramid with a wide base) and began to become a reality for a number of white Americans.

Higher education put pressure on the previous method of rewarding the title of American. It brought about higher states of consciousness that:

1) Increased perception of physical material national inequality within dominant ruling white coalition on the one hand

2) Brought a new form of knowledge based culturalism as prejudice to increasingly large amount of people within the ruling coalition on the other

Old culturalism (in place for most of the nation's existence) consisted in acceptance to assimilate some select ethnic groups and view them as co-equal Americans while rejecting non-whites and natives as other/excluded/subjects. Until 1950s, vast majority of the population was technically illiterate and racial physical differences made it easy to have rule of thumb for the masses. Lack of higher education for the assimilated really compounded old culturalist prejudices. The old culturalism as a tool of control, although undermining national integration for some ethnic groups, made up for it in the minds of US leadership by accelerating assimilation amongst other groups. For example it was politically easier to betray the interests of blacks at say, 5% of population, to gain an Italian voting block of over 13% and sell this idea to older Anglos/Irish/German majority in a specific area. The divide and conquer routine for electoral politics was of course an organic and natural outgrowth of British rule.

[note: Racism as a concept is a new phenomenon in Britain because classism was so strong there historically. To the elites it never made any difference what color the poor peasants were. It seems the current American oligarchic leadership emulates old Britain in that regard.]

The new culturalism is more individual based and springs from a person's access to information that most lack. Currently its physical manifestation is one of educated whites (20-25% of the population who went to college) migrating to urban areas (reasons for migrations are outlined in Death of Suburbia) and the socioeconomic power increasingly concentrating in their hands. When vast majority of ruling ethnic group's population are undergoing a split between those with basic literacy and those with more advanced tools for political influence, when that manifests into real inequality of opportunity (which always existed but is now underlined by educational background), then the "equality" offered by the idea of being an "American" begins to lose its strength. When a college educated white has more in common culturally with his/her counterpart in France or Australia than with a rural religious white in his own country, then the term American begins to lose its strength as a tool of national integration just like the terms Soviet or Yugoslavian did. Sub-American identities thus begin to gain power as they are at least connected to tribe, blood, and cultural/regional peculiarities. The bonds of a federal national structure and control from above begin to weaken.

B) Demographic shifts due to migration and same as before fertility resulted in greater number of people (proportional to the overall population) who were always excluded.

Non-white Hispanics and blacks combined at 25% of the population ( and burdened in large parts not only by original cultural prejudice but also the newer overlapping culturalism from urban educated). The culturalism against these two groups is rarely manifest by hostile acts or words but by typical and effective way of depriving anything of power, which is excluding and ignoring.

In recent times, racial solidarity and inclusion began to truly occur amongst the equally educated with mostly the cultural inertia of the older first form of culturalism hampering the process. Higher education brings its own cultural soldiarity and identity that can be much stronger than having similar physical likeness. There is little incentive for educated whites to break unity with equally educated non-whites for the political, economic, and cultural benefit of uneducated rural whites. Educated blacks and Hispanics are not numerous enough proportional to their population and too geographically splintered to really form their own communities so there is little option for them but to assimilate into expanding white dominated urban educated class. The most similar people conspire for power.

[note: Poor rural whites, blacks, and Hispanics have a lot more in common than they think and future American populist movements will have to tap into that if they are to be successful. GOP of course blew that chance due to regional and internationalist oligarchic controls over their party.]

Obama's election has shown these emerging rifts and alliances with remarkable clarity. The new updated integration with an educational filter is not confined to ethnic/racial groups and creates enough new inequalities to start to rot American ideology from within. Concepts such as equality of opportunity, rags to riches, free farmer individualism, and self government begin to not work as effectively as state propaganda if country is sufficiently culturally and ethnically splintered and increasingly ruled by one tiny successful multi-ethnic urban faction with PhDs. With rural ghost believing evangelical whites at 25%, blacks and Hispanics each at roughly 13% each, whites at 70% (and dropping due to lower birthrates compared to other groups), those with Bachelor's at roughly 25% (obviously the factions overlap often), we begin to see the serious splits occurring that cannot be rapidly or practically cured with higher education for all (due to these splits preventing effective political national action).

Politics increasingly becomes a matter of what faction will make enough alliances with others to dominate the rest. Obviously that's how it always works but with the national identity of "American" weakening, each election increasingly brings a sense to the loser that the winner is illegitimate and is a cultural interloper. The hysteria of the opposition will increase every time with elites on each side undermining the other in nationally unhealthy ways seen in unstable states.

This has slowly turned United States into an increasingly weak splintered federal state like Brazil or a few other South American countries.

The educated and wealthiest 20% (who are in their own battle with the richest 0.1% internationalist faction) increasingly rule through corporate power from the cities and create blatant cultural exclusion internally. The last American frontier ended in suburbia. Now American people will have to finally face each other and grow up. The country is still spending enormous resources on promoting an ideological agenda around the world with no equal opposition to counter it. The rest of the world is becoming more pragmatic while American society sharpens its ideology (recently demonstrated by rising popularity of libertarian ideas amongst educated whites and amongst defeated republican opposition) and continues to rot from within.

The current process of United States transforming itself from an ideological society into a pragmatic realist society will be gradual and painful.

The rot, so far, is effectively masked by America being an ideological empire and focusing its people on spreading and defending a rigid one dimensional point of view that obviously cant be one size fits all for all societies in the world. Although the process of decline sped up and slowed down at times, discussion and assessment of the situation was muted by how gradual it has been. Societal inability by politicians to address race and ethnic factionalism is a sign of how important the issues are (as if mere utterance of the issues will create social disorder). Soviets were also unable to really discuss the simmering ethnic problems in their midst until too late for similar reasons. Violence is unlikely as American artificial nationality had enough time to partially infiltrate the consciousness of residents living here and as the various American peoples are not specific to certain states.

click to enlarge

What is very likely however is America beginning to mean no more than what Brazil or Argentina means when the price of the military catches up to economic realities. When that occurs and contradictions of state ideology and social reality are exposed to the world (Obama's election has done a lot to slow the process and repair the international image), there will be probably be a painful multi-year period of re-organization from super-power into a normal power. It should all be over by 2020s within our lifetimes. Who knows? If a radical solution is not found to reverse the decline then perhaps we could be a good source of raw materials, religious hardworking immigrants, and weaponry for United States of Europe.

Failure of Economics as a Science

Economics takes a wrong investigative direction. It misses the point by measuring results of ever changing policy of world's elites instead of looking at the real problem of dividing power and resources between 7 billion individual mammals.



Perhaps the most ridiculous and rather insulting concept that has risen in the modern post-religious world is one of "laws of economics". In the future, people will look back with amazement that a concept belonging in the same category of fiction as "divine right", "natural law", or "inalienable right" has managed to survive for as long as it did. Of course just like these previous illusions, this silly study of man made artificial constructs (and the resulting records and snapshots in time of these faith based constructs that are always in flux) is only "relevant" because the constructs are backed by guns, bomber planes, and thermonuclear rockets. The "experts" in these matters only hold power in so far that the giant monopoly game that is 21st century international capitalism is "strictly" adhered to by most of the global force centers (monopolies on violence that are strong states).

This "strict" adherence (to an international elite consensus on how to allocate material resources acquired through force) is not logically possible since the strong individuals who make the rules always modify and change them at will. Thus, even the concept of world's elites playing by their own rules is an impossible fiction since strict adherence is a joke. Yet, for some reason billions of people think that the experts in economics (a playground sandbox that makes an even poorer job trying to be a "real" science than sociology does) have more validity than experts on feudal slave economics hundreds of years ago.

Yes, there were always people who spent years studying symptoms of arbitrary decisions made by elites. They studied serfdom and how the papal state theocracy allocates resources. They studied dynamics of slave trade. When decades of an individual human are spent memorizing and recording the effects of social policy, the human is tempted to make the results of the study into universal eternal law. Thus we have seen academics defending for centuries theocratic/feudal/absolute monarchist slavery as an efficient natural way of allocating materials and human beings. Notice how humans are considered "resources" now just as they were in ancient Egypt.

Even today, it is tempting to think that all the world's conflicts and problems can be boiled down to disagreements on how to allocate material "scarce" resources. It is tempting to side with elites and use supercomputers and fancy graphs to find ever better more efficient way to allocate commodities and human labor. However, human beings and natural resources are not just sitting there in a petri dish to be studied and efficiently allocated. Human beings are actively trying to expand their personal power by creating new rules of the game to trick others into playing by the new rules. The study of economics is the study of an inflatable tent placed on ever shifting sand dunes. All the world's social problems and conflicts occur due to eternal and fluid power struggles between numerous mammals trying to get an edge over other mammals any way they can. We see the strong societies make rules and forcing weak societies to play by them while not following the rules themselves. This indicates that when world's elites get cornered by the rules of their own making, they will attempt to change or get rid of the game altogether.

Economics, besides not being even close to a real science like chemistry (although of course chemistry also studies patterns in shifting sand dunes and crude shapes produced by energy flow), doesn't even focus in the right direction. Only study of power dynamics between individuals combined with biology can begin to provide ideas on what arrangement can give us desired social results.

Here's a visual illustration of the difficulties we're facing. Right now all the world's people are like little spheres of power in a closed container (lets visualize it as cylindrical container for clarity). These spheres shrink and expand based on how much power an individual attains in society due to external and internal variables. The larger the sphere is, the more it rises to the top while the smaller ones sink to the bottom. Of course while the bottom of the container is full of billions of tiny spheres (those mammals making less than a dollar a day) the surface of the pile has a few thousand large spheres rubbing against each other (mammals that are economic, military, and political elites). Most individuals are biologically predisposed to try to become master over the entire world (subconsciously and consciously) by increasing personal power in all directions since it increases their chances of survival and reproduction. Most would not mind being in charge of everything, being the only sphere on the surface of the pile plugging the cylinder and preventing any from even sharing the same level as itself.

It becomes evident that the real question to resolve is one of scarcity of power. The task of economics (looking at world's elites playing monopoly table game with real human lives and constantly making rules up as they go along) to predict anything having to do with reality is a futile and silly one. People should drive these economists (modern day charlatans, useless snake oil salesmen, and king's courtiers) out of town and look towards scientists, doctors, and psychologists for solutions on how to divide power amongst humanity.

usury never changes

Throughout history, in most major civilization and religions, usury was frowned upon and often prohibited. Money changing artists and parasitic middlemen never contributed anything useful. Over thousands of years humans learned the hard way over and over again to prohibit "interest". The trade behind new world colonial expansion could never begin to be compared in "realness" to today's financial sector. The ancient world built awe inspiring mass infrastructure without links of middlemen and their material overhead. The world of the future will do so again. Now that money stopped being tangible rare items like gold and became just a fiction perpetuated by cultural inertia and charlatan salesmen, new prohibitions are needed on behavior that collapses civilization.

New Atheism Movement

"New Atheism" movement is redundant since the battle for secularism is already won at the elite level where it counts. Attacks on religion empower the last hold outs by giving them attention/persecution complex that they crave.







Even in late 18th century, many self respecting people who valued knowledge would not be caught dead admitting belief in a very particular form of ghost worship. Anything short of deism/atheism was seen just as absurd as ghost worship of conquered Native Americans or fanciful epic fiction emerging from India. After Darwin, there was no excuse left for the elites of the world (who could read that is). The battle against superstition has long been decisively won on an intellectual level among people who matter so the recent growth of "New Atheism" in America warrants a few words.

Mutilation of a defeated enemy's corpse does not make the victor appear in a better light. It hints at victor's unhealthy resentment at the corpse and all the mistreatment that was done by the corpse when alive (mistreatment only made possible by it having been in a position of strength). Sometimes this can be explained away by the cathartic therapeutic value that overdoing a victory brings. That is especially true if the corpse was a die hard hold out to the end (examples are mass executions of medieval monks in Revolutionary France, Republican Spain, and early Soviet Union). However, we've seen a constant pattern of the ghost worshiping structures relaxing their grip in the Western world for decades. Clergy's power is fading even where their less educated power bases reside (parts of southern Europe and United States). They're declining and will continue to do so since support of elites is long lost.

So why are atheist books now flying off the shelves? Why are people gleefully sharpening their knives against ghosts long after the question has been settled by men such as the ones who conceptualized a structure for United States?

The answer seems obvious in terms of history (more angry atheists in Italy and Alabama since they have to live with the miserable theist idiots) but not in terms of strategy. Using very advanced consistent systematic arguments against grown men who belief in ghosts is like a superpower making a big deal about a threat from small country and attacking it with all its might. Ironically the smartest thing George Bush said was "I'm not going to shoot a two million dollar missile at a ten dollar empty tent and hit a camel in the butt!"

Indeed. We don't spend valuable life energies explaining that Harry Potter or scientology's Xenu are not real so why spend it on equally absurd monotheistic ghosts?

One quote by Ghandi that was used throughout the Ron Paul campaign clarifies strategic aspect of it:  

"first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win". 

Why does it go in that order? If the media talking heads/fellow candidates systematically attacked Ron Paul, it'd mean he gained enough power to be honored with mass attack, that he was considered a threat or an equal. To go from ignoring and ridiculing (those unfortunate enough to believe blatant lies) to sharp philosophical attacks would be to honor, empower, and treat the clergy as equals if not superiors that deserve such sophisticated attack. They don't. Ridicule, exclusion, and gentle pats on the head while calmly explaining that it's time to grow up are more proper. It works to suppress third parties and unpopular kids in grade school and it'll work on them.

Lets not be reactive but live our lives gloriously and in a healthy manner to convert others by example. Lets attack those things that are worth attacking, real threats (capitalism, feudal land lords, statist imperialism) and not crutches of unhealthy powerless people and their cynical organizers. Secular society will come to United States quicker than we think. The battle is already won. Even in the deepest south priests and pastors are seen as geeky lame men who one wouldn't want to chill with at the bar or have them tag along. Let's not give them a way to organize in defense. Like North Korea, these hold outs are already finished even if they don't know it yet (recent national elections should give a clue).