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.

Humanitarian Aid Priorities

The targets of humanitarian aid over the last few decades have been badly misplaced to the detriment of leading nations and third world recipients. 




Lets say somebody forced you to give 500 dollars away but gave you the option to choose who to give it to. Lets say they also gave you the option of giving same amount in the form of a gift or labor. Would you give it to your loved ones and/or friends or would you give it to total strangers? It might seem like a no-brainer since you can help your family out with something they need, brighten the day of somebody you know, see tangible results and improvements right away, and even get a bit of that money back through improved relations and reciprocity. The benefit of improving a stranger's life pales in comparison from the perspective of self interest.

We all know how people shriek when other people force them to give away their resources through the muscleman of the government. We are familiar how many Americans would rather give the same resources to somebody close to them (themselves or their families) than other fellow citizens. This is not an article about that. Neither is it about the philosophical debate on possibility of unselfish action. All human action is done to expand influence within the world in a variety of creative ways. Even something like suicide that seems blatantly against the person's self interest expands that person's influence after death since it is such a powerful act.

This article is about proper prioritizing of private humanitarian aid. This type of aid is considered non-coerced and voluntary giving of personal resources to others. Many individuals around the world, particularly Westerners, seem to have their prioritizes of this type of resource giving mixed up.

Let's start with describing 3 of these primarily Western humanitarians (although non-Westerners have been making inroads recently when it comes to giving):

1) Religious people -

In United States in particular they are a large number since poorer education in large swaths of the country allows such demographic to be numerous. They point to how much Americans contribute to private charity compared to other countries. They are these Americans. They say since Americans are so generous on average (compared to Europeans), government shouldn't get involved in humanitarian aid. A point is made that people who already give a lot would give more if it wasn't redistributed under the barrel of the gun and if citizens could personally decide on the target of the aid. They say that they don't want government to take fruits of their labor and spend it on practices that their internalized moral dogma prohibits. This point is as valid (and powerless) as a Green party member not wanting his tax dollars going to the military. The religious humanitarians don't see that funding for contraception and abortion for poorer American citizens produces Christian results. Government funding that they are against reduces poverty, disease, death, suffering, crime, and "ungodly" behavior that economically disadvantaged are more at risk for such as earlier teen sex.

Christians, if they are predisposed to giving, would rather give the money to their local church or religiously based humanitarian organization. These in turn can spend it on local or third world missionary work that uses food and medicine as an incentive to show up to church. Third world is often more of a focus for large churches than local humanitarian work since they can convert more desperate people abroad. A lot of the money does find its way to feed, clothe, and provide medicine when it's not used on stamping out fairy tale literature and mega church expansion. Let's leave alone for now the perpetuating cycle of poverty and misery that just feeding and clothing the poor creates.

2) Secular middle class humanitarians -

These are a lot more numerous in Europe but are also prevalent in all Western urban areas. These people acquired just enough education about the international situation to be able to adequately compare their middle class lifestyles to the rest of the world. Many of these people have sufficient neural emotionality to feel above average levels of empathy for others. They get involved in raising awareness about the suffering but are less inclined to give actual money since that money does not strengthen the power of the church internationally as is the case with the religious people. Their contribution in food and medicine does not come with additional benefits of imposing a moral worldview on the third world poor, and as such has less influence.

Secular humanists are strategically more predisposed to lobbying government to increase its aid through tax revenue although many undoubtedly give personally as well. The "bleeding hearts" as the rural religious like to call them, often have to pick and choose their humanitarian aid considering the amount of suffering in the world. They don't have a church to do the thinking for them so fads are created in terms which society to give to. Many also like to get involved in actually traveling to the third world and helping the needy themselves. That has the benefit of showing the target of resources spent. It also provides more self growth through an exciting well rounded foreign trip that is lacking with study abroad to safer societies.

3) Oligarchical philanthropists -

We know about how charity can help with tax write offs and company image, but many philanthropists are genuinely helping third world peoples with tangible large scale schemes. They are the ones who start the organizations that the urban activists get involved in. Although the reasons (for starting the organizations) are often fad based or economically self serving to better public image, the end result is that billions of dollars flow to other countries.

All these humanitarians have their priorities seriously mixed up. It's not even the fact that they are just increasing poverty and corresponding suffering from generation to generation by disproportionate expenditure on food and medicine. 99% of the money does not go to actual utilitarian reduction of long term suffering such as hiring expensive Western teachers, bringing condoms, textbooks, and sterilization procedures.

The true outrage is that these people's only publicly stated humanitarian focus is not their own families, communities, and countrymen. A middle class woman who writes a 200 dollar check to be spent on some tsunami relief does not use that money to buy a nice present for her mother, father, uncle, sister, brother, husband, and child. Sure, she might be wealthy enough to give all of them even nicer gifts but the fact remains that she could give to people actually close to her even more if she didn't write that check. Some things are zero sum games and a personal income is one of those things. Are all American families so smoothly functioning and so happy together that even a dollar can be spent to be sent abroad? Over 50% divorce rates seem to indicate the opposite. Does giving $3000 worth of personal labor to work for some humanitarian organization bring more joy than spending $3000 worth of personal labor to help out one's own flesh and blood? If it truly does, then logically, the foreign strangers are the real family who should be lived with.

One might argue that a person is single and hates his or her distant relatives. In that case, is there no suffering in one's own community? Why travel to a distant land when many American children can use a boost in contraceptive education or funds to get to college? Surely one's neighborhood and community can be well off and its members roughly co-equal. Then why not give to a domestic humanitarian organization that will bring needed resources to fellow tax payers, fellow language speakers, fellow contributors in one's country's competition with other states abroad? The suffering in the richest countries is of course materially different than suffering in the poorest but that doesn't mean vast differences in contentness levels.

A poor rural American in Appalachia or New Orleans might be 20 times better off materially than a rural man in a poor African province but it doesn't mean the African is 20 times as psychologically distressed. Individual psychology is remarkably adaptive. Studies in psychology have shown that peoples' physiologies and their conscious appraisals of how content they are are remarkably stable. A man who wins a lottery and a man who losses a leg return to roughly the same level of self reported contentness level after a few years. A man born in Africa, raised illiterate, and who did hard labor to survive can be just as psychologically content as a person who was born into poverty in New Orleans, worked hard to survive for many years, and then lost his wife in a divorce. An illiterate person who never left his region also does not have the self consciousness to really assess the hole he is in compared to those in wealthier countries to be too distressed about it. Yes there are actual famines, wars, and disease in Africa. However, unless 99% of aid is contraceptive and educational, the situation is just worsened since only that type of aid can decrease fertility rates and improve economic methods.


When millions of Americans are uninsured, borderline illiterate, have access to inadequate nutrition, are poor, and burdened with excessive birthrates, the sheer outflow of money to the third world is borderline treasonous. Richest countries becoming socially and economically destabilized can have drastic effects on the poorer societies. Large developing nations, like China, Brazil, India, and Russia, understand this and know that there are plenty of their own citizens who need aid even though many Africans and Central Americans are dirt poor as well.

There is a slogan that is very appropriate. "Think globally. Act locally." Lets start adhering to that. If one has to give, it is better to give to family and loved ones and then his countrymen. World government does not yet exist and as the economic crisis has shown there is plenty of rot within our own society that has to be addressed. Private outflow of money abroad for charity purposes has to be banned. Too much has left the country instead of being invested into infrastructure, economy, and country's citizens. Only national governments should be in control of giving proper developmental aid to other societies. The government should encourage humanitarian aid organizations to provide domestically and can create a list of targets for them. Maybe Bill Gates should be appointed as the economic developmental officer of Appalachian schools rather than be allowed to waste his wealth on bettering foreigners. Maybe the international community should finally pressure the Vatican on the condom policy so millions don't die from AIDS and don't leave many children to suffer as well. If it takes Iran level marginalizing and alienating of the Vatican, as well as refusal to meet with Vatican's leadership, so be it.

That's not to say that aid to other societies should stop completely but it should go through national leadership. Government has the power to attach proper strings to make sure fertility of third world poor is decreased and proper investments into schooling provided. Sometimes aiding poorer societies can help prevent destabilization on the richer country's borders. Treason is a very crude word and often misused. But when a grown man who believes in ghosts ignores the poor in his own neighborhood and gives money to help foreign poor through some third world church, treason is the only word that springs to mind. When an educated urban woman spends energy and her money to help foreigners and not her own family or fellow citizens, treason is the only word that springs to mind. Such sensibilities obviously have intention of betterment and help but the priorities are disastrously misplaced.