They are the ones who say bad things against Jesus, who owns you.

James 2:7-9International Children’s Bible (ICB)

They are the ones who say bad things against Jesus, who owns you.

One law rules over all other laws. This royal law is found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”[a] If you obey this law, then you are doing right. But if you are treating one person as if he were more important than another, then you are sinning. That royal law proves that you are guilty of breaking God’s law.

James 2:7New King James Version (NKJV)

Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?

James 2:7New Living Translation (NLT)

Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name[a] you bear?

James 2:7The Message (MSG)

5-7 Listen, dear friends. Isn’t it clear by now that God operates quite differently? He chose the world’s down-and-out as the kingdom’s first citizens, with full rights and privileges. This kingdom is promised to anyone who loves God. And here you are abusing these same citizens! Isn’t it the high and mighty who exploit you, who use the courts to rob you blind? Aren’t they the ones who scorn the new name—“Christian”—used in your baptisms?

James 2:7GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

Don’t they curse the good name of Jesus, the name that was used to bless you?

When we don’t realize who we are in Christ, our faith will be crippled.

2 Corinthians 12:14-21New King James Version (NKJV)

Love for the Church

14 Now for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved.

16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you. Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by cunning! 17 Did I take advantage of you by any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus, and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?

19 Again, do you think[a] that we excuse ourselves to you? We speak before God in Christ. But we do all things, beloved, for your edification. 20 For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; 21 lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.

before we begin….

does questioning these things make you a “target”?

if so what does that mean?

is this more than a “who on earth” posseses “you” knowing or not…?

is possesion of “property” and identity/reputation/class related…

is what you “own” your identity? if so how much? in what ways?who then can “sell” it”

who owns the “patent of who you are”?

do we think we “own” each other like we own our possess “stuff” or property?

The desire to be in control of how we are watched and by whom has grown in the year after the Snowden revelations. Everyday people are downloading private messaging apps in droves, educating themselves about encryption, switching to private browsers, and much more. We’ve become collectively spooked by the sheer magnitude of the dragnet surveillance in place in this country and abroad by governments and corporations. Even if we feel we have nothing illegal to hide, the thought of an algorithm collecting our most personal emails, intimate texts, video chats, and creating a map of our every move and connection is unsettling.

what protections do we have from pathological attacks on identity?

how would people find out or know if they themselves do not understand… anything about pathological societies?

As scholarly interest in the concept of identity continues to grow, social identities are proving to be crucially important for understanding contemporary life. Despite—or perhaps because of—the sprawl of different treatments of identity in the social sciences, the concept has remained too analytically loose to be as useful a tool as the literature’s early promise had suggested. We propose to solve this longstanding problem by developing the analytical rigor and methodological imagination that will make identity a more useful variable for the social sciences. This article offers more precision by defining collective identity as a social category that varies along two dimensions—content and contestation. Content describes the meaning of a collective identity. The content of social identities may take the form of four non-mutually-exclusive types: constitutive norms; social purposes; relational comparisons with other social categories; and cognitive models. Contestation refers to the degree of agreement within a group over the content of the shared category. Our conceptualization thus enables collective identities to be compared according to the agreement and disagreement about their meanings by the members of the group. The final section of the article looks at the methodology of identity scholarship. Addressing the wide array of methodological options on identity—including discourse analysis, surveys, and content analysis, as well as promising newer methods like experiments, agent-based modeling, and cognitive mapping—we hope to provide the kind of brush clearing that will enable the field to move forward methodologically as well.



The moral of that story? No company or agency is safe from attacks; corporations that we trust with our information, our family’s information and even our kids’ information was, is or will be targeted. We need to accept that the world has changed.

As the world evolves, so must IT security. It used to be that network security was all we needed since intruders had to either come into the physical location or hack from outside the network. Now, hackers have turned to the weakest link in the security infrastructure: us. People. Users. Identities.

what is this…

The primer goes on to list four principles and practices of data stewardship:

  1. Individual rights, such a person’s right to access or correct one’s own data
  2. The responsibilities of the health data steward, such as ensuring “Data quality, including integrity, accuracy, timeliness, and completeness”
  3. Needed security safeguards and controls
  4. Accountability, enforcement, and remedies. These include policies for data use and accountability, plus consequences for violation and remediation for affected individuals.

is it really about selling yourself all the (digital)”time”?

is there mercy and forgiveness in virtual world… who is the God of the internet that can “forgive”?

Federal Employees are concerned about identity theft from a new source: medical records. The current trend to transfer all medical patients’ data to Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) is certainly a boon to patients in that it can facilitate treatment between medical organizations, but having all that information online also allows for the possibility of medical identity theft on a large scale. – See more at:

In addition to this way of framing research

problems, neorealists and neoliberals share generally similar assumptions

about agents: states are the dominant actors in the system, and they define

security in “self-interested” terms. Neorealists and neoliberals may disagree

about the extent to which states are motivated by relative versus absolute gains,

but both groups take the self-interested state as the starting point for theory.

Black Market Value of Medical Records

Since December 2013, there have been many high-profile retail data breaches in which millions of consumers’ PII was compromised and put up for sale on underground websites such as Rescator. However, credit card and Social Security numbers for sale on underground sites only fetch a few dollars. Stolen medical identities, by comparison, sell for as much as $50.

In general, consumers do not understand how valuable their medical insurance information has become.

First, we make a few assumptions that we think are widely acknowledged. Employers are custodians of a great amount of personal and private information relating to their employees. A related fact is that like it or not, employees depend upon their employers to do the right thing with that information. Finally, there are many reasons why third parties want to get at that information, some bureaucratic, some financial, some nosy, and some even downright dangerous.


In dealing with these realities, employers should try their best to keep some important basic principles in mind:

  1. Good starting point: all information relating to an employee’s personal characteristics or family matters is private and confidential.
  2. Information relating to an employee should be released only on a need-to-know basis, or if a law or court requires the release of the information.
  3. All information requests concerning employees should go through a central information release office within your organization.

Employers must also be concerned with newer technology such as camera phones (also known as cell phone cameras), digital cameras, and digital movie recorders. In just a few seconds, offensive pictures of coworkers in private, embarrassing, or intimate situations can be taken and sent via e-mail or the Internet to other people and locations. Similarly, such technology can be used to quickly and efficiently conduct industrial espionage. Many employers are now banning the use of such devices in the workplace unless the company has given the employee express permission to use them. Prohibiting such devices and their use can be one tool in preventing harassment claims from employees who feel their privacy has been invaded. Employees should also be warned that they may face both civil and criminal liability for misuse of imaging devices against coworkers and the company. For an example of how such a policy might be worded, see the sample policy titled“Internet, E-Mail, and Computer Usage Policy” in the companion book “The A-Z of Personnel Policies.”

Legal ownership of contacts

Legal ownership of social media contacts is unclear. LinkedIn and Twitter terms of use indicate that connections that exist between people belong to the account holder.

In 2013, the United Kingdom High Court considered a case where a number of former employees used certain LinkedIn contacts to market a rival business venture. In this case, the court ruled in favour of the employer retaining the connections, recognising that breaches of confidentiality and good faith had occurred.

Meanwhile, an upcoming case in the NSW Supreme Court is likely to indicate the Australian position. This case involves the Naiman Clarke recruitment company pursuing a former employee for breaching confidentiality. The employee is accused of using the company’s client database to increase the number of her LinkedIn contacts from 150 to 500 in the month that she resigned, and benefiting from these connections in her subsequent employment.

The difficulty with these cases however, is that they involve the breach of an existing duty of confidence. Any remedy provided by the court is likely to turn on the dishonest conduct or breach of contract, and will be of limited value to ownership of social contacts generally.

Digital real estate can take many forms, from a free service such as a Twitter account, to highly regulated and sometimes, costly domains. For example, 2014 has seen the first brands sign onto new ‘top-level domain’ contracts with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – so we will start to see more .brand websites. This is the frontier of digital real estate, where applications cost US$185,000 and the registration process has taken years.

looks like its only the rich who owns… digital real estate…?

You could also look at this from the perspective of the types and purposes of the identities created. As far as the types of identities are concerned, there’s definitely disparity between the two. For instance, my identity stored in the HR system of my employer is of a much different type than the one I have for The purpose of the HR version is to provide a digital record of my employment so I can receive benefits and the company can meet state and federal regulations. The REI account identity tracks my reward points and lets me dream about high-end camping gear that I can’t afford to buy. The differences are clear in this scenario, but what about email accounts? The work or personal personas under which I operate my employer-sponsored and personal email accounts are different, but the purpose is pretty much the same. In fact, most, if not all, identities that enable communication – social networking, instant messaging, Twitter, etc. – fall into this “blended purpose” camp.

  • Who owns the data? – Because the data has explicit value to the business, there is an issue of ownership that must be addressed. In most cases, no one questions who owns employee identity data. But because of issues related to data privacy and a lack of transparency in the markets where identity data is sold, the issue of ownership must be addressed in the consumer realm. In fact, we are moving to a world of co-ownership or stewardship – much like we do today with our financial assets. In a world of co-ownership, a certain degree of control must be given back to the user. Also, the transactions involving this data must be made visible to all parties to ensure economic equality and choice.

This paper offers a critical assessment of Anthony D. Smith’s classical definition of the nation. In so doing, it argues that Smith fails to establish a clear-cut distinction between the concept of nation and state, since he attributes to the nation some of the features of the state, for instance the sharing of legal rights and duties among all its members. In addition, Smith’s definition neglects the existence of nations without states. The paper offers a detailed examination of Smith’s definition of the nation and the possible reasons why he has decided to introduce some fundamental changes into it in his most recent work. The paper then moves on to consider Smith’s definition of national identity and to offer an alternative to it by including a reflection of how national identity is constructed in the global era.

In this paper I seek to challenge the dominant modes of conceiving the relationship between memory and national identity, and in so doing offer analysts of nationalism an improved understanding of the dynamics of national identity formation. The concept of collective memory is invoked regularly in attempts to explain the pervasiveness and power of nationalism. I argue that the concept is misused routinely in this context, and instead I employ a ‘social agency’ approach to theorizing, whereby memory is conceived in a more limited and cogent manner. I argue that it is important to distinguish clearly between memory and mythology, both of which are essential to understanding national identity, for not only are the two concepts distinct, they can also act in opposition to each other. Following from this I introduce the notion of a ‘mythscape’, the temporally and spatially extended discursive realm in which the myths of the nation are forged, transmitted, negotiated, and reconstructed constantly. Through employing the idea of a mythscape we can relate memory and mythology to each other in a theoretically profitable way.

Informed by current debates in social theory, Identities, Borders, Orders brings together a multinational group of respected scholars to seek and encourage imaginative adaptations and recombinations of concepts, theories, and perspectives across disciplinary lines. These contributors take up a variety of substantive, theoretical, and normative issues such as migration, nationalism, citizenship, human rights, democracy, and security. Together, their essays contribute significantly to our understanding of sovereignty, national identity, and borders.

There are at least two different approaches to the compatibility or coexistence of different identities within a single political institution. Some argue that the solution lies in the generation of multiple identities, although hardly do they ever specifically refer to multiple ‘national’ identities. Often they allude to ethnic, regional, national and transnational identities implicitly assuming that different types of identities are compatible precisely because they operate at different levels.

Nation-Building, Identity and Citizenship Education: Cross Cultural Perspectives

Hot 2015 words reveal an ‘-ism’ nation obsessed with identity

State theory and International Relations

Making sense of state socialization



At present, International Relations scholars use the metaphor of ‘state socialization’ in mutually incompatible ways, embarking from very different starting points and arriving at a bewildering variety of destinations. There is no consensus on what state socialization is, who it affects, or how it operates. This article seeks to chart this relatively unmapped concept by defining state socialization, differentiating it from similar concepts, and exploring what the study of state socialization can contribute to important and longstanding theoretical debates in the field of international relations.

SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY∗ Naomi Ellemers,1 Russell Spears,2 and Bertjan Doosje2 1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands; e-mail: 2 Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail: SP, SP Key Words identity threat, group commitment, social context, identity functions, group distinctiveness ■ Abstract In this chapter, we examine the self and identity by considering the different conditions under which these are affected by the groups to which people belong. From a social identity perspective we argue that group commitment, on the one hand, and features of the social context, on the other hand, are crucial determinants of central identity concerns. We develop a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group identity and degree of commitment to the group. We specify for each cell in this taxonomy how these issues of self and social identity impinge upon a broad variety of responses at the perceptual, affective, and behavioral level

In the previous section, we argued that different social situations may have specific implications for issues of self and identity. Of course, some group-based identities may be so central to the person that they become chronically salient. In a similar vein, some intergroup comparisons may be so pervasive that they dominate a variety of social contexts and overpower other social identities. More generally, commitment to identity and social contextual features interact, combining to form into a limited number of meaningful social situations (Spears et al. 1999, Turner 1999). To examine this more systematically, we have crossed commitment and context dimensions to form a taxonomy of situations in which different identity concerns arise, and hence, different perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses may be anticipated.

We first consider no-threat situations in which people are mainly concerned with forming accurate impressions efficiently or trying to make sense of their own group identity under different conditions of group commitment. We then move into situations in which a threat to the individual self may stem from the relationship between the individual and the group. For those with low commitment, inclusion in the group may be threatening, whereas the possibility of exclusion from the group or category can be a source of threat when commitment is high. Finally, we address contexts in which group identity is threatened, the terrain of much work in the social identity tradition. How people respond when either the value or the distinctiveness of their group is called into question is again crucially affected by commitment to the group. Along with the different identity concerns that may arise, we aim to specify the functions of self associated with each situation and specific concerns and resulting motives that arise (Table 1). We now address the six cells in turn and examine in greater detail the responses and strategies that are likely to emerge corresponding to the different identity concerns.

One important conclusion of this is that responses should not be considered in isolation or taken at face value as necessarily reflecting privately held views. Responses may often be strategic, addressing identity-expressive concerns and instrumental concerns directed by goals attuned to the dominant level of self, which take into account the constraints and possibilities present in context (Ellemers & Barreto 2000, Ellemers et al. 1999a, Spears et al. 2001a). Consideration of the different underlying goals and motives associated with combinations of self and Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only. 29 Nov 2001 11:11 AR AR146-07.tex AR146-07.sgm LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GSR 180 ELLEMERS ¥ SPEARS ¥ DOOSJE contextual conditions is essential to explain why superficially similar as well as different response patterns emerge. The joint examination of perceptual, affective, and behavioral consequences and the moderating role of group commitment provides insight into these patterns, as it helps to predict where essential differences are likely to occur. Another theoretical point that can be derived from the discussion of our taxonomy is that identical conditions may have positive as well as negative consequences, both for the individual and from the perspective of the social system as a whole. For instance, whereas it has been argued that inclusion in a group may serve important self-protective functions (e.g., Leary & Baumeister 2000), we have seen that people may suffer from being categorized against their will, for instance by showing performance impairment due to stereotype threat. In our view, whether or not people feel committed to the group in question is an important determinant of how they respond to the relevant social context and its implications. Similar interactive effects also imply that the role of group commitment can differ substantially as a function of group context as well as identity content. It is often assumed that high commitment leads to prosocial behavior, and that this is beneficial from a societal perspective. However, this is not necessarily the case. Group commitment only predicts prosocial behavior towards the ingroup, but can also cause outgroup derogation. Indeed, compliance with group norms may just as easily elicit individualistic, antisocial, or “deviant” behavior. Thus, even when focusing on a particular cell of our taxonomy, it is important to distinguish between different sorts of group contexts, and to specify the content of identity and norms prescribing behavior. One important issue we have touched on only incidentally in this review is how precisely to explain the emergence of group commitment, or commitment to any level of self for that matter. This question has not been a high priority in social psychological research in which commitment is often been treated as an independent variable. Commitment to particular identities is likely to emerge over time according to the same process of interaction between identity and context that we have used to guide our analysis (Spears et al. 1999, Turner 1999). For example, chronic threats to group identity, especially where the social identity is difficult to escape, may turn the disinterested into the committed over time (Condor 1996, Doosje et al. 2001). Indeed, the strategic functions of the responses we have been discussing only make sense in a temporal context in which there is hope and scope to change an unfavorable status quo (Ellemers 1993, Spears et al. 2001a, Tajfel & Turner 1979). To conclude, we have focused on social identity in different group contexts and have analyzed how both the individual and the collective self are implicated in a range of different group situations. In order to specify the different concerns and motivations that may play a role, we developed a taxonomy with which to analyze the perceptual, affective, and behavioral consequences of the different combinations of group commitment and identity threat. We think this provides a useful analytic tool with which to interpret the current literature on the social self Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:161-186. Downloaded from by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only. 29 Nov 2001 11:11 AR AR146-07.tex AR146-07.sgm LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GSR SELF AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 181 (both collective and personal) in group contexts, as well as serving as a framework for understanding future research in this area’06/EllemersSpearsDoosje.pdf

A NUMBER of strands in contemporary politics turn on the need, sometimes the demand, for recognition. The need, it can be argued, is one of the driving forces behind nationalist movements in politics. And the demand comes to the fore in a number of ways in today’s politics, on behalf of minority or “subaltern” groups, in some forms of feminism and in what is today called the politics of “multiculturalism.”

This is the powerful moral ideal that has come down to us. It accords moral importance to a kind of contact with myself, with my own inner nature, which it sees as in danger of being lost, partly through the pressures toward outward conformity, but also because in taking an instrumental stance toward myself, I may have lost the capacity to listen to this inner voice. It greatly increases the importance of this self-contact by introducing the principle of originality: each of our voices has something unique to say. Not only should I not mold my life to the demands of external conformity; I can’t even find the model by which to live outside myself. I can only find it within.7

Personal Identity

What does being the person that you are, from one day to the next, necessarily consist in? This is the question of personal identity, and it is literally a question of life and death, as the correct answer to it determines which types of changes a person can undergo without ceasing to exist. Personal identity theory is the philosophical confrontation with the most ultimate questions of our own existence: who are we, and is there a life after death? In distinguishing those changes in a person that constitute survival from those changes in a person that constitute death, a criterion of personal identity through time is given. Such a criterion specifies, insofar as that is possible, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the survival of persons.

Online communities are among the most obvious manifestations of social networks 
based on new media technology. Facilitating ad hoc communication and leveraging 
collective intelligence by matching similar or related users have become important 
success factors in almost every successful business plan. 

This special issue addresses the virtual communities and collaboration among 
virtual participants currently proliferating across the world. Many online communi- 
ties have been created to facilitate communication, enhance or express relationships, 
work in a common cause, seek entertainment, and network or mentor others. Others 
have been formed to facilitate tasks already being performed but now needing to be 
done virtually. Such communities and online groups span various boundaries and 
include networked employees, videoconferencing, gaming setups, and electronic 
community groups pursuing such diverse activities as friendshipping, planning, 
information sharing, collaborating, system developing, having fun, and advertising. 
Various technologies are involved, from Facebook and Twitter to teleconferencing 
to mobile phones and PCs. 

Researchers are just beginning to understand virtual communities and collabora- 
tions. Many issues need further study, including group dynamics and outcomes, 
social networking implications, technical support features, group coherence and 
loyalty, and how organizations can better utilize the potential benefits of such com- 
munities in both internal operations and in marketing and new product develop- 
ment. What leads to participation and effective collaboration in these communities 
needs further study, as do the issues of how and why knowledge is shared among 
participants. Much additional research in this area is needed. 

This new book presents studies from leading researchers and practitioners focus- 
ing on the current challenges, directions, trends, and opportunities associated with 
virtual communities and their supporting technologies. 

This new book will be an excellent source of comprehensive knowledge and 
literature on the topic of virtual communities, social networks, and collaboration. 

All of us who worked on the book hope that readers will find it useful.
 As there is no 
common agreement on one specific definition of online communities, for the pur- 
pose of this study they are defined using some of the key aspects that are repeatedly 
mentioned [12, 41]:

It’s the realization that persistently false beliefs stem from issues closely tied to our conception of self that prompted Nyhan and his colleagues to look at less traditional methods of rectifying misinformation. Rather than correcting or augmenting facts, they decided to target people’s beliefs about themselves. In a series of studies that they’ve just submitted for publication, the Dartmouth team approached false-belief correction from a self-affirmation angle, an approach that had previously been used for fighting prejudice and low self-esteem. The theory, pioneered by Claude Steele, suggests that, when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior. For example, when women are asked to state their gender before taking a math or science test, they end up performing worse than if no such statement appears, conforming their behavior to societal beliefs about female math-and-science ability. To address this so-called stereotype threat, Steele proposes an exercise in self-affirmation: either write down or say aloud positive moments from your past that reaffirm your sense of self and are related to the threat in question. Steele’s research suggests that affirmation makes people far more resilient and high performing, be it on an S.A.T., an I.Q. test, or at a book-club meeting.



copy and paste into a search engine

1. Constructivism, Identity and International Relations – 02 Oct.
There are no required readings for this session. However, the lecture refers to the following:
Wendt, A. ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’
International Organization, 46 (1992): 391-425.
Mercer, J. ‘Anarchy and Identity’, International Organization, 49/2 (1995): 229-252.
Huntington, S. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs 72/3 (1993): 22-49.
George W. Bush: West Point Graduation Speech, United States Military Academy, New York,
1 June 2002 (
Barack Obama: Cairo Speech (‘A New Beginning’), Cairo University, 4 June 2009
Background Readings
Agnew, J. ‘Mapping Political Power Beyond State Boundaries: Territory, Identity, and
Movement in World Politics’, Millennium 28/3 (1999): 499-522.
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (Doubleday, 1966)
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. ‘Beyond ‘Identity”, Theory and Society, 29 (2000): 1-47.
Cederman, L.-E. and C. Daase, ‘Endogenezing Corporate Identities: The Next Step in
Constructivist IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 9/1 (2003): 5-35.
Fearon, J. What is Identity (as We Now Use the Word)?, unpublished manuscript (Stanford
University, 1999)
Ferguson, Y. H. and R. W. Mansbach, Authority, Identities and Change (Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 1996)
Guzzini, S. ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’ European Journal
of International Relations, 6/ 2 (2000): 147-182
Hall, R. B. (1999) National Collective Identity. Social Constructs and International Systems,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Hopf, T. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in IR Theory’, International Security, 23/1 (1998):
Jackson, P. T. J. and D. H. Nexon ‘Relations Before States: Substance, Process, and the
Study of World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 5/3 (1999): 291-332
Jepperson, R. L., A. Wendt and P. J. Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity and Culture in National
Security’, in Katzenstein, P. J. (ed): The Culture of National Security (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1996): 33-78.
Kowert, P. ‘National Identity: Inside and Out’, Security Studies 8/2 (1998/99): 1-34
Lapid, Y. and F. Kratochwil (eds.) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory
(Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner, 1996)
Neumann, I. B. `Self and Other in International Relations’, European Journal of International
Relations 2/2 (1996): 139-174
Owen Vandersluis, S. (ed.) The State and Identity Construction in International Relations
(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996)
Rousseau, D. L. Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities. The Social Construction of
Realism and Liberalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006)
Ruggie, J. G. ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’
International Organization, 47 (1993): 139-174
Tickner, J. A. ‘Identity in International Relations Theory: A Feminist Perspective’, in Y. Lapid
and F. Kratochwil (eds.) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder/London:
Lynne Rienner, 1996): 147-162.
Weller, C. ‘Collective Identities in World Society’, in M. Albert et al. (eds.) Civilizing World
Politics (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000): 45-68.
Wendt, A. ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International
Organization 41 (1987): 335-370
Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
Zehfuss, M. ‘Constructivism and identity: A dangerous liaison’, European Journal of
International Relations 7/3 (2000): 315-348
2. Identity, Motivation and Action – 09 Oct.
Required Readings
Ringmar, E. Identity, Interest and Action (Cambridge University Press, 1996): Chs. 2 and 3
Hopf, T. Social Construction of International Politics (Cornell University Press, 2002): 1-19
Ross, A. G. ‘Coming in from the Cold: Constructivism and Emotions’, European Journal of
International Relations, 12/2 (2006): 197-222.
Further Readings
Bloom, W. (1990), Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), Ch.1-2
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. ‘Beyond ‘Identity”, Theory and Society, 29 (2000): 1-47.
Calhoun, C. ‘The Problem of Identity in Collective Action’ in J. Huber (ed) Macro-Micro
Linkages in Sociology, Newbury Park/London: Sage 1991): 51-75
Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), Ch. 2
Laffey, M. ‘Locating Identity: performativity, foreign policy and state action’, Review of
International Studies, 26 (2000): 429-444
Lebow, R. N. ‘Fear, Interests and honour: outlines of a theory of international relations’,
International Affairs 82/3 (2006): 431-448
Lebow, R. N. A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Renwick Monroe, K., Hankin, J. and R. Bukovchik van Vechten ‘The psychological
foundations of identity politics’ Annual Review of Political Science, 3 (2000): 419-447
Sasley, B. ‘Theorizing States’ Emotions’ International Studies Review 13/3 (2011): 452-476.
Taylor, C. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1989), Chapters 1 and 2
McSweeney, B. Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
3. Temporal Dimension: Narrating the Self from Past to Future – 16 Oct.
Required Readings
Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991): 52-80
Berenskoetter, F. ‘Parameters of a ‘National Biography’’, European Journal of International
Relations, online first (2012)
[Younge Who Are We, chapter 1]
Further Readings
Self as Individual
Baumeister, R. F. ‘The Self’, in Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th Edition (Random House,
1998): 680-740
Gergen, K. J. and M. Gergen, “Narratives of the Self,” in L. Hinchman and S. Hinchman
(eds.), Memory, Identity, Community (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997): 161-80
Perry, J. (ed.) Personal Identity, 2nd edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008).
Straub, J. ‘Personal and Collective Identity: a conceptual analysis’, in H. Friese (ed) Identities:
Time, Difference and Boundaries (New York: Berghahn Books, 2002): 56-76.
Somers, M. R. ‘The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach’,
Theory and Society, 23/5 (1994): 605-649.
Taylor, C. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1989), Chapters 1 and 2
Wagner, P. ‘Identity and Selfhood as a Problematique’, in H. Friese (ed) Identities: Time,
Difference and Boundaries (New York: Berghahn Books, 2002): 32-55.
Weir, A. Sacrificial Logics: Feminist Theory and the Critique of Identity (Routledge, 1996)
Whitebrook, M. Identity, Narrative and Politics (London: Routledge, 2001).
Self as Nation/State
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities, revised edition (London: Verso, 2006)
Babha, H. Nation and Narration (Routledge, 1990)
Berenskoetter, F. ‘Reclaiming the Vision Thing: Constructivists as Students of the Future’,
International Studies Quarterly, 55/3 (2011): 647-668.
Bell, D. ‘Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology and National Identity’, British Journal of Sociology,
54/1 (2003): 63-81.
Bell, D. (Ed.) (2006) Memory, Trauma and World Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloom, W. (1990), Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), Ch.1-2
Ching, L. Becoming ‘Japanese’: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001)
Cruz, C. ‘Identity and Persuasion: How Nations Remember their Pasts and Make Their
Futures’, World Politics, 52/3 (2000): 275-312
Davis, E. Memories of the State: Politics, History, and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005)
Edkins, J. Trauma and the Memory of Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Gillis, J. (ed.) Commemorations. The Politics of National Identity (Princeton University Press, 1994)
Khalili, L. Heroes and Martyrs of Palestine: The Politics of National Commemoration
(Cambridge University Press, 2007)
Kinvall, C. Globalization and religious nationalism in India: the search for ontological security
(London: Routledge, 2006).
Lebow, R. N., Kansteiner, W. And C. Fogu (Eds.) The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe
(Durham: Duke University Press, 2006)
Litvak, M. Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)
Mansbach, R. and E. Rhodes ‘The National State and Identity Politics: State
Institutionalisation and “Markers” of National Identity’, Geopolitics 12/3 (2007): 426-458
Prozorov, S. ‘The other as past and present: beyond the logic of ‘temporal othering’ in IR
theory’, Review of International Studies 37/3 (2011): 1273-1294.
Ringmar, E. ‘On the Ontological Status of the State’ European Journal of International
Relations 2/4 (1996): 439-466.
Zertal, I. Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood (Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Zerubavel, E. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (University of
Chicago Press, 2003).
4. Social Identity I: Recognition and Socialization – 23 Oct.
Required Readings
Taylor, C. ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in A. Gutman (ed) Multiculturalism (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994), I and II
Alderson, K. ‘Making sense of state socialization’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001):
415-433, reply by Thies in Review of International Studies, 29 (2003): 543-550
Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and B. Doosje ‘Self and Social Identity’, Annual Review of
Psychology, 53 (2002): 161-186
[Younge Who Are We, chapters 2 and 3]
Further Readings
Bially-Mattern, J. ‘The Power Politics of Identity’, European Journal of International Relations,
7/3 (2001): 349-397
Ringmar, E. ‘The relevance of international law: A Hegelian interpretation of a peculiar
seventeenth-century preoccupation’, Review of International Studies 21/1 (1995): 87-103.
Ringmar, E. ‘The Recognition Game: Soviet Russia against the West’, Cooperation and
Conflict 37/2 (2002): 115-136.
Finnemore, M and Sikkink, K. ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International
Organization 52 (1998): 887-917
Gheciu, A. I. NATO in the ‘New Europe’: The Politics of International Socialization After the
Cold War (Stanford University Press, 2005)
Greenhill, B. ‘Recognition and Collective Identity Formation in International Politics’, European
Journal of International Relations, 14/2 (2008): 343-368.
Haacke, J. ‘The Frankfurt School and International Relations: on the centrality of recognition’,
Review of international studies 31/1 (2005): 181-194.
Honneth, A. The Struggle for Recognition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996)
Lindemann, T. and E. Ringmar (eds) The International Politics of Recognition (Boulder:
Paradigm Publishers, 2011)
Strömbom, L. ‘Thick Recognition. Advancing Theory on Identity Change in Intractable
Conflicts’ European Journal of International Relations (2012, online first)
Wendt, A. ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations 9/4
(2003): 491-542.
Acharya, A. ‘Asian Regional Institutions and the Possibilities for Socializing the Behavior of
States’, Working Paper, No. 82 (June 2011), Asian Development Bank
Bloom, W. Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990)
Butler, J. The Psychic Life of Power (New York: Routledge, 1997)
Camilleri, C. and H. Malewska-Peyre ‘Socialisation and Identity Strategies’ in
Berry/Dasen/Saraswathi (eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 2
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997): 41-68
Checkel, J. C. ‘International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and
Framework’, International Organization, 59/4 (Fall 2005)
Flockhart ‘‘Complex Socialization’: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization’,
European Journal of International Relations, 12/1 (2006): 89-118
Foucault, M. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage
1994 [1970])
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage 1995 [1975])
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge (New York: Pantheon, 1980)
Harnisch. S. ‘Conceptualizing in the Minefield: Role Theory and Foreign Policy Learning’,
Foreign Policy Analysis 8/1 (2012): 47-70.
Ikenberry, J. and C. Kupchan `Socialization and Hegemonic Power’, International
Organization 44/3 (1990): 283-315
Jessop, B ‘From micro-powers to governmentality: Foucault’s work on statehood, state
formation, statecraft and state power’, Political Geography 26/1 (2007): 34-40
Johnston, A. I. ‘Treating International Institutions as Social Environments’, International
Studies Quarterly, 45 (2001): 487-515.
Johnston, A. I. Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980–2000, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2008), esp. Ch. 1
Mead, G. H. Mind, Self and Society, part 3
Merlingen, M. ‘Governmentality: Towards a Foucauldian Framework for the Study of IGOs’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 38/4 (2003): 361-384
Risse, T. ‘Neofunctionalism, European identity, and the puzzles of European integration’,
Journal of European Public Policy, 12/2 (2005): 291-309
Schimmelfennig, F. ‘International Socialization in the New Europe: Rational Action in an
Institutional Environment’ European Journal of International Relations 6/1 (2000): 109-39.
Strozier, R. Foucault, Subjectivity, and Identity: Historical Constructions of Subject and Self
(Wayne State University Press, 2002)
Subotic, J. ‘Europe is a State of Mind: Identity and Europeanization in the Balkans’,
International Studies Quarterly 55/2 (2011): 309-330.
Suzuki, S. ‘Japan’s Socialisation into Janus-Faced European International Society’, European
Journal of International Relations, 11/1 (2005): 137-164
Thies, C. ‘International Socialization Process vs. Israeli National Role Conceptions’ Foreign
Policy Analysis 8/1 (2012): 25-46.
Todd, J. ‘Social transformation, collective categories, and identity change’, Theory and
Society, 34 (2005): 429-463
Varadarajan, L. ‘Constructivism, identity and neoliberal (in)security’, Review of International
Studies, 30/3 (2004):319–341
Wiener, A. ‘Contested Compliance. Interventions on Normative Structure of World Politics’,
European Journal of International Relations, 10/2 (2004): 189-234.
5. Social Identity II: Drawing Boundaries and Differentiating Others – 30 Oct.
Required Readings
Connolly, W. E. Identity\Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1991), Introduction
Cederman, L.-E. ‘Political Boundaries and Identity-Trade-Offs’, in Ibid. Constructing Europe’s
Identity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner): 4-20
Monroe, K. R., Hankin, J. and R. Bukovchik Van Vechten, ‘The Psychological Foundations of
Identity Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3 (2000): 419-47
[Younge Who Are We, chapter 4]
Further Readings
Albert, M., D. Jacobson and Y. Lapid (eds.) Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking
International Relations Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001)
Aronoff, M. J. ‘The Politics of Collective Identity’, Reviews in Anthropology 27 (1998): 71-85
Brandt, L. A. (2010) ‘National Narratives and Migration: Discursive Strategies of Inclusion and
Exclusion in Jordan and Lebanon’, International Migration Review, 44(1): 78-110.
Brewer, M. ‘The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time’, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 17/5 (1991): 475-82
Cederman, L.-E. and C. Daase, ‘Endogenezing Corporate Identities: The Next Step in
Constructivist IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 9/1 (2003): 5-35.
Chowdhry, G. and S. Nair (eds) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading
Race, Gender and Class (New York: Routledge, 2002).
Doty, R. L. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and B. Doosje, ‘Self and Social Identity’, Annual Review of
Psychology, 53 (2002): 161-186
Foucault, M. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York:
Vintage 1988 [1964])
Hansen, L. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (London:
Routledge, 2006), Ch. 2 and 3
Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D. L. International Relations and the Problem of Difference
(London: Routledge, 2004)
Kratochwil, F. ‘Citizenship: on the Border of Order’, Alternatives 19/4 (1994): 485-506,
reprinted in Y. Lapid, and F. Kratochwil (eds.) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR
Theory, Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner 1996): 181-197
McAllister, P. The Politics of Difference. Ethnic Premises in the World of Power (University of
Chicago Press, 1996)
Mercer, J. ‘Anarchy and Identity’, International Organization, 49/2 (1995): 229-252.
Neumann, I. B. `Self and Other in International Relations’, European Journal of International
Relations 2/2 (1996): 139-174
Newman, D. ‘Boundaries, Borders, and Barriers: Changing Geographic Perspectives on
Territorial Lines’, in Albert, M., D. Jacobson and Y. Lapid (eds.) Identities, Borders,
Orders (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001): 137-151
Paipais, V. ‘Self and other in critical international theory: assimilation, incommensurability and
the paradox of critique’, Review of International Studies 37(1): 121-140.
Prozorov, S. ‘Liberal Emnity: The Figure of the Foe in the Political Ontology of Liberalism’,
Millennium 35/2 (2006): 75-99.
Prozorov, S. ‘The other as past and present: beyond the logic of ‘temporal othering’ in IR
theory’, Review of International Studies 37/3 (2011): 1273-1294.
Sasley, B. ‘Theorizing States’ Emotions’ International Studies Review 13/3 (2011): 452-476.
Said, E. Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1979)
Todorov, T. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (University of Oklahoma
Press, 1999)
Schmitt, C. The Concept of the Political (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996 [1932])
Theiler, T. ‘Societal security and social psychology’, Review of International Studies 29/2
(2003): 249-268
Walker, R. B. J. Inside/Outside. International Relations as Political Theory, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993)
Walker, R. B. J. After the Globe, Before the World (Routledge, 2009)
à See also Walker’s syllabus on ‘Boundaries, Borders, Limits’
*Reading Week *
6. Foreign Policy as a Site of Identity Politics – 13 Nov.
Required Readings
Cantir, C. and Karbo, J. ‘Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory
in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory, Foreign Policy Analysis 8/1 (2012): 5-24
Salter, M. B. ‘The global visa regime and the political technologies of the international self:
borders, bodies, biopolitics’, Alternatives 31/2 (2006)
Further Readings
Berger, T. U. ‘Norms, Identity and National Security in Germany and Japan’, in Katzenstein
(ed.) The Culture of National Security (Columbia University Press, 1996): 317-356.
Bozdaglioglu, Y. Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity.(London: Routledge, 2003).
Bukh, A. Japan’s national identity and foreign policy: Russia as Japan’s ‘other’ (New York:
Routledge, 2009).
Campbell, D. Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity,
revised edition (Manchester University Press, 1998)
Diez, T. ‘Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering `Normative Power
Europe’’ Millennium – Journal of International Studies 33/3 (2005): 613-636
Doty, R. L. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
Epstein, C. ‘Guilty Bodies, Productive Bodies, Destructive Bodies: Crossing Biometric
Borders’, International Political Sociology 1 (2007): 149-164
Guillaume, X. ‘Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of
International Relations’, Millennium, 31/1 (2002): 1-26.
Hansen, L. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (London:
Routledge, 2006)
Hopf, T. Social Construction of International Politics. Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow,
1955 & 1999 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002)
Hopf T. ‘Identity, legitimacy, and the use of military force: Russia’s great power identities and
military intervention in Abkhazia’, Review of International Studies 31 (2005): 225–43.
Holsti, K. J. ‘National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy’, International Studies
Quarterly, 14/3 (1970): 233-309
Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
Larson, D. W., and Shevchenko, A. ‘Shortcut to Greatness: The new thinking and the
revolution in Soviet foreign policy’, International Organization, 57/1 (2003): 77-109
Laffey, M. ‘Locating Identity: performativity, foreign policy and state action’, Review of
International Studies, 26 (2000): 429-444
Nau, H. At home abroad: identity and power in American foreign policy (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2002).
Prizel, I. National identity and foreign policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia
and Ukraine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)
Shih, C. ‘Assigning Role Characteristics to China: The Role State versus the Ego State’,
Foreign Policy Analysis 8/1 (2012): 71-92
Steele, B. J. ‘Ontological Security and the power of self-identity: British neutrality and the
American Civil War’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005): 519-540
Tamaki, T. Deconstructing Japan’s image of South Korea: identity in foreign policy (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
Telhami, S. and M. Barnett (eds.) Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East (Cornell
University Press, 2002).
Walker, S. (ed.) Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Duke University Press, 1987)
Weldes, J. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missiles Crisis
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)
Zehfuss, M. ‘Constructivism and identity: A dangerous liaison’, European Journal of
International Relations 7/3 (2000): 315-348
See also collection of articles on role theory in Foreign Policy Analysis 8/1 (2012)
7. Negative Identification: Danger, Violence and Exclusion – 22 Nov.
Required Readings
Pan, C. ‘The ‘China Threat’ in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of
Other as Power Politics’ Alternatives 29 (2004): 305-331.
Fearon, J. D. and D. D. Laitin ‘Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity’,
International Organization 54 (2000): 845-877
[Younge Who Are We, chapter 7]
Further Readings
Agathangelou, A. M. and L.H.M. Ling ‘Power and Play through poisies: reconstructing Self
and Other in the 9/11 Commission Report’, Millennium 33/3 (2005): 827-853
Campbell, D. Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity,
revised edition (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).
Campbell, D. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia. (University of
Minnesota Press, 1998)
Cuhadar, E. and B. Dayton ‘The Social Psychology of Identity and Inter-group Conflict: from
Theory to Practice, International Studies Perspectives, 12/3 (2011): 273-292
Diez, T. ‘Europe’s Others and the Return of Geopolitics’, Cambridge Review of International
Affairs, 17/4 (2004): 319-335
Doty, R. L. ‘Immigration and national identity’, Review of International Studies, 22 (1993):
Dunn, K. C. Imagining the Congo. The International Relations of Identity (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003)
Gartzke, E. and K. S. Gleditsch ‘Identity and Conflict: Ties that Bind and Differences that
Divide’, European Journal of International Relations, 12/1 (2006): 53-87
Hays Gries, P. ‘Social Psychology and the Identity-Conflict Debate: Is a ‘China Threat’
Inevitable?’, European Journal of International Relations 11/2 (2005): 235-265
Huntington, S. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs 72/3 (1993): 22-49.
Huysmans, J. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU (London:
Routledge, 2006)
Jackson, R. ‘Constructing Enemies: “Islamic Terrorism” in Political and Academic Discourse’,
Government & Opposition 42/3 (2007): 394-426.
Mitzen, J. ‘Ontological Security in World Politics. State Identity and the Security Dilemma’,
European Journal of International Relations 12/3 (2006): 341-370.
Mobed, N. J. ‘Culturalising Security: Narratives of Identity and the Politics of Exclusion in the
Arabian Gulf’, in Owen Vandersluis, S. (ed.) The State and Identity Construction in
International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), 155-186.
Neumann, I. B. Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1999)
Rousseau, D. L. Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities. The Social Construction of
Realism and Liberalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006)
Rumelili, B. ‘Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU’s mode of
differentiation’, Review of International Studies, 30 (2004): 27-47.
Said, E. Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1979)
Savage, T. ‘Europe and Islam: Crescent Waxing, Cultures Clashing’, The Washington
Quarterly, 27/3 (2004): 25-50
Suzuki, S. ‘The importance of ‘Othering’ in China’s national identity: Sino-Japanese relations
as a stage of identity conflicts’, The Pacific Review, 20/1 (2007): 23-47.
Todorov, T. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (University of Oklahoma
Press, 1999)
Vaughan-Williams, N. Border Politics: The Limits of Sovereign Power (University of Edinburgh
Press, 2009).
Waever, O. et al. Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe (London: Pinter,
Weldes, J. et al. (eds.) Cultures of Insecurity. States, Communities, and the Production of
Danger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
Williams, M. C. ‘Identity and the Politics of Security’ European Journal of International
Relations 4/2 (1998): 204-225
à See also literature on ‘Securitization’ (posted on Moodle)
8. Positive Identification: Transnational Ties and the Politics of Amity – 29 Nov.
Required Readings
Brysk, A., Parsons, C. and W. Sandholtz ‘After Empire: National Identity and Post-Colonial
Families of Nations’, European Journal of International Relations 8/2 (2002): 267-305.
Berenskoetter, F. ‘Friends, There are no Friends? An Intimate Reframing of the International’,
Millennium 33/3 (2007): 647-676
Further Readings
Adamson, F. B. and Demetriou, M. ‘Remapping the Boundaries of ‘State’ and ‘National
Identity’: Incorporating Diasporas into IR Theorizing’, European Journal of International
Relations 13/4 (2007): 489-526.
Adler, E. ‘Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations’,
Millennium, 26/2 (1997): 249-77.
Adler, E. and M. Barnett (eds.) Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
Acharya, A. The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia (Singapore:
Oxford University Press, 2000)
Berenskoetter, F. and B. Giegerich ‘From NATO to ESDP: A Social Constructivist Analysis of
German Strategic Adjustment After the End of the Cold War’, Security Studies, 19/3
(2010): 407-452
Bially Mattern, J. Ordering International Politics. Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force
(London: Routledge, 2005)
Checkel, J. T. ‘Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’,
International Studies Quarterly, 43 (1999): 83-114.
Cronin, B. (1999) Community Under Anarchy: Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Dunne, T. ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of International
Relations, 1/3 (1995): 367-389.
Dumbrell, J. A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)
Hall, R. B. National Collective Identity. Social Constructs and International Systems (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1999), Ch. 2
Hall, M. and Jackson, P. T. (eds.) Civilizational identity: the production and reproduction of
‘civilizations’ in international relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
Kupchan, C. How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2010)
Kratochwil, F. ‘Rethinking the ‘inter’ in International Politics’, Millennium, 35/3 (2008): 495-511
Kuus, M ‘Toward Cooperative Security? International Integration and the Construction of
Security in Estonia’, Millennium 31 (2001): 297-317
Little, D. ‘The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and Israel, 1957-68’,
International Journal of Middle East Studies 25 (1993): 563-585
Marcussen, M., et al. ‘Constructing Europe? The evolution of French, British and German
nation state identities’, Journal of European Public Policy 6/4 (1999): 614-633.
Mitzen, J. ‘Anchoring Europe’s Civilizing Identity: Habits, Capabilities, and Ontological
Security’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13/2 (2006): 270-285
Oelsner, A. and A. Vion (Eds) (2011) ‘Friendship in international relations’, International
Politics 48/1 Special Issue (2011)
Roshchin, E. ‘The Concept of Friendship: From Princes to States’, European Journal of
International Relations 12/4 (2006): 599-624.
Singh, H. ‘Hegemons and the Construction of Regions’, in S. Owen Vandersluis (ed.) The
State and Identity Construction in International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996),
Wendt, A. ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American Political Science
Review, 88/2 (1994):484-396.
Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
Wendt, A. ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations 9/4
(2003): 491-542.
9. Crisis, Change and Multiple Identities – 6 Dec.
Required Readings:
Huntington, S. P. ‘The Hispanic Challenge’, Foreign Policy (March/April 2004)
Citrin, J. et al. ‘Testing Huntington: Is Hispanic Immigration a Threat to American Identity?’,
Perspectives on Politics, 5/1 (2007): 31-48
Arfi, B. ‘Euro-Islam’: Going Beyond the Aporiatic Politics of Othering’ International Political
Sociology 4/3 (2010): 236-252
[Younge, Ch. 6 and Conclusion]
Further Readings:
Crisis and Change:
Bially Mattern, J. Ordering International Politics. Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force
(London: Routledge, 2005)
Berenskoetter, F. and B. Giegerich ‘From NATO to EDSP: A Social Constructivist Analysis of
German Strategic Adjustment after the end of the Cold War’ Security Studies 19/3 (2010):
Burke, P. J. ‘Identity Change’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 69/1 (2006): 81-96
Checkel, J. C. ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change’, International
Organization, 55/3 (Summer 2001): 553–588
Erikson, E. H. Identity: Youth and crisis (New York: Norton, 1968)
Huntington, S. ‘The West: Unique, Not Universal’, Foreign Affairs 75/6 (1996): 28-46.
Huntington, S. Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon &
Schuster, 2004)
Huysmans, J. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU (London:
Routledge, 2006)
Kelman, H. C. ‘Reconciliation as Identity Change: A Social- Psychological Perspective’, in Y.
Bar-Siman-Tov (ed.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation (Oxford University Press,
2004), Ch. 5
Palmer, T. G., ‘Globalization, Cosmopolitanism and Personal Identity’, Ethics & Politics, 2
Strömbom, L. ‘Thick Recognition. Advancing Theory on Identity Change in Intractable
Conflicts’ European Journal of International Relations (2012, online first)
Todd, J. ‘Social Transformation, Collective Categories, and Identity Change’, Theory and
Society, 34 (2005): 429-463
Pluralist Perspectives:
Ahmad, L. A Quiet Revolution: the Veil’s Resurgence from the Middle East to America. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2011)
Agathangelou, A. M. and L.H.M. Ling Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple
Worlds (London: Routledge, 2009)
Andrade Fernandes, J. L. Challenging Euro-America’s Politics of Identity: The Return of the
Native (Routledge, 2008)
Appiah, K. A. The Ethics of Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)
Bhaba, H. The Location of Culture (London: Routledge 1994)
Butler, J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge 1990)
Campbell, D. and Schoolman, M. The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the Contemporary
Global Condition (Durham N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008).
Connolly, W. E. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press 1991)
Elloitt, A. and P. du Gay (eds) Identity in Question (Sage, 2009)
Ferguson, Y. H. and R. W. Mansbach, Authority, Identities and Change (Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 1996)
Ferguson, Y. H. and R. W. Mansbach, Remapping Global Politics: History’s Revenge and
Future Shock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Herzfeld, M. ‘The European Self: Rethinking an Attitude’, in Anthony Pagden (ed.) The Idea of
Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2002): 139-70
Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D. L. International Relations and the Problem of Difference
(London: Routledge, 2004)
Laden, A. and D. Owen (eds.) Multiculturalism and Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007)
Lebow, R. N. ‘Identity and International Relations’, International Relations 22/4 (2008): 473-
Lebow, R. N. The Politics and Ethics of Identity (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Norton, A. Reflections on Political Identity, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988)
Odysseos, L. The Subject of Coexistence: Otherness in International Relations, (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2007)
Odysseos, L. ‘On the Way to Global Ethics? Cosmopolitanism, ‘Ethical’ Selfhood and
Otherness’, European Journal of Political Theory, 2/2 183-207
Paolini, A. J. Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity and International Relations
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999), Introduction
Parekh, B. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (Harvard
University Press, 2002)
Sen, A., Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (Penguin, 2006)
Smith, A. D. ‘National Identity and the Idea of European Unity’, International Affairs 68/1
(1992): 55-76.
Tobar, H. Translation Nation. Defining a new American Identity in the Spanish-Speaking
United States (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005)
10. How to Study Identity? – 13 Dec.
Required Readings
Abdelal, R. et al. ‘Identity as a Variable’, Perspectives on Politics, 4/4 (2004): 695-711.
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. ‘Beyond ‘Identity”, Theory and Society, 29 (2000): 1-47.
Further Readings
Abdelal, R., et al. (eds.) Measuring Identity: A guide for social scientists (Cambridge
University Press, 2009)
Forsberg, T. ‘The Ground without Foundation: Territory as a Social Construct’, Geopolitics,
8/2 (2003): 7-23
Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method, 2nd edition, transl. by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall
(London: Continuum, 2004 [1989])
Hansen, L. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (London:
Routledge), Part 1
Hopf, T. Social Construction of International Politics (Cornell University Press, 2002): 23-38
Kansteiner, W. ‘Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory
Studies’ History and Theory, 41/2 (May, 2002): 179-197
Kratochwil, F. ‘History, Action and Identity: Revisiting the ‘Second’ Great Debate and
Assessing its Importance for Social Theory’, European Journal of International Relations,
12/1 (2006): 5-29.
Klotz, A. and C. Lynch, Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations (M.E.
Sharpe, 2007)
Neufeld, M. ‘Interpretation and the ‘science’ of international relations’ Review of International
Studies, 19 (1993): 39-61
Newman, D. ‘Borders and Bordering. Towards an Interdisciplinary Dialogue’ European
Journal of Social Theory, 9/2 (2006): 171-186
Pouliot, V. ”’Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology’, International Studies
Quarterly 51/2 (2007): 359-384
Wendt, A. ‘On Constitution and Causation in International Relations’, Review of International
Studies (1998): 101-117.
Wodak R. and M. Meyer Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (London: Sage, 2009).
Wodak, R. et al. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd edition (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2009)
Yanow. D. and P. Schwartz-Shea Interpretation And Method: Empirical Research Methods
And the Interpretive Turn (M.E. Sharpe,


These articles and essays are roughly clustered by theme. The first three articles set forth the vision and ethical foundation for a new form of democracy, which I call Earth Rights Democracy. In such a democracy, the contract between people and their government contains three primary components: 1. The equal right to land and natural resources is a fundamental human right. 2. The earth and all her life forms have a right to biological and ecological integrity and well-being. 3. Taxation and other economic, social and political principles and policies should be based on these rights. Earth Rights Democracy establishes political democracy on the firm foundation of human rights to the planet as a birthright and is a key to securing other economic human rights. Earth Rights Democracy is an essential ethical framework for creating a world of peace and plenty for all.

According to the WHO, each human being requires at least 20 liters of clean water for daily consumption and basic hygiene.2 However, many countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East lack sufficient water resources or have so far failed to develop these resources or the necessary infrastructure. According to a 2006 UN Development Programme report, “one part of the world sustains a designer bottled water market that generates no tangible health benefits, another part suffers acute public health risks because people have to drink water from drains or from lakes and rivers.”3 The world has met the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, well in advance of the 2015 deadline. Nonetheless, insufficient access to clean water remains a ubiquitous problem, posing an impediment to development and may even be a security risk.4

e. The character of this process, including who participates – to what degree, at whatstage, and in what capacity – the agreementsreached and how they are implemented can all create opportunitiesfor structural changesin governance, human rights,security and development policies, as well asshape the relations between those engaged in conflict.

We will recover our sense of wonder and our sense of the sacred only if we experience the universe beyond ourselves as a revelatory experience of that numinous presence whence all things come into being. Indeed, the universe is the primary sacred reality. We become sacred by our participation in this more sublime dimension of the world about us.1

Private property in the United States arose out of a tradition that emphasized the individual freedom to control holdings without interference from governmental influences. A sharp distinction between society as a whole and individual rights isolated ownership of private property from a notion of the common good. This dualistic framework excludes the possibility for forms of property that do not fall completely into either category.

‘Satellite Remote Sensing visualizes the confluence of human history and the environment”2 ‘Satellite Remote Sensing is the specific application of satellite imagery (or images from space) to archaeological survey (Zubrow 2007, Parcak 2012)’. One surveys by searching for [ancient] sites on a particular landscape at different scales (Wilkinson 2003, Parcak 2012). Geographic information systems (GIS) and satellite imagery analysis are forms of remote sensing. Remote sensing, a term which refers to the remote viewing of the surrounding world, including all forms of photography, video and other forms of visualization (Parcak 2012) can be used to view live societies. Satellite remote sensing allows the scholar to see an entire landscape at different resolutions and scales on varying satellite imagery datasets, and to record data beyond the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.3

ever wonder when in your life you are classifed as in the future part of an” archaeological survey”? who owns what we”in collective civilazation now” decides who gets to know even?

A prominent theme in current policy discourse is “America’s decline” as power allegedly shifts to the rising giants China and India. The range of opinion, and the common concerns, are revealed very well in the year-end editions of the most prestigious of the US establishment journals, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council of Foreign Relations. In December 2012, in bold face and oversize letters, the front cover read, “Is America Over?” The lead article called for “retrenchment” in the “humanitarian missions” abroad that are consuming the country’s wealth. Less than a year later in the same journal, the lead article questioned whether retrenchment is the right policy or whether the US should continue to reign worldwide in the interests of global peace and justice. True, the world is not exactly pleading for Washington to carry forward its campaign of disinterested benevolence, particularly the Global South, its main target since the US replaced Britain as global hegemon after World War II. But there is a simple response to such objections, the one given by the British Foreign Office at the war’s end, when it recognized that “the economic imperialism of US business interests is quite active under the cloak of a benevolent and avuncular nationalism, which is attempting to elbow us out.” As officials ruefully observed, US elites believe that “the United States stands for something in the world—something of which the world has need, something which the world is going to like, something, in the final analysis, which the world is going to take, whether it likes it or not.” And they had the power to try to compel the world to “take it.” Among US elites, little has changed, as the debate between the two extremes illustrates. Nevertheless, by now the decline in US power that began a few years after the war has become a matter of serious concern as global power has become diversified—though despite the relative decline, the United States faces no competitor for global domination in the foreseeable future. Ignored in the debate over “America’s decline” is the fact that it is to a large extent self-administered, beginning in the 1970s and escalating sharply under Reagan and his successors. In the 1970s the economy was substantially redesigned, shifted to financialization, with radical changes in the nature viii Foreword of banks along with no less radical growth in their scale. By 2007, on the eve of the latest crash, for which they were largely responsible, the financial institutions earned about 40 percent of corporate profits. They were quickly bailed out under the government’s too-big-to-fail insurance policy—the TARP bailout that received so much attention was the least of it—and by now the major banks are bigger and more powerful than ever, while bonuses are munificent and the perpetrators are immune. Production did not cease as finance moved to a dominant role. It was sent offshore, to places where labor could be more harshly exploited and environmental concerns of the kind introduced under Richard Nixon—the last liberal president—could be ignored. By now corporate profits across the board are enormous. The term “redesigned” is appropriate. The reshaping of the economy was a choice by those whom Adam Smith called “the masters of mankind,” who are “the principal architects of [government] policy” and pursue their “vile maxim: All for ourselves and nothing for anyone else.” Other choices were possible, and still are. What the masters selected was a version of the neoliberal policies that have been harmful if not disastrous to the general population almost wherever applied. The same was true, not surprisingly, in the United States. Through this period economic growth continued (though more slowly than before), but the profits went overwhelmingly to a tiny sector of super-rich while for the majority, real incomes stagnated and declined. Concentration of wealth has reached historic peaks and is far greater than in comparable societies. The more general consequences are found in a recent study of the OECD—the organization of the rich countries—which found that the United States ranks twenty-seventh out of thirty-one countries in social justice, despite the fact that it is the richest and most powerful major country in history, with incomparable advantages. Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power, hence legislation and administrative decisions that accelerate the vicious cycle in the financial sector that creates what a director of the British Bank called a “doom loop,” with recurring financial crises, each more severe than the last. We are now advancing toward the next one. There were none before the redesign of the economy, when New Deal regulations still were observed. Among many other deleterious effects is the shredding of democracy. By now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” are virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will. Even without reading the conclusions extensively documented in the literature of professional political science, the public is of course not unaware of these developments. To mention just one illustration, a recent poll finds that “just 11% of adults believe Congress is a good reflection of the views of the Foreword ix American people.” The poll didn’t ask, but most people probably understand that Congress is very sensitively attuned to the concerns of the tiny fraction of super-rich and the corporate sector. The results of the neoliberal era are reviewed in a recent publication of the Economic Policy Institute, which has been the major source of reputable data on these developments for years. It is entitled Failure by Design. The study points out that the failure, while real, is class-based. For the designers it is a spectacular success. And as the study also points out, the term “design” is entirely appropriate. What has been in progress is a kind of sociocide, to borrow a term that is normally used for the destruction of societies under military occupation or imperial rule. In this case the sociocide is self-administered, but as the global economy is taking new forms, that does not matter for the masters as much as it did in earlier years. The real shift of global power is not from the United States to China but from the servants to the masters, worldwide. The developing picture is aptly described in a brochure for investors produced by Citigroup, the huge bank that is once again feeding at the public trough, as it has done regularly for over thirty years in a cycle of risky loans, huge profits, crash, bailout. The bank’s analysts describe a world that is dividing into two blocs: the plutonomy and the rest, in a global society in which growth is powered by the wealthy few and largely consumed by them. Then there are the “non-rich,” the vast majority, now sometimes called the global precariat, the workforce living a precarious existence. In the United States, they are subject to “growing worker insecurity,” the basis for a healthy economy, as Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan explained to Congress while lauding his performance in economic management. The masters labor to undermine those parts of government that benefit the population, but concealed in their antigovernment rhetoric is the demand for a very powerful state, one that caters to their interests. These are basic contours of current political life—such as it is. In this lucid and informed study, Charles Derber breaks through the necessary illusions and shows how the United States is being turned into a “sociopathic society,” with control concentrated among intertwined economic, political, and military elites and reflections of its sociopathy rippling through every social stratum. But he also shows that there remains real hope that mass mobilization by currently fragmented social movements can reverse the sociopathic impetus. As he documents, a majority of the US population embraces progressive values. This is a force that can be mobilized to stem the sociopathic tide, if it develops a clear understanding of alternatives at home and abroad and works with existing movements while building new ones such as Occupy Wall Street.

This book argues that the idea of a “sociopathic society” is necessary to understand today’s world. Remarkably, no such concept exists in US political vocabulary, except as shorthand for discussing the prevalence of a large number of psychopathic or sociopathic people in the United States. Any discussion in the United States of sociopathy typically turns into a conversation about people with mental illness.

Sociopath’s fear two things

Sociopaths do not have much fear. This is simply because they do not really care about anybody but themselves. They thrive on finding your weaknesses and therefore exposing your fears (although you will not be aware of this in the beginning when you are disclosing your fears to him) when he is playing Mr Perfect, and Mr Soulmate and Mr love of your life.


But sociopaths do fear. They fear two things.

1. Fear of losing control

One of the biggest fears for a sociopath is to lose control. Press their buttons, take away their control, and you will see the mask slip, and the melt down occur. A sociopath needs to have control over everything and everyone. Oh yes, they will pretend to be very laid back, life and soul and relaxed, but underneath this exterior is a simmering desire for control. The one thing that will make a sociopath ‘lose it’ is for them to lose control. They will do everything to keep control.

2. Fear of exposure

The second thing that a sociopath fears is exposure. He fears that people will find out who he really is. He will go to great lengths to cover for himself.  A sociopath is capable of compulsive pathological lying, manipulation and deception. He will go to great lengths and be very creative to hide his real true self.

If the relationship has finished, and he fears that you will expose him. He will do all that he can to instil fear into you, so that you will not expose him. He will tell lies about you, conduct smear campaigns, make threats against you, and will even stalk and harass you. He will make out to others that you are crazy. He does this so that if you do report him to others they will not believe you.



Sociopaths do not fear much. But they do fear those two things.

  1. Fear of losing control
  2. Fear of exposure

Things that the sociopath will do to prevent exposure

  • Move to a different location
  • Compulsive pathological lying
  • Manipulation and deception
  • Being secretive
  • Wearing a mask, and creating a false persona
  • Smear campaigns and lies against you

Things that the sociopath will do to prevent losing control

  • All of the above and (additionally)
  • Isolate you
  • Feed false information
  • Gaslight you

You need to be aware of these two things. Because he will go to great lengths to ensure that he does not lose control, or get exposed for who he truly is. He will not care who is hurt in the process. Protecting himself, and his own needs, is most important of all. A sociopath only truly cares for his/herself.

Why do sociopaths fear losing control?

The sociopath fears losing control, as it is the one thing that keeps him focused.  Because the sociopath has a lack of life plan and goals in his own life, he needs to control your life. Remember that the sociopath sees YOU as the source for supply, ordinarily a person provides for themselves, and if they are generous, they provide for others too.

A sociopath is different to this. To him you are the source for his own supply, so he fears losing you, and therefore losing his supply. Which would mean that he would need to start again. This is why the sociopath tries to retain control at all costs. You will notice the things that he will do to keep control. He will say things which will hold you back, or keep you attached to him (see above),  he has to keep control of you, to have any sense of control over his own life.

To the sociopath, they see you as somebody that they own. Not only, that they own, but additionally, you are a part of them. This is why they feel jealous, possessive, paranoid, because they fear  losing control.

Why do  sociopaths fear exposure? 

Sociopaths fear exposure because they are accepted by people because of their charismatic charm. This is how they win people over,  by manipulation, compulsive lying, and deception. They are  chameleons and are capable of being anything to anyone, dependent on what the person wants. The sociopath is the master of illusion.

If you were to expose him, he would lose control, and wouldn’t be able to deceive other people, others would be suspicious of him, and if things were not to work out with you, he would find it more difficult, or more work, to find an alternative source for supply.

The sociopath likes the easy life. To live off of others, to get things for free, to have others do the work for him, and provide his supply. If you were to expose him, he would lie, and would discredit you, say anything about you, to remove the likelihood of being exposed. He would say things like ‘you are crazy’ or anything else that he could say, to show himself in a good light, and you in a bad one.

It is never a good idea to expose a sociopath. As the outcome would be lies, smear campaigns, and it would be your own good name which would be ruined.

It might be a temptation, if he has gone off with someone else, to expose him to  the next person to ‘save her’ but this would likely backfire on you. As the sociopath, in defence of himself, would only say the most awful things about you. Whilst the sociopath does fear exposure, it is probably not a good idea to actually do this, as the sociopath would retaliate,  it really would backfire on you and cause further damage to your own life.

The actions of [pathocracy] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every town, business, and institution. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a “new class” within that nation. This

privileged class [of pathocrats] feels permanently threatened by the “others”, i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

are marketers, advertiser(other media-based) and hired cyberbullies related…are they  psychopaths for hire.. ?

how would we trace such activites?


is the bible a book about how to start civilization over…?

who would want to? and who wouldn’t if so?

Jesus Counsels the Rich Young Ruler

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[f] No one is good but One, that is, God.[g] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[h] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”[i]

20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth.[j] What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

With God All Things Are Possible

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

27 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?”

28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[k] or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

In Romans 8:18, Paul writes:

I consider our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.  

The only truth left in music.

sorry couldnt help myself… 🙂

Psalm 139:23-24New International Version (NIV)

23 Search me, God, and know my heart;
    test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
    and lead me in the way everlasting.

thank you




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s