The Oakland Group                                                                                                                   April 2026

PART A – The Problem of Finding Useful Information

Andrew Bacevich writes about Forever Wars in his book “On Shedding an Obsolete Past”, describing our seeming inability to get out of the cycle of wars and violence.  Maybe it is the human condition.  Maybe it is the alpha male model.  With new instruments of war coming online at a rapid pace, we seem to be headed for total destruction.  This cycle of violence reflects a struggle for existence in an environment that has real dangers.  So we fall together in a group and follow the Leader.

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, ended the 30 Years War in Europe.  Many historians view this as the beginning of the modern-day Nation-State.  The 109 participants who signed the treaty came to an agreement, not because they suddenly became friends but because they were exhausted.  None could see a way to gain advantage, given the weapons they had at that time. One can easily imagine that if one of them had somehow created a rocket propelled grenade, the map of Europe would be very different. 

Human social hierarchies create an organization and division of labor that makes us the most powerful species on earth.  Those with guns can also print money and then attempt to control the flow of useful information.  Guns, money, and information are the top 3 tools in the struggle for power.   The gun has been and remains a primary tool of power, especially at the interpersonal level, because it greatly expands the distance at which one person can force another person to submit.  We tend to minimize this, but it is the presence of security guards with sidearms who can use the real or symbolic power of the gun to enforce directives of Courts and Congress. Controlling the flow of information – or useful information – is more difficult. It is a bit like trying to control the flow of water that seeps into tiny cracks and goes wherever it will.  

One serious weak point of democracy revolves around the question “Who gets in the door?”.  This would be the doors in Congress and the Executive Branch.  Those with guns and money are in.  Lobbyists representing large numbers of voters move to the front of the line. The door is guarded in all cases by advisors and staff.  A second Point of Resistance (PoR) is the fear of being ostracized by one’s group of friends and colleagues.  This leads to self-censorship which may be the most common type of censorship.  Beta Males and Females that make up the Circle of Advisors (COA) may be the most insecure people with a fear of falling off the social ladder. 

Another fundamental problem with social hierarchies is that people at higher levels are often unable to hear those below, despite the appearance of being a listener.  Daniel Ellsberg recounts his advice to Henry Kissinger when Kissinger was just entering the Nixon administration and applying for top level security clearance.  Ellsberg, who himself already had top level clearance, warned Kissinger that, once he was privy to all the secrets at the top, he would be unable to hear any advice from people below, whether it was good advice or not. The irony was that Ellsberg was unable to escape his own advice. 

Nobody can see the future.  Yet our leaders believe they have knowledge and experience that makes them good leaders.  These same people are also driven by fear and greed.  Some are delusional, thinking they can win a war that turns out to be a mistake.  Their judgements become clouded without good information, especially information about the enemy.  This was a main point made by military strategist Clausewitz who said that having good and timely information, especially about the enemy’s capability, was critical to success in the field of war.

Other forces come into play.  All alpha males have advisors, beta males and females who scheme and jockey to find their own power positions.  The system is never static.  Besides the use of guns and money, the ability of one group to maintain power relies heavily on their ability to find useful information.  In this they cannot get lazy.  In the movie “War Horse”, set at the beginning of WWI, a British officer sitting astride his horse, has a look of shock when his men start to get mowed down by a German machine gun.  The officer apparently had no idea what this new weapon could do, having spent too much time at the officer’s club rather than studying the development of new weapons. Leaders will surround themselves with experts, but are they experts in a world that has changed?

The power of information includes the mental models and metaphors that are fundamental tools of thinking and communication. The mountain metaphor turns out to be a very useful metaphor, closely reflecting the human situation in many aspects.  It is easy to imagine that we are all climbing up a very large mountain, and on this mountain, there are rivers and ridges, valleys and forests. One person cannot see the whole mountain and so our experience is limited.  There are noises we cannot explain.  Rumors abound.

Metaphors sometimes lead us to believe things that are not exactly true, however, such as the idea that the leader of a nation is the “head”.  But this is not the same as the “head” of an animal or other human being.  Government has an “arm” of the law, but this too is not quite right.  “Guys with Guns” is probably more accurate. 

Story is another language tool to help organized and give purpose to our lives.  Stories guide our thinking, our behavior, and how we should treat others.  It must have some internal consistency.  A powerful story must touch reality at some points, though not entirely, since there must be room for imagination and vision of a future that no one can know completely.  People around a leader, the Circle of Advisors, are good at telling stories, and will bend the story to fit their agenda. 

Wars starts with propaganda and destruction of the language. “Tactical” nuclear weapons are talked about openly, but with nuclear there is no such thing as “tactical”.  It’s a nuclear weapon.  Many of these are the size of the Hiroshima bomb or larger.  Now too there is talk about “first strike capability”, a concept that undermines deterrence. 

The fictional story of the Emperor’s New Clothes contains a lot of wisdom about human nature.  It is more than simply a story about a gullible leader.  There are 3 main actors: The Emperor, The Circle of Advisors (COA), and The Crowd (TC).   Fear is present at all 3 levels and though it may be different for each level, the primary fear is that of being rejected from their group or being seen as weak.  The bizarre behavior seen among the Friends Of Epstein (FOE) is a response to the same fear.  These people have demons, possibly from an early childhood experience of being humiliated by a teacher, parent, or neighborhood bully.  Now they will do anything to climb on and stay on the wagon of success.  Moreover, they now must show contempt to anyone below their level, possibly for the benefit of their peers.   

At a hypothetical deeper level of analysis, the Emperor might be trying to “wake up” the people or maybe test them to see how far he can go. The Circle of Advisors, whether or not they are in on the scheme, are scanning the crowd to see if anyone is laughing or showing signs of independent thinking.

Though fear is a primary cause of resistance to the flow of useful information, there are many other Points of Resistance (POR): an alpha male or simply someone with a loud mouth walks into a room and everyone shuts up; classmates laugh at a “dumb” question; teens and young adults get quiet when they realize what their leaders are asking them to do.  Ironically too much information can be an overload and get the listener to shut down.  This is a common strategy used to sneak legislation through Congress by insertion inside an Omnibus Bill. 

Leaders and others near the top of a social hierarchy fancy themselves as chess players with the rest of humanity their pawns (The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski).  Recent conflicts and political assassinations reveal the fact however, that everyone is a piece on the chess board and can be “taken out”.  If the chess analogy must be used, maybe God is the chess player?

Stories create structures, but the reverse can also be true: structures create stories.  The boundaries of a Nation invite the creating of stories about what might lie on the other side.  A Thousand-Year-Old story may be powerful in the sense that it has lasted a long time.  Other Stories acquire their power when they can accurately predict what will happen in the near future, or if the Story motivates people to action or creation.  A God who creates is more powerful than a God who destroys, even if creation takes more time and effort.

If we define “power” as “getting things done – or slowing things with momentum”, then there are other types of power that can be used to balance or neutralize the power of Guys with Guns.  These secondary powers can be done without violence, but it requires the involvement of a group.  These powers include Division of Labor (including a Division of Labor to gather useful information), Small Group Debates, Feedback, Bottlenecks, and Focusing Many on a Few.  Citizens with pitchforks now have cell phones. Politicians should worry more about the cell phones – and they do.   Hence the use of surveillance and AI. 

So the pendulum swings back and forth, from one war to another, because no one can see the whole mountain, the whole picture.  Lobbyists and political activists go to centers of power to lobby and demonstrate.  They are pushing up on power, but to change the system we must push in all directions. 

Systems and Feedback

Voters want a change in the leadership and yet there seems to be no difference in policies from one administration to the next. That indicates an underlying problem with the system.  We don’t have to destroy the system, but we must find the problem areas and figure out a way to fix them or do a workaround. 

Systems in balance that work well have good feedback from well-placed sensors.  The HVAC system to heat or cool a house has a thermostat in a room where people spend the most time.  The thermostat is a sensor and when the temperature gets too low or too high, the thermostat sends a signal – a very tiny signal – to the control panel (the Decision Maker) of the system which either turns on the heat or the AC.   Social systems have sensors and feedback too.  Some of these sensors give good information.  Others create noise and misinformation. A dysfunctional mainstream media cannot give good feedback. 

People understand the concept of a “system” in their own local world and the need for feedback. On a national and international level, a world-wide system, this does not seem to be the case.  There is not always good communication.  Nuclear weapons poised to strike and totally obliterate the enemy should make both sides understand the risk of blowback and national suicide, a thought that should make leaders and the operators of these systems strive to communicate with their adversary.  Nuclear Weapons (NW) are the only weapon which, if used, lead to loss of control of the situation, both at home and overseas.  For this reason NW may not have as much utility as previously believed.

How do we determine good feedback?  In common use, the terms “positive” or “negative” feedback tend to mean “nice” or “nasty”.  In a stricter sense of the word, positive feedback gives more of the same, leading to a situation rapidly out of control. Negative feedback in the same strict definition will lead to a more neutral place or zero.  Step back and look at the whole system of all countries and all people.  Systems in balance can grow and change without war.  Systems out of balance struggle to regain their place.    

Peace can be thought of as a balance of many strong forces, each of which is directed for some group to survive.  The question should then become, “Do we want a revolution or evolution?”  A revolution may replace the people at the top, but the system remains the same.  The same political machinery is still not operating on all cylinders. The pendulum will continue to swing back and forth from one war to another, each war changing the people in power, sometimes changing the map. Useful Information will continue to lag behind reality. 

Lessons from Part A –

– The Nation-State is a type of complex human social hierarchy, a System with defensible boundaries where people can live and work, mostly in peace.

– There is a constant struggle for power.  Guns, money, and information are the top power tools in this struggle.  Those with guns can also print money and then attempt to control information and the Story.

– Tools of communication such as language and metaphors give the Story momentum and are fundamental tools of thinking and communication.  For the most part it works. 

– Points of Resistance (POR) to the Flow of Useful Information (FUI) will cause the System to work improperly.  The biggest POR is probably Fear, for Fear exists at all levels. 

– Other types of powers can be used to balance or neutralize the power of Guys with Guns.   These secondary powers are mostly non-violent but require good communication. 

– Systems with good FB remain in balance and can grow and change without going to war.

– Peace is a balance of powers rather than a destination.

Part B – Creating Information Filters

How do you know?. . . Anything! How do leaders know?  Leaders who are uncertain turn to their advisors for a better picture, but who are their advisors?  Leaders do not always know if they are getting good information or biased advice.  They need a second source, not a person but a process, a process that incorporates privacy and mixing of team members in a competitive small-group structure.  Privacy in team meetings will encourage honest answers, even if it takes away a leader’s ability to reward or punish any single person. 

The process is efficient and can be repeated so that an initial decision made with 5 percent certainty can now improve to 85 percent.  A role of the dice can turn into a longer term plan with better advice, giving the leader realistic options.  A Small Group Debate (SGD) Process starts with a Discussion Question and uses team competition and privacy, along with mixing of the Player-Judges.  It can be repeated and refined.  It is an efficient way to find and filter useful information, not just a social event.

Incentives can be used to start the process, especially when starting an SGD with people who don’t know or trust each other.  Leaders can look at the results send a new Discussion Question to the same or other Small Group.  This information filter is not organized by flow of money from the top.  If second-source information seems unreliable, the Leader can re-mix team members, add new players, or maybe change the Discussion Question. 

The purpose of SGD-Process is to stabilize the system by pushing or pulling Useful Information (UI) to Decision Makers (DM) or to control points.  This feedback can change the direction of the ship and stabilize the system. Who is the real DM?  If uncertain, do an SGD to find out.  Information sources can be from anywhere.  Feedback (FB) can be incorporated into a system even after a policy is instituted.  FB on a temporary or Ad Hoc basis can create more choices.

In a modern-day version of The Emperor’s New Clothes, one would think that the advent of cell phones and social media could empower the crowd to break free of the sham of an Emperor with no clothes.  But social media and the Internet are not enough.  There must be another form of power that protects individuals, and that is the power of privacy.  Privacy is not the same as secrecy though they may look the same on the surface.  Privacy is the space to be creative, whereas secrecy is often used as a tool to gain political power.    Useful information is more powerful if kept a secret and released only when there is a need to show that leaders have special abilities to know the future, like the ancient priests who know the stars. 

Who is The Crowd (TC)?  What groups make up TC?  Do they have an agenda?  TC is probably made up of many nice people who just want to fit in.  Some of them are curious.  Some of them are really smart, just as in other levels of society, but IQ’s and EQ’s vary.  In the story about The Emperor’s New Clothes it seems the duplicitous COA were the primary problem.  But just as culpable was TC who didn’t say anything when it was obvious that the Emperor had no clothes.  They were afraid of saying anything, possibly making a mistake and being labelled “stupid”, then being punished by those around them, or punished by the Emperor’s guards.  Fear resides at all 3 levels however, and greatly influences thinking and behavior. 

TC is now mostly literate and attuned to a somewhat larger world and all the changes.  But they are not talking to each other enough about new political ideas.  No one has given them a question to think about and they have little reason to search for new ideas and information. Being nice to TC or becoming friends will not get most people on the field of play.  Baseball? Yes! Soccer?  Yes! – or some other game might pull them in.    

The Austrian economist and philosopher, Friedrich Hayek, noted that there is often no substitute for local information on the ground.  So TC must be a key player in providing feedback if we are to create a better system.  This can be done with an SG processes and SG-Debates at many levels, both private and public, that incorporate privacy as a part of the process.  These SG’s are important sensors for the system.  A leader can use TC to get better FB if the Leader knows how to use them.  It is not simply an order to “wait in line” but rather a proactive challenge to answer a specific question.  Several SG groups working independently can each bring in their point of view, and if the Leader wants, he or she can remix the groups, then re-assign a refined question.

What if the leader and his COA refuse to use a second source?  Can TC “force” UI to the top? Yes.  Focus on a few leaders.  If they cannot listen, then aim off center to target an advisor or others around the leader.  Ask them “How Do You Know? . . . .”   Give them Time to Think and Talk – but expect something.  Publish results of many local small-group debates (SGD).  Through a quick series of SGD, TC can work together to force a series of decisions toward a better outcome.  

Story and Structure, Process and Power

Stories must hang together with internal consistency but must also meet reality at some points.  If a story can do both, it can create a lot of structures, including physical structures like buildings and bridges that must first start in someone’s imagination, then turn into an organized story, then become a physical reality.  Stories can also create social structures like types of government or a business.  

Distributed command structures seem more resilient and robust, whereas central command structures seem to adapt faster.  Both rely on good communication though distributed systems still need some “glue” to keep the members going in the same direction.  This might be allegiance to their nation or maybe adherence to a religion.  Allegiance itself now seems less important however when people at leadership level have dual citizenship. 

Conversely, social structures can affect the flow of useful information.  A Circle of Advisors or Chief of Staff can tightly control this flow because they are part of the social structure. SGD’s also affect the flow of useful information, hopefully in a positive way.  As mentioned in Part A, social media and the Internet are not enough.  Mainstream media has adequate resources and could do a turnaround if they understand what is needed and become creative.

Neutralization of big money in political campaigns can be done with SGD’s and small amounts of money (or some prize) scattered among the voters.  Then it should not take much effort to separate the Useful Information from the spin once voters know how to use SGD’s.  This can be done with or without help from mainstream media. 

Structures often need a form of energy to operate.  In many areas like business, it is the flow of dollars downhill that can be thought of as an energy source or tension that makes it work.  If the business owner does not pay employees, the business stops.  Competition in combination with SGD’s creates a gradient, a tension to help players and judges (PJ’s) engage and focus for a short time to gather information and ideas in order to answer some discussion question.  The gradient can be positive or negative (reward or punishment) or combination.  Even if this tension is temporary, it may be enough to change the direction of the ship. Competition of this kind is likely more productive than getting into other kinds of fights.       

Shoot the Messenger – or How to Work with Mainstream Media?                                        

The phrase “shoot the messenger” came from the observation that Leaders do not want to hear anything that does not fit their Story – even if it is the truth.  In public discourse, mainstream media is the messenger.  It is apparent they have failed in their responsibility.  They have been cp-opted or bought out.  Can mainstream media be brought back to contribute?  Thomas Karat, creator and writer for Substack and Youtube podcasts, notes the 6 common methods that Elites use for managing TC via mainstream media:  1. Temporal urgency,  2. Historical loading with tribal signals,   3. Agency Framing,  4. Justification Multiplication,  5. Synchronized coordination of the same talking points,  and  6. Strategic Omission.   These methods are becoming a science and will worsen with AI.   Discovery and exposure of these methods can be made into a game.  Use an SGD with a prize collected from small contributions.  Make it fun.

Starting a Small Group Debate (SGD) to Find Useful Information (FUI)

Start by picking a handful of Players and Judges (PJ’s), dividing them randomly into teams and a panel of judges (5 people minimum).  Give a Discussion Question (DQ) and period of time.  Use small amounts of incentive if needed.  One does not need to wait for volunteers.  Make it a challenge or a game and throw out the initial DQ such as “How Do you Know . . . X?”   It will become easier once the process is understood.  Use the results to challenge Decision Makers and Thought Leaders.  A second SGD can focus on the process of engaging with a specific leader or DM who can be thought of as a Target Learner (TL).  This may feel artificial but still useful.

Formulating Good Questions                                                                                                       

Formulating good questions can be difficult when one does not see the whole picture clearly.   The first effort to find a good question might be “tilting the table” by creating a tension to elucidate some ideas and information.  This can be done with or without competition to first find a general direction, then find more specific questions.  As an example, the recent cutoff of funds for daycare by the government could be a good test case for local communities to find the right questions and create a daycare system of their own.  Bring that task back to the community.  

Finding Useful Information (FUI)

In any conflict the side that communicates and educates will likely win.  They have a distinct advantage of working together and engaging as many as needed.  The side that resorts to misinformation, propaganda and lies will fall apart, first slowly, then suddenly. 

Surveys are not accurate if those polled are standing among a group of peers or authority figures.  They will change sides easily if survival requires them to do so.  SGD’s with some privacy will offer a more accurate picture and discovery of what people have to offer.  They must be given a Question and time to think and talk, then pushed to make a decision.

Lessons from Part B –

   – Systems and NS’s can change with good FB from SG Debates.

   – TC has a key role to play in creating good FB

   – Social Structures with gradients can help answer “How Do You Know . . . ?”

   – Use team competition to find good Questions for SGD’s.

   – Push and pull in all directions. 

Part C – Deconstructing Nuclear Weapons

Should we start at the top and deconstruct the most powerful weapons first?  Yes, because they are existential. If we don’t get this right, nothing else matters.  But how to get down from this precipice?  Because of the extreme destructive power of NW the national security for each nation is tied together with the security of all other nations. We must point out footholds for others, even those we may not like.  

John Mearsheimer has said that nuclear weapons are instruments of peace based on the relative quiet period of the cold war.  This view is short sighted and ignores several near misses that have happened since the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If nuclear weapons proliferate, it will be simply be a matter of time until an accident starts the nuclear cascade that ends humanity.  A tower of blocks.

The utility of any weapon to accomplish a specific goal is more important than the number of people killed.

In most nations there is currently a GAP between conventional weapons and Nuclear Weapons. This GAP is considered by some to be beneficial, a no-man’s land across which no nation dare tread.  But the GAP could also make it more likely that if a nuclear nation without Super Sonic Missiles (SSM) is backed into a corner, it will jump the GAP and go directly to Nuclear Weapons.  This seems logical if they have no other option.  Filling in the GAP then could make it less likely that the situation will get out of control.  It may also change how NS interact.

Nuclear Nations who have no precision-guided SSM are more likely to jump the GAP into a nuclear situation and lose control.  

However, a system that pits Nation against Nation, each with their own SSM, is not enough.     To make the system more stable there must be feedback loops with potency that can apply pressure to push every nuclear nation to de-construct NW.  These FB loops must have potent (SSM) weapons and be controlled by a small groups of nuclear and non-nuclear nations with the SSM directed at a specific DM or group of DM’s in the chain of command that might launch a NW.  DM’s must be pushed to think and talk with their counterparts to move toward and make a more stable system.

A nuclear nation does not have to use NW when precision-guided SSM will work. This has already been done, and it was done without a loss of control toward a nuclear holocaust. 

Creating a stable system requires feedback to the right places. This feedback will include regular reminders and instructions to specific DM’s in the chain of command for nuclear weapons.  This could be a monthly hand-delivered letter with names and contact information of their counterparts in other nuclear nations – plus a reminder of what will happen to them and their family if there is any use of NW worldwide.  We must push DM’s to talk with their counterparts in other nuclear nations. Their task is to begin the deconstruction of all nuclear weapons.  The concurrent task of building a [multi-nodal] missile defense system to fill the GAP can be a separate responsibility for other teams.

If DM’s refuse, then turn up the pressure.  The SG and 3-State Actuators* (3-STAC) decide what “turn up the pressure” means, how to do it, and how to apply secondary powers if needed to effect change.  Each effort might include many people using an SG-Process to focus on one DM.

*An “Actuator” is an electronic device that flips a switch or starts some larger device.  In a system to deconstruct NW, a 3-State Actuator could be a group of 3 nearby Non-Nuclear Nations (or a mix of Nuclear and Non-Nuclear States) who will give feedback with their SSM and drones pointed at a nearby Nuclear Nation.  A misfiring of SSM may be tragic for those involved, but it will not be catastrophic and trigger a cascade of nuclear weapons that ends civilization. 

Secondary types of non-violent power can be used to focus on a few DM’s.  Feedback to each DM is like the thermostat in an HVAC system, with the feedback from the sensor going directly to the control box, not via some circuitous route, as often happens in political systems where office assistants routinely censor or change important outside messages.  Increase the pressure if needed.  Use the concept of 3-State Actuators and Small Groups as Feedback sensors.  The DM can be part of the process.  Use other SGD’s to find Points of Resistance. 

A Worldwide System for Nuclear Weapon Deconstruction and Creation of a Balanced System does Not Need a Central Command.

In a stable system, Nation-States will keep their current conventional offensive and defensive weapons.  There is no way for others to force these nations to give them up.  But FB in the form of precision-guided missiles and drones from a group of 3 nearby NS will be added from outside to provide a feedback loop that has real (not hypothetical) destruction capability of the top DM’s of the NS that fires any NW.  Dedicated SG teams can back this up if needed.

This FB applies to any nuclear weapon use by any nation anywhere in the world because it will be impossible to prove in a court who launched the first one.  Nuclear weapons have tied us all together and we must push leaders recognize this fact.  There must be no first-strike advantage.

Existing Military Industries can be employed to help fill this GAP with missiles and drones, both for our nation and for groups of 3 Non-Nuclear Weapons nations (3-STAC) who must organize and cooperate to manage their cache of missiles. 

Is Peace simply loving others and getting along?  Is Peace a destination that will remain ever elusive?  Or is peace a balance of powers within a system and among the many vested interests?

Lessons from Part C:

A Stable Worldwide System for defense requires:

1. Deconstruction of all NW initiated by Feedback to specific Decision Makers.

2. Filling in the nuclear GAP between conventional and NW will help to avoid jumping the GAP by nuclear nations who do not currently have precision-guided weapons.  #1 and #2 can be done simultaneously. 

3. Small Group sensors and 3-STAC’s play a key role in the Feedback loops.

4. A Stable System does not have to be under a Central Command but requires reliable and regular feedback to DM’s in all countries. 

5. SSM have already been used without progression to NW.

6. If stability of the system is the goal, then the Utility of NW is less than once believed. 

7. Peace is a balance of powers. 

8. The role of the NS in service to humanity is changing.  Will the new Stories and Structures be determined by Guys with Guns and Vested Interests – or will new models and processes create new connections to Find Useful Information and get us to a safer place?