[gha] Re: GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?

  • From: MATJAŽ MULEJ <mulej@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:39:57 +0000




From: gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Martin, 
Glen T [gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:30 PM
To: gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Leo Semashko
Subject: [gha] Re: GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?

Dear friends and colleagues,

I want to thank Bruce for his serious concern about how we are to proceed with 
this GHA book and as a group.  My view is that our book should be published 
with the highest intellectual integrity, that is, recognizing that we are a 
group of dedicated peace-makers trying to make a contribution within a much 
larger peace movement going on for the past half century or more.   We should 
not separate off our own peace views as if they were in a “war” with other 
peace views.  Rather, our book should unite with others in the larger peace 
movement with honesty, humility, and authenticity. Only in this way will we be 
making a serious contribution to peace.

Yours in peace and hope,
Glen Martin

Dr. Glen T. Martin

President, World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA) 
President, Institute on World Problems (IOWP) 
Professor, Philosophy and Peace Studies, Radford University 
Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International

From: gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Bruce Cook, AuthorMe.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:52 PM
To: gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Leo Semashko
Subject: [gha] GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?

Dear GHA members,

I greet you with a subject of concern to all of us: Do we agree to continue 
with the existing current level of rage and bias in GHA communications, or 
would we prefer to take a more balanced approach worthy of academic rigor?

To asses this problem, I invite you to review 2013-2014 digests of GHA 
communications at the following address:


As you might have already noted, no credible academic organization would 
tolerate this level of rage and bias. Frankly, its presence is (or, I believe, 
should be) an embarrassment to all members.

Instead, as I have recently indicated, I strongly feel that GHA e-mails, etc., 
need to be more conducive to peaceful discourse. I even appealed to Leo to 
consider this possibility, for almost all of the embarrassing emails issue from 
his address.

In reviewing the GHA digests, one cannot fail to note our fearless leader’s 
regularity in making mean personal attacks against members. The immature 
progression  follows a regular, predictable modus operandi.

1. A member disagrees with or criticizes the leader.
2. The leader remains silent for a couple of days.
3. The leader conducts what political groups call "opposition research" in 
which he does one of two things:

3a. Gathers facts to discredit whoever has had the gall to criticize him.

3b. "Sets up" the opposition to obtain facts by asking deliberate questions 
with copies to all GHA members

4. Prepares and mails out a tirade with drunken sailor qualities for the 
purpose of discrediting the critic and intimidating other members so future 
criticism will be discouraged.

Against this background, I was pleased this morning to receive a seemingly 
friendly email from Leo.

In this email, he finally relented by accepting my request to write me directly 
on administrative matters, without copying the message to all members. For this 
I truly commend him.

Second, in this email, he asked that I send him a copy of the GHA list. After 
all, I had claimed we had 800+ people on the list. Well, upon researching this, 
I realized that Leo was correct and we have a much lower number of members. I 
must have been thinking of another of the lists I maintain. Or perhaps I was 
thinking of GHA before its split in 2005. In any case, it was my error and I 
freely apologize to everyone.

I should note that I recently criticized Leo on another matter and asked to be 
spared from his traditional personal attack.

Alas, Leo had another request for me. He was asking me, with copies to 
everyone, to edit a document I had already told him I would not edit. Sadly, 
this revealed that has purpose was to "set me up" for a personal attack. (This 
comes under item 3b in the modus operandi above.)

What was really happening? If you have been following the GHA messages (and I 
suspect that few have been reading GHA messages) you will clearly realize that 
he wanted me to legitimize a personal attack diatribe against Glen Martin he 
wrote a few weeks ago.

Why did Leo ask me to do this again? After all, I had refused to edit it. 
Naturally, he expected me to refuse again, and this would constitute another 
personal failing for him to lament in his personal attack – in which he could 
slam me for being an American, like Glen. (Perhaps you have noted a definite 
bias against Americans in Leo's diatribes.)

As part of this, I would expect Leo to claim that I had already agreed to edit 
the diatribe against Glen. But that is incorrect, for I only agreed to edit 
Leo's book, and it is not at all clear that a diatribe of this quality should 
be included in a book which so far is claiming to advocate harmony and peace.

Now, I could avoid his attack. I would just have to relent and edit his 
personal attack on Glen Martin. How easy that would be. But it’s clearly time 
to draw the line on this continuing disturbance in GHA’s notion of peace. I ask 
everyone. What do we stand for if not peace? That's peace in the world, but 
also peace in our communications with each other. Don't we need to "walk the 
talk" of peace?

Thus, today, I am turning to the group. This time, unlike Leo's biased 
tradition of taking a "vote" by assuming everyone agrees with him if they don't 
write in and disagree (with the obvious risk of being attacked themselves), I 
will take another approach.

1. If you, as a GHA member would like Leo to continue with his acerbic attacks, 
please write an email to the group in which you say" "I agree that Leo should 
continue with his personal attacks."

2. If you, as a GHA member, feel that Leo's criticism of Glen is warranted and 
worthy of placement on the GHA website, please write an email to the group in 
which you say "I agree that Leo's personal attack on Glen Martin is worthy of 

3. If you are (or plan to be) an author of an article in Leo's new book, please 
write an email to the group in which you say "I have no objection if Leo's 
personal attack on Glen Martin is published in the same book as my article."

I leave the question there. If everyone is truly pleased with the direction GHA 
emails have taken, I will be glad to reconsider.

Yours in pursuit of harmony and peace,

Bruce L. Cook, Ph.D.
President, GHA-USA
Vice-President, GHA
Director of CSSS Publishing and Editorial team
President, World Writers Resources, Inc.
Author, Harmony of Nations: 1943 – 2020, Just Fiction Editions, 2012
1407 Getzelman Drive
Elgin, IL 60123 USA

Other related posts: