According to an article written by a leading State Department expert, this is the process by which the U.S. became one of the most violent societies in the world.

Rachel Kleinfeld is something of a rising star in the field of governance, rule of law and conflict studies. She is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She has a B.A. from Yale and obtained her Doctorate in International Relations at Oxford on Rhodes and Harry Truman Scholarships. According to her Linked-In page, she was:

Named one of the Top 40 under 40 political leaders in the country by Time Magazine, Rachel's passion lies in improving opportunity, dignity, and human flourishing for all of the world's inhabitants. Rachel was selected by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board, the 25-person advisory body to the U.S. Department of State.

Rachel is the Founder and President of the Truman National Security Project, dedicated to promoting strong, smart, principled progressive security policy through leadership development, advocacy, politics, and communications.

In other words, Ms. Kleinfeld is a certified expert in how societies are violently destabilized and regimes overturned and then restored and safely integrated into the western Neoliberal system. In a recent article she wrote for the Carnegie Endowment, however, there are some curious omissions that say a great deal about the state of contemporary thinking on these subjects at the upper levels of the Obama State Department and at the Central Intelligence Agency Clandestine Service. Her linked article is worth reading at length as it also tells us something about how "progressive" internationalists who craft "humanitarian interventions" see themselves as well as how they understand what they have done to the world.

Why Are Some Societies So Violent, and Can They Be Made Safe?
Rachel Kleinfeld
November 19, 2018
Summary: The world’s most violent places aren’t at war. They are polarized, unequal democracies.

Most research explains why violence is so difficult to get rid of, but doesn’t say how to do so. The usual policy solutions trotted out by think tanks and governments—like training militaries and offering them better security equipment—keep failing.

I wanted to know if there was a practical way to make extremely violent places safer. I began by holding a conference with the World Justice Project, Stanford University, and the world’s most renowned experts on fighting violence. We produced a literature review of well-researched technical solutions. But when I asked the room of experts how to get these proven strategies adopted by an unscrupulous police force, there was utter silence. The real question, I realized, wasn’t how to fight violence—it was how to get a corrupt government to want to do so.

[ . . . ]

I also looked at the United States after our Civil War, to understand why the Wild West was tamed so quickly, while violence skyrocketed in the South.

The Wild West just lacked enough government to enforce the law. As the state grew stronger, violence fell. By contrast, in the South, as government got stronger, violence rose. That’s because former Confederate politicians allowed violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan to operate, creating a culture of fear that helped the politicians squash opposition and regain power. By 1892, almost three decades after the war, there was a lynching every thirty-six hours. This historical example offered the key to the puzzle.

[20181119-BecomingViolent]

More:

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/19/why-are-some-societies-so-viole...

The model is incomplete because it leaves out 2 key elements

First, the funding of violent repression almost always flows from upper-class landowners, industrialists and financiers downward to corrupt politicians and police, paramilitary death squads and vigilante groups. That simply is not mentioned by Ms. Kleinfeld.

The other missing element here is external forces of destabilization — embargoes, disinvestment, closures of plants by global banks and corporations — along with the calculated programs of violent regime change, rebellion, sabotage and terrorism directed by foreign intelligence agencies. Several of the examples of highly violent societies cited by Ms. Kleinfeld, notably Venezuela and Syria, are examples. I would add Nicaragua, which is again going through violent destabilization by the CIA.

Ms. Kleinfeld’s analysis is obviously incomplete and suffers visibly for her failure to take these important factors into consideration.

But, that is to be expected, as this article illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the sort of conventional social analysis that is funded, sanctioned and disseminated by institutions such as Stanford Research Institute and the Carnegie Endowment. Where it is valuable in a limited way is in its implied critique of the sources of social violence in the United States today, which is why I am posting it.