For years now we have heard philosophers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and political theorists make grand assumptions about the nature of mob violence. Commentary on “the mob” often assumes a natural progression toward chaos that is somehow inherently a part of society, even though such a thing has never been definitively proven. “The mob believes everything it is told, provided only that it be repeated over and over. Provided too that its passions, hatreds, fears are catered to” (Alexandre Koyre). ““Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist-in otherwords, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob "spoke with one voice" demanding "with loud shouts" that Jesus be crucified” (Ann Coulter). ““...when like-minded people get together, they often end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk to one another” (Cass R. Sunstein). Such proclamations are certainly comforting; they make one sleep well at night. “Well,” a panicky person romanticizes, “I’ll just stay inside my room then and never interact with others. That will stop the mob from infecting my sacred thoughts.” But locking yourself away from groups will not stop riots, nor will it prevent that mob from potentially lashing out at you. The idea that riotous behavior is contagious, requiring something as simple as one act of violence to enact an entire stream of calamitous behavior, is a misinterpretation of what is actually happening, and so boycotting groups will not protect you from such violence. The calls for less group behavior is counter active to preventing mob behavior for the only thing that prevents mob behavior is complete and total integration and integration requires a commitment to understanding and appreciating others, not barricading yourself behind a wall of books or scratching down some nasty words about the “herd”. It is also important to remember that what is considered violent at any particular moment varies greatly depending upon the society that you are in. I am not justifying violence; I am simply stating that in segregated societies, culture is always king, while the law remains secondary. A society of mostly poor people are not going to care as much about things like theft, especially if the thefts are occurring only at major chain stores and overpriced mansions. Perhaps even more important, those who write the history of events tend to skew reality in order to demonize those who may have acted irrationally for very logical reasons. Was it really irrational for people to riot after witnessing cops being acquitted for the violent beating of Rodney King? Are you even aware that, a few months prior to that beating, a 15 year old girl name Latasha Harlins was murdered by a store owner for attempting to steal an orange and that, though investigators proved she was reaching in her wallet for money to pay for the orange, “liberal” Los Angeles bequeathed that the store owner be fined a mere $500 and never sent him to prison? What is rational to a person who is well taken care of and thus content to be a fully integrated member of society, is insanity to a sequestered people who feel persecuted by the ruling classes because they have been abandoned by that society. So this is not simply “like-minded” people committing violence, but persecuted out groups who lash out at the power structures who have harmed them, whether that be big business, big government or the police. Of course riots do not accomplish tangible goals; they do not feed or clothe people, for example, not in the long term anyway, and so people like me will never be interested in participating in them. But who is to say that the mob’s goal is to accomplish anything prudent? Perhaps the emotional response it used to stage a sort of political urgency in the populous. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. theorized “riots are the voice of the unheard”.