Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Primitive Impulses of War
The interplay of religion and violence is considered by some a mark only of primitive culture. When the jihadist cries "God is Great" before detonating his explosive vest, or when, conversely, the Crusades are invoked to justify assault on radical Islam, secular critics can indulge a satisfying sense of superiority over believers, clinging to holy war.
In the United States, the once common religious references of the Bush administration - the war on terrorism defined in categories of good and evil, for example - seem discredited, if only by failures of policy. War-justifying appeals to the rhetoric of faith are suddenly out of fashion, but that does not mean that a subliminal link between religion and violence no longer exists. The "secular" is not all that secular.
In archaic religion, violence and the sacred were explicitly joined. That fact is significant because archaic religion is itself the source of culture, which is why violence - acknowledged to be irrational, yet perceived as virtuous - remains a mark of the human condition.
Take one example. The boundary between animals and humans is drawn by what the anthropologist René Girard calls the "victimary process," the deliberate selection of an innocent outsider to undergo elimination for the sake of the community. The "scapegoat mechanism" in Girard's phrase, by which generalized antipathy toward a chosen victim is acted out, serves to quench an otherwise insatiable animal appetite for violence.
This form of violence, that is, amounts to a control on violence. "Redemption" is the social calm that follows on the elimination of violent urges when they are "appeased" through ritualized killing. A social need is satisfied. Sacrificial violence (whether directed at an Aztec virgin, or the goat of Leviticus or Jesus) serves the cause of peace. This process becomes "religious" when the social need is attributed to a deity, to whom the victim is "offered."
Despite the secular assumption that such impulses belong to a primitive past, they are universally at work whenever humans go to war. This comes clear with a closer look at the event commemorated in Europe and America this week - World War I.
The greatest mystery of that conflict was how the high commands of both sides could have so long persisted in the evident futility of infantry assaults across No Man's Land against defensive lines that were, finally, never breached by either side. Technology (the machine gun) totally favored defense, but commanders never yielded their absolute preference for offense because the waste of life was, to them, no waste.
That millions of soldiers died for no discernible purpose can be explained only by the irrational belief in the salvific power of sacrifice as such. The Tommies, Micks, Jocks, Doughboys, Frogs, and Jerries who went endlessly "over the top" only to be mowed down were, in effect, a legion of scapegoats.
The nations that glorified them were in the grip of a displaced faith in the power of sanctioned death, operating in a realm apart from any conceivable war aim. The trenches became Europe's altar. A brutal god was being appeased. Otherwise, parents would never have sent their innocent sons off to that carnage. Their innocence was the point.
The scapegoat mechanism shifted in World War II from soldiers to civilians, whose innocence was even sharper. The masterpiece form of this dynamic was, of course, the Nazi genocide of Jews.
That crime was unique, but the mass bombing of civilian population centers was, under all the "strategic" justifications, also an exercise in the irrational belief that bloody sacrifice for its own sake could somehow be redemptive. There is no other way to account for the all-out spasm of killing from the air that marked the last six months of the Allied war effort, especially in Japan.
The primitive impulses of our ancestors live on in us. War always operates at two levels - one apparent and rational, the other hidden and irrational. At a certain point, the first gives way to the second, which is why the violence of war inevitably continues past points of tactical and strategic meaning.
Sacrifice for its own sake takes on mystical significance that, in a secular age, can no longer be described - or defended. But it can be discerned, for example, in the anguished hope that troops will not have died in vain if others follow them. Once these subliminal currents are openly acknowledged, they can finally be left behind. In America lately, God is banished as an open sponsor of the war, but if God does not will this slaughter of innocents, who does?




54 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems a simpler explanation for wars in general is that those who engineer the wars and stand to benefit by them are separated, by a mountain of lies and a wall of social status differences, from those who are expected to make the sacrifices.
What Mr. Carroll pens is quite valid. But, it seems to be important to remember that as the evolutionary process progresses, there will be some organisms within a species that have already lost what we may call "the violent or warring gene". That may well be one of the dividing lines between progressives and neocons. Please do not view this as a judgement against neocons genetic make-up. This theory is purely an observation and speculation. Notice that I say "one of". I'm sure there are many worldly influences that play an important role. Speaking for myself (and I am sure many others), I have a great aversion to violence and war. There is little within myself that embraces war or killing as an answer to ANY problem. That is not to say that I would not DEFEND my family, friend, fellow human or creature. Despite what we may call our "primal urges", we do possess what most creatures do not...reason and the ability to choose between right and wrong. At least, we have evolved to that extent.
Mr. Carroll, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of sacrifice as redemptive as being a universal human pattern. I think that this cycle has a very specific and identifiable source in the religion of the ancient Hebrews.
Other indigenous religions imagine sacrifice differently. The sacrificed animal becomes part of a communal meal. The sacrificers seek assent from the animal, even if to us it seems that they are incorrectly attributing volition in order to soothe their consciences. People may have felt bad about killing animals for food, but they incorporated the animal into the community, instead of laying guilt on the animal's head and sending it into the wilderness, or destroying it entirely.
Orgiastic violence is not a result of our animal nature -- which animals do you know that commit orgiastic violence in the way humans do?
The mystery of war and genocide is difficult to explain -- I certainly do not believe that the Holocaust can be attributed to solely "primitive" impulses. I also do not believe that violence is inherent in religion -- unless you want to claim the corollary, that religion is inherent in the human being.
The violence of war challenges our ability to ascribe meaning to our lives and actions. People use religion to give it meaning -- dying in battle is honorable because after death you will gain a celestial paradise, dying for your country is honorable because you have traded your life for the safety of your family, death in war is only justifiable if we win. What people don't want to face is that war is all wrong -- all death in war is wrong, and they are communally culpable if they believe this. That is why people resist imagining themselves as losers. And it is resisting this feeling, it is fear of this feeling of communal culpability, that motivates people to push for a war that is impossible to win.
Another beautiful article by Carroll, but not altogether persuasive. A bloodlust impulse just seems a bit farfetched. The proof of the impulse is lacking when alternative explanations are available. Like pure irrational ambition, and the corresponding refusal to admit defeat.
There are also many benefits of war for the instigating politician. One of them may be the base satisfaction of some innate bloodlust, but others are more readily observed and suffice in themselves. Controlling the population through fear. Controlling the economy. Expanding the economy. Serving notice to allies and enemies (the Nixon-Kissinger favorite).
I have been alarmed to hear words from otherwise spiritual people that supprt Carroll's claim. I have heard, from some otherwise devout Christians, regarding the war in Iraq "maybe some blood has to be spilled now and again".... and the unspoken end of the sentence is "to bring about redemption."
To which I always reply -- then why did Jesus come as a carpenter and not a blacksmith?
I think the question that needs constant investigation and discussion is: How can so many people so often be goaded into self-defeating collective behavior, by sociopathic, external 'authority?'
Herbert Marcuse dealt with the problem of manipulated mass motivation very insightfully; first in Eros and Civilization (1954) and more tersely in One Dimensional Man (1968). And you don't have to be, like Marcuse, a Marxist and a Freudian to benefit from his analyses.
Much of what bedevils America, especially, is almost incomprehensible without looking deeper into motivational psychology. It seems to me that analyzing the surface of mere politics can't reveal the WHY of things. That WHY is what we need to really understand better, in order to make any enduring changes.
"Technology (the machine gun) totally favored defense, but commanders never yielded their absolute preference for offense because the waste of life was, to them, no waste."
Not entirely true. The British Prime Minister in the second half of WW1, Lloyd George, deliberately kept troops back from the Western Front, because he was convinced his C-in-C, Haig, was squandering their lives in this manner. It was largely true, but the result of Lloyd George's action was that when the Germans launched their offensive in spring 1918, they rolled back weakened British forces until the Germans in turn grew exhausted. Then, reinforced British divisions, together with the newly arrived US Army launched the final offensives that settled the war.
However, this pattern of events does reinforce another of James Carroll's arguments: that "the violence of war inevitably continues past points of tactical and strategic meaning". The final years of both WW1 and WW2 (if my memory serves me correctly) were the bloodiest. War always seems to rise in a crescendo of violence until, as on 11/11/18, one day it just stops.
Consider what might have happened if Japan had not surrendered after Nagasaki. Would the dreaded invasion of Japan have gone head? I suspect not. The US would have built more A-bombs, and dropped them one by one until...
I agree with willybill.
I have been reading John Dean's book "Conservatives without conscience". I highly recommend it. It's a fascinating book. In it, Dean points out that researchers don't think an authoritarian personality is a pathology, (I have my doubts). It is my theory that we are seeing evolution in action. Many conservatives seem incapable of self examination. Thankfully they are a small vocal minority. It would make a good story if we evolve just in time to preserve ourselves and the Earth. I'm not optimistic. We only have a hundred years or so, and evolution moves way slower than that. If we had a million years I'd be more optimistic.
Assuming we're talking about the God who deemed "us" all sinners for daring to think, he's not ever willing the slaughter of innocents - cause there ain't none.
See how easy it is to keep the scapegoat pool filled? Over 6 billion sinners to choose from and counting!
Technology has obviously outpaced evolution - the 'industrial age' of fossil fuels has allowed an 'algae bloom' of humans to spread across the planet - but that will soon enough come to an end, one way or another.
I wonder how much war there was before the Bronze Age - before murdering your neighbors to steal their 'property' became fashionable? So much for libertarians and their property-god... and how could religion flourish without a lot of frightened people?
I think the deviants are the problem - the sociopaths who make the rules to suit their perverted ambitions. Get rid of them, and maybe this planet will have a chance - otherwise, it's a nuclear holocaust. Sociopaths don't care if they die, as long as they can take you with them - that's what's so frightening. You might notice that they dominate both religion and government - but then, what is religion, besides a form of government?
secretarybird November 12th, 2007 2:19 pm
Very good points.
The thing you must remember as Mr. Carroll forgets at times is that none of this is unilateral.
Without that bloody last few years of WW2 we would be speaking German and none of you would be saying any of this out loud.
Or if they had not dropped the bomb on Japan many of you would not be here because your parents would have been killed there.
Remember they attacked us. Would you really send our men in to invade Japan instead of bombiong them till they surrendered. If you could live with all those lifes on your consience you are tougher than I am.
Choosing to save the lives of your enemy instead of your own people is brainless nonsense.
I think Mr. Carroll makes a good point about violence being innate to human behavior.
Willybill also makes a valid point about conservatives perhaps possessing the war gene and I might add the greed gene.
Our fear of the unknown has compelled us to propitiate the gods with human and animal sacrifices for centuries.
Happy Veterans Day everyone, despite our desire to think we are separate from the animal kingdom, in essence we are merely just one of the more successful animals to occupy the planet in the last couple of billion years.
In many ways we behave just like many social animals and insects do in the wild.
They have worker ants and we have worker humans, they have soldier ants to protect the colony and we have human soldiers to protect our cities.
There is really no fundamental difference between our behaviors.
Basically we are all capable of killing, whether to protect our family or swat a fly.
In general people want to kill what they are afraid of, a snake, a spider or an Islamic terrorist.
Familiarity with things we fear can often remove the desire to kill that insect or person.
A herpetologist will not have the desire to kill snakes because they have become familiar with the species, the same is true of an entomologist; they do not have the desire to kill spiders because they are familiar with the arachnids.
And I might add that familiarity with other religions and other people with different cultures might also allay our fear of them and the desire to kill them.
This is of course assuming we can avoid some of the other motives for killing, like the desire to steal some one else's resources and control their form of government.
First define 'enemy' - the real enemy...
War makes money and gives erections to chicenhawks.
Hoa binh
I agree with WillyBill that there probably are genetic differences between conservatives and liberals. How else would you explain that high school dropouts overwhelmingly vote for the left of center party and most college grads for for the conservative party?
I must disagree with WillyBill about war not being the answer to ANY problem. Do you think it was a mistake for the US to get involved with WW II? How might the world look today if we didn't get involved?
Carroll has written some good stuff before, but not this time. Nothing about war is about religious sacrifice (although this concept looms large in Carrill's church) it's about greedy old capitalists sending kids too young to know better off to die for flag and country or whatever- just look how it works even now in a "war" made entirely of lies- once the kid gets killed, he died for "his country" and forget the lies that really killed him or her.
Also the old religions were really not as bad as he would have us believe, and not"primitive"
either. That was the excuse Carroll's fellow Christians used during all the conquests- "we're christian, you're heathens, so we got your land by by god's will". Native Americans could have taught those black robes a lot about what real religion is.
I was once involved in a book discussion of Chris Hedges' "War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning". He made the point that for many in combat, it is the ONLY time in their lives they feel truly alive, maybe scared or terrified, but operating on all physical and mental cylinders at 150%. It is the ultimate experience in throwing off cultural inhibitions, resulting in total freedom, that dull daily life.
He suggested that the only counter to this wild, life-amplifying (for the combatant) killing abandon or lust is profound love with total orgiastic release, and that doesn't happen as often as many may believe. Not really. Love and lovemaking are bound up almost entirely in cultural and social strictures. It is often not profound or uninhibited in any culture, and lovers certainly aren't celebrated or revered as warriors are. Therefore, there's no awe or external reward for being a passionate lover. So warmaking and killing holds out a promise of really being alive, for some people the only time in their lives that they truly are free to act at peak-awareness and with full "being".
To what extent genetics affects one's ability to feel alive despite social or cultural strictures is anybody's guess.
I generally applaud Carroll's lyrical writing and profound metaphors, but there's a HUGE exclusion in today's article, and I would advise readers to go back to "The Cancer Within" published on CD a few days ago, as written by David Antoon. This article provides concrete evidence for the ways that the US military is being CURRENTLY infiltrated by those who see its function as an aspect of a Holy war. Whether the elite believe in some false prophecy inclined towards a faith-based Armageddon, or as Kivals often articulates, are USING the average military Joe for their own ends, no one can say. But it's notable that Carroll seems oblivious to the role that of CURRENT religious prosletyzing now underway, and the chilling fact that of those AUTHORITARIANS mentioned in Dean's book (Bush's base), so many also subscribe to the End Times theory.
FREUD, father of modern psychology noted the misery (neurosis he termed if) of some women, Virignia Wolfe types who REQUIRED a room of their own to do NORMAL things like write or BE a full person, and instead of recognizing the social, economic and political constraints placed upon women, deduced their "problems" derived from a missing penis.
I have much skepticism for orthodox psychology and therefore its limited theories on and about human nature.
Mystics understand that we humans are composed of several "bodies," different energetic centers described as vortexes, or chakras. The primal one is associated with raw survival urges, plus the need for procreation. These are our initial bases for personal survival and the continuity of our species. Many people have never developed the uppermost chakras, these are likened to high spiritual acumen. Thus to speak of human nature as if ALL possess the same traits, or to take conditioned responses as grounds for genetic identity is ludicrous.
Ancients understood the internal tension between the portion of the human being that seeks to emulate that which is Divine in his/her nature, and the part that cleaves to the animal nature. This battle between what spiritualists term the higher and lower selves is the legacy and challenge of every human being. Many of us HAVE worked out violence, vengeance and the reflex to hate or attack. Many have not. There are levels of spiritual evolution at work in the populace.
Our theories of what the human being is made of and capable of have been cordoned off by limited conjecture for centuries. Silence the mystics and give the materialists the false authority to speak for all, it's the spiritual equivalent of academe crowded by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Both suffer a lack and failure of imagination.
LibertarianJames...In a way I agree....There are times that intervening in a war is necessary for the greater good of mankind. But, the war was already well underway. And, even then, we had to create a reason to get our country involved. On the outside, it was a defensive decision. What went on underneath, orchestrated by the Masters of War is another story. We have certainly not solved anything with the current debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, except to add billions to the coffers of the immoral war profiteers and their puppets in Congress. Don't get me wrong. I believe this country represented by the elites and the arms industry is probably the most covertly belligerent nation in the history of civilization. We the People are sick to death of sacrificing our youth and seeing innocent world citizens slaughtered for one lying reason after another. War is primal, evil and most times inexcusable. Have we learned nothing since we clubbed our fellow cave dweller and dragged his mate away by the hair of her head?
A few people holding a few signs at a public event frightens the administration out of its wits. However the usual result ensues, that is, arrests, inconvenience and anger on both sides. An effective protest involves blocking the mechanics of operation of the state political and industrial machine, GreenPeace style, and better still, with mass mobilization. The protests have a long way to go before they threaten the power of the state.
I'm getting mixed messages from you, WillyBill.
Do you think it was a good idea for the US to get into WW2 in the European theater or not? While it's true that FDR did "massage" the facts a bit to get the US into that war, in retrospect I think it worked out quite well for the middle class US citizen. Not to mention the middle class European Jews and homosexuals.
Also, do you think it's worse to be covertly belligerent that overtly belligerent? If not, then I'd submit that the Roman empire and the Mongols under Ghengis Khan were someonewhat more aggressive than the USA.
"...violence - acknowledged to be irrational, yet perceived as virtuous...."
No, not quite. It is Courage in the face of violence that is virtuous, not violence itself.
LibertarianJames,
I ran some statistics that do not support your theory. Check out this simple regression:
RAW DATA --------
(Y) = % Bush Vote in 2004 (from fed election site)
(X1) = State population with Bachelor's degree or higher Percent (Census data)
(Y) (X1)
Alabama 62.5% 22.3
Alaska 61.1% 25.5
Arizona 54.9% 28.0
Arkansas 54.3% 18.8
California 44.4% 31.7
Colorado 51.7% 35.5
Connecticut 43.9% 34.5
Delaware 45.8% 26.9
District of Columbia 9.3% 45.7
Florida 52.1% 26.0
Georgia 58.0% 27.6
Hawaii 45.3% 26.6
Idaho 68.4% 23.8
Illinois 44.5% 27.4
Indiana 59.9% 21.1
Iowa 49.9% 24.3
Kansas 62.0% 30.0
Kentucky 59.5% 21.0
Louisiana 56.7% 22.4
Maine 44.6% 24.2
Maryland 42.9% 35.2
Massachusetts 36.8% 36.7
Michigan 47.8% 24.4
Minnesota 47.6% 32.5
Mississippi 59.5% 20.1
Missouri 53.3% 28.1
Montana 59.1% 25.5
Nebraska 65.9% 24.8
Nevada 50.5% 24.5
New Hampshire 48.9% 35.4
New Jersey 46.2% 34.6
New Mexico 49.8% 25.1
New York 40.1% 30.6
North Carolina 56.0% 23.4
North Dakota 62.9% 25.2
Ohio 50.8% 24.6
Oklahoma 65.6% 22.9
Oregon 47.2% 25.9
Pennsylvania 48.4% 25.3
Rhode Island 38.7% 27.2
South Carolina 58.0% 24.9
South Dakota 59.9% 25.5
Tennessee 56.8% 24.3
Texas 61.1% 24.5
Utah 71.5% 30.8
Vermont 38.8% 34.2
Virginia 53.7% 33.1
Washington 45.6% 29.9
West Virginia 56.1% 15.3
Wisconsin 49.3% 25.6
Wyoming 68.9% 22.5
-----------------------
Regression Results:
R Square -- 0.413953201
F Statistic -- 34.61107
Coefficient value -- (-0.012354205)
-----------------------
Discussion:
A higher level of education was negatively correlated with Bush-Cheney support in the 2004 election. Simple regression shows that knowing the level of education of the voter told some 40% of the story in the last election (variance explained).
There are probably some complex intercorrelations with other factors. For example, in secular voters, the phenomenon is probably far more pronounced. But within highly church-going voters, I suspect the level of education would be less significant as a variable.
Siouxrose,
It is my understanding that few modern psychologists pay much attention to Freud, and that has been true for some time, though literary artists have not as quickly or completely lost interest, particularly because Freud liked to bring sex into discussions of so many facets of life, and sex titillates as well as sells.
Freud never did use a rigorous scientific method and his hypotheses never faced the high hurdles of serious scientific experimentation. His popularity was almost certainly more due to his willingness to discuss the taboo (as titillating as that must have been in the time period) than to his hypotheses' logical consistency or predictive ability.
Serious psychologists would look at human brain structure, the production and actions of neurotransmitters, the human genome and the requirements imposed during human evolution (requirements in the evolutionary environment for survival and reproduction) in order to develop hypotheses with regard to propensities for developing behavior patterns, and then test these hypotheses to the extent possible.
Certainly this could lead to virtually unbounded complexity, so accuracy would have to be sacrificed to some degree at some point to produce manageable hypotheses and theories.
I would agree with Thomas Albright that psychological conservatives (not all of whom are political conservatives) typically shun self-examination. It's also notable that in many instances, the more conservative a person's personality structure is, the more that person tends to repress his/her own conflicted psychic contents and retroject a constipated psychic shadow onto other people and events.
I don't agree that we can be thankful that such conservatives are [just?] a 'small vocal minority,' since: ...look who's ruling America!
What we progressives need to fathom better, is why the average American, who is presumably more emotionally healthy than the standard conservative, is such 'easy pickings' for the authoritarian personality -- and the fear and control games such personalities use to fake their legitimation.
The vulnerability of healthier people [to this fake legitimation,] isn't about our intellectual intelligence, it's about our provablle lack of emotional intelligence.
One of the most healthy and empowering qualities about America is that its legal origin lies (or used to lie) in our psychological qualities of openess and hope {our Constitution reflects a wary cynacism about human corruptibility, true, but its very advent was grounded in a supervening belief that, at least for a government, self-examination is the antidote to power's corruption -- no small human affirmation, this...)
How could could it be so eaily possible, then, that the principle of 'government's accountability-to-the-governed' (the self-examining lynchpin of America) has been almost totallly displaced in short six years by a '...small vocal minority' of conservative personalities?
Like Marcuse and others, I believe there has to be an actively mis-educated 'reception point' in the average person [non-conservative Americans, in this case], well beyond a 'instinctual fear button' alone, in order to explain the passive acceptance of authoritarian rule in a heretofore halfway self-examining society.
What we are wittnessing now, arguably, is a long-in-the-making, but possibly-fatal, gelling of Authoritarianism's intentions with that 'reception point' in the average, otherwise-normal, tolerant, freedom-valuing person.
The value of Marcuse's, and generally the Frankfurt School's, analysis of this problem, especiallly in One Dimensional Man, is that it offers a credible, common-sense model (however academic-soudning) for what may be happening to the psyches of manipulated individuals in the mass mass setting of the present (there is nothing 'dated' about the book, despite its 1968 vintage.).
While I don't agree with Marcuse that Capitalism, alone, generates individual deinstinctualization and mass political passivity, I do think that progressives need something similar to M's model to more effectively analyze what they're up-against - and so that they might craft better political and emotional visions that, beyond being beneficial in themselves, also put the lie to conservatives' unhealthy inner life.
For WillyBill and Thomas Abright and the others that may agree, I would remind you that John Kennedy took up where the French left off in Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson grew that war to where 100 KIA a week was the norm. Truman ordered dropping the first Atomic Bomb and then was CC during Korea and their are other examples of 'liberal democrats' doing just fine executing war doctrine. Clinton, too.
logos.nine. You make a very good argument. But I stand by my assessment that we are being lorded over by a vocal minority. It's hard to wrap ones mind around. Remember, this vocal minority owns the media. We are easily fooled. I think that explains the lack of resistance from the masses. I also believe that Americans are cowards. Or they just don't care. Being informed takes effort but bread and circuses occupy our minds. The refrain is, " we can't do anything about it anyway. Let's go to the mall and rack up some more credit". I'm pretty disgusted by what our once great nation has come to.
This interlude in our comfy armchair talk of war is brought to you by someone who was there, and was killed in war:
Dulce Et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Please read my Moral premises of nuclear war http://www.lulu.com/content/696321 which covers the anthropology of war and demonisation and projection.
Demonisation and the projection of evil onto the other is cross-cultural and in modern society this is manipulated by
powerful interests. The arms industry dresses its sales message in the flag of patriotism. The wars in the Middle East are weapons lead and each Nation eats its own children, who are lead to role as cannon fodder by false and hypocritical trumpeting of their elders.
For those above scrutinising the American mental / emotional makeup, and western psychology, it's worth recalling the work of Dr. Eric Berne, -esp 'Games People Play' (Transactional Analysis, etc).
His PAC model (Parent, Adult, Child) maybe offers a clue as to why so many people who are otherwise quite intelligent, rational beings, still quaintly view the State as a 'nice daddy', and tend to trust and obey the State's words and actions, ~ even when said government has repeatedly proved itself to be mendacious, homicidal, and rotten to the core.
With PAC, when a person (or entity) comes on as a 'Parent', that then tends to cast their ostensible peer into 'Child' mode, (-who is then disempowered).
We need to increasingly develop living and thinking consciously in our 'Adult' mode, - that way we are more resilient to the lying, bullying and abusing 'Daddy' state; - we will then think and act more independently of those errant fools.
This 'coming of age' (shift in consciousness) process scares the pants off malevolent, abusive dictators, (-as extant) who then try to frighten and manipulate their 'subjects' back into line with all manner of overt or clandestine manoeuvres...
[- cue stage right: Nice new wars, and 9/11 conspiracies!]
Our autonomy from the corrupt State is an evolutionary necessity, but unfortunately we are still in a sort of 'interregnum' period at the moment, (similar to typical teenage years) -wherein we haven't quite shrugged off the childhood consciousness / conditioning of yesteryear, but also haven't yet quite grown into the self-assuredness of adulthood either: = A lot of inner and outer schisms, confusion, disruption and chaos.
Roll on the year 3007! :)
[Btw: some friends and other practicing psychologists I know of *are* still rather stuck with old Siggy Freud. ~Happily I'm not one of them!]
mirf59,
Here's the far-right response to your study:
"Just goes to prove that the higher educational system is biased toward the left. We should reduce public subsidy of it."
The Flat Earthers will further argue against evolution, in favor of "traditional and family values" teaching, etc. And this will produce that 101% support (oops, their men at Diebold got a little over-zealous again).
Interesting commentary on sacrifice. My own analysis is that one of the most astounding contradictions between capitalist fundamentalists and early Christianity is the concept of sacrifice. Nobody would throw away some of his money, music collection, maybe drive his car over a cliff, etc. I'm not talking about generosity to charity -- I'm talking about sacrifice: setting aside a portion of what you have to the Gods alone, whimsy or decay of nature, whatever you want to call it. Indeed, that sort of sacrifice could be called wasteful.
Let me go one step further with my readings of the issue. The theory is that the gods are hungry, demanding, they need to be placated or satiated.
Perhaps it's based on witnessing decay of organic material? Traditional peoples (don't use the term "primitive", it is arrogant) may have suspected that there was a finite amount of decay or hunger -- and that sacrifice was enough to distract, please, placate or satiate the gods.
Western culture doesn't really do this any more. And while they may profess faith, its lacking is indicative of something else.
Anyone who thinks war can be abolished by a transformation of consciousness or by America "minding its own business" or by getting more humane leaders is dreaming. If Christianity with its Sermon on the Mount couldn't stop the killing, no other doctrine will. When Americans stay at home, foreigners go on killing each other, and possibly us as well. Humane leaders wanting to avoid war will be forced to wage war by ambitious and not-so-humane leaders--as in the 1930s--or lose their countries. Violent power-seeking is our nature. When teacher isn't around, bullies rule the playground. Take cops off the streets and the criminals come out. Disarm the armed forces and sooner or later an enemy will invade. Only a worldwide Leviathan, a surpassingly well-armed global government, can stop war. As long as no one wants that we will continue to have war, because it's what people do.
LibertarianJames.....4:53 PM...What I'm trying to say is that WWII was a war we did not start. What's that Billy Joel line?..."We didn't start the fire"...More or less, we defended our planet from a madman. Maybe I must define what I mean when I say, "war is never the answer". It never solves a problem and always creates more chaos and more hatred. We entered the war to end it. Of course, once you become part of the insanity, it goes in many directions. You could certainly make the argument that we did well to end the war, but look at the "machine" it created that is now totally out of hand and dictating our ongoing policy of agression. I stand on the position that ULTIMATELY war is never the answer. Self defense is not an act of war.
As far as covert belligerence or overt belligerence is concerned. I would rather know my enemy, than not. Do you think our sleeping American Citizenry would tolerate the way we entice third world countries and their indigenous people with economic shackles and assasinations if they knew the reality of those situations, instead of the lie that we are spreading democracy? I'll take Ghengis Khan anyday...at least I'll know my enemy. The United States government has become an enemy of its own Citizenry..... and a vast number of American have no idea.
iammyself, thank you.
the idea that the depravity of the rulers is the depravity of all, guarantees that the depraved will continue to rule.
KIVALS: I'll take your view of the new brain-wave oriented psychology under consideration. Thanks for sharing it. (Are you a Libra?)
LOGOS.NINE: Fascinating posting. As an astrologer I would argue there are cycles of time that favor conservatism over liberal trends, like now. The outer planets energize specific signs for 3-18 years depending on their cycles. In l984, the year Orwell selected for his important novel about government corruption, Neptune, the planet of deception and duality entered Capricorn, the sign of institutionalized government (and its derivatives). Also, two of the four outer-most planets will occupy the same relative positions they did when the stock market crashed in 2010. Many are talking in the forum about a pending recession... the data lines up. Not entirely, but somewhat. There ARE trends embedded into time, the music of spheres just as Holst composed his symphony of the planets, these energetic nebulae project specific forces. Why is that surprising, can anyone really explain how a tiny piece of silicon holds so much data?
"Only a worldwide Leviathan, a surpassingly well-armed global government, can stop war. As long as no one wants that we will continue to have war, because it's what people do."
A dire and bleak assessment of the human condition. But are you sure you mean all humans? Are there no humans who have lived for eons who have not warred?
Best do some homework, Dr. Strangelove
To Mirf59,
While it's true your analysis doesn't support my statement about education voting demographics, it also skews the data by grouping by state. A better statistic is that from the CNN poll which shows that 52% of college graduates voted for Bush vs. only 46% for Kerry.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1104/nemko1.asp
Thanks to Iammyself for sharing Dulce Et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen. Isn't it amazing that WWI produced such poetry and novels like "All Quiet on The Western Front". WWII produced John Wayne and other leading celebrities glorifying war.
Vietnam produced such classics as Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and M.A.S.H. and now we just yawn and let this stuff rock on going on 5 years (as of next March) as if nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
Siouxrose does get flack from some for her mystical view on such things, but I challenge anyone to give an explanation anymore convincing than her own for what is going on in the heads of not only the leadership but the ordinary citizenry of this country. There is no logical, cynical, tradition-linked, or intellectual explanation to justify the rank craziness extant in our land. Someone needs to check out the moon phase for election day in 2008 (and for that matter what it was in 2000 and 2004). :<))
Well, WWII was seen as the "good war." I guess chickenhawks like John Wayne felt that they should benefit from all the goodness.
What can we call war other than bloody, greedy, hubris?
May those who call for war have to suffer the same nightmares as those who fight.
Siouxrose---I skim particularly for your posts. They add such fresh air to the over representation of mental body analysis. Don't misunderstand--the clarity of your mind is not at all in question---I just love the new dimensions you add to the discussion.
Please keep it up--there are many out here hungry for what you have to offer, and what you offer is substantive AND tasty. Blessings and gratitude from the bottom of my heart!
This morning, on my way to work, a young man was sitting at an intersection, in a wheelchair. He had no legs. He was no older than 25, handsome, holding a sign, "spare change for a vet". The car in front of me stopped at the light and the passenger in that car gave him some money and said something to him that made him smile and blush a deep red. He shyly dropped his head to one side as he pocketed the money and thanked the person in the car. As he looked up his eyes were filled with the brilliance of youth, no anger, just an attempt to cheerfully cover some deep sadness.
I held back tears as I started to look for some money. The light turned green, I stalled for a quick second, "do I hold up traffic and give him some money?" I couldn't immediately find my wallet so I drove on in a moment of confused guilt. The young man was still smiling. I could see he was still savoring and contemplating whatever it was that person had said. Maybe it was better to have let him have had that moment uninterrupted.
I drove on in tears. I didn't understand. Why had he gone to war? How did he lose his legs? Were they blown off by those roadside bombs? Had he killed anyone? What will his life be like now? Why is he asking for spare change? Why didn't I stop and at least give him some money? Why didn't I turn around and talk to him?
I turned on the radio and someone was talking about the political repercussions of bombing Iran. I shut it off.
I reread James Carroll's article three times today. I don't get it. It seems like it should make sense but I can't figure it out. I read all the comments. There are some very articulate and brilliant people posting, but I don't understand.
I read Wilfred Owen's poem and teared up again. Maybe all I need to do right now is listen to the sadness in my heart.
The longest continuous period of cultural development in Western history is also its most PEACEFUL one: Minoan Crete, which was the West from at least 3000 BCE till "Homer's Greek heroes" took over circa 1450 BCE. From then on, "history": one bloody empire after another. Hatred of outsiders begins where people mistakenly imagine that there isn't enough for everybody---and where men who can't find enough to do to feel important turn the community's reason for being toward war. They deliberately create the instabilities that foment more war until ONLY WARRIORS COUNT in the decision-making---and so at last "war culture" is about control of one's own people. It is NOT the way it has always been, it will only seem that way until we rewrite education and put it in harmony with THE FACTS once again---as opposed to "history" which is completely backwards in its assumptions about "human nature"....http://ancientgreece-earlyamerica.com
I am with textguru in thinking that the scapegoat mechanism which Rene Girard describes in his numerous works is more a cultural product than some universal fact of human nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition has done a lot to shape our psyches here in the modern West. Even within Girard's work there seems to be a tension between the claim that the revelation of Christ (non-violent forgiveness of enemies and thus a chance for bringing an end to the spiral of retribution) brings an end to a universal impulse for scapegoating in all cultures and a much more modest, but probably accurate, claim that interpreted in the right way the Christian revelation is a chance for the West to come to terms with its bloody past and move into a better future.
Wilfred Owen -extract from a piece on him :
"on his last day with his mother, continually quoted the saying of Rabindranath Tagore :" when I go from hence ,let this be my parting word , that what I have seen is unsurpassable."
( Extract from "The King's England - Shropshire " by Arthur Mee.Published July 1939.)
So much psycho-babble with a grain of truth.
How much more satisfying might it be to sacrifice the misleaders who value the rest of us so little?
What would Robespierre Do?
starofthesea: (did you happen to see the note I left you under the Robert Fisk article, "Holocaust Denial" -November 12th, 6:07am)
_________________
militantliberal writes:
"Anyone who thinks war can be abolished by a transformation of consciousness or by America 'minding its own business' or by getting more humane leaders is dreaming."
I really disagree with that point of view.
I would assert that it is ONLY when human beings change their consciousness that peace grows and wars end. Maybe *minding our *business* was _part_ of the error? We should have taken time out from 'business' and focussed a bit more on our mental / emotional health?
I also disagree with:
"If Christianity with its Sermon on the Mount couldn't stop the killing, no other doctrine will."
...er... Hasn't Buddhism shown itself to be a pretty peaceable take on life?
(And yes, I totally respect the Sermon on the Mount teaching as well).
It's not the saner teachings themselves which are at fault, it's that too many dark-hearted leaders are trying to subvert them. The bulk of humanity doesn't want war, just the handful of nutjobs at the top.
"When Americans stay at home, foreigners go on killing each other, and possibly us as well."
?? ~ A rather odd 'US-centric' and paranoid view, methinks? Maybe check out the (peaceful) lives many non-warring, non-violent, non-cowboy nations lead?
And let's recall that most of those who seek to now harm the US have got a gripe: they don't much care for the *many* wars the US has (foolishly, arrogantly) started, -without rhyme, reason, or *respect* for others.
__________________
"Humane leaders wanting to avoid war will be forced to wage war by ambitious and not-so-humane leaders–as in the 1930s–or lose their countries."
Yes, WW2 needed a drastic response, But... (IMHO) mainly because of the failures / lack of good *earlier* diplomacy and right human relations.
"Violent power-seeking is our nature."
...er... not mine! -how 'bout you? Let's not tar everyone else with our own inner muddle?
"When teacher isn't around, bullies rule the playground. Take cops off the streets and the criminals come out."
I hear that point of view, BUT... if we hadn't **created** the menaces who would try to rule via Jungle Law in the first place, then we wouldn't have to try to keep the cork on the bottle, with repressive state tactics?
There ARE human beings, -masses of 'em, who DON'T NEED a repressive state to have them act in a civilised way towards each other! -they (including myself and many here) act in a civilised, compassionate way towards others through CHOICE!
Many spiritual (and non-spiritual) teachers have pointed out a sensible way forwards for our race, and have had HUGE impact in helping to decrease human problems. But there are those (eg: BushCo) who try to obvert all such good advice. Very perversely, they try instead to amplify the 'shadow side' in people.
For instance: we have the potentially very useful tools of radio, movies, print media, Internet and etc.
These *could* be used exclusively to benefit humanity ... But! When those with a warped, misshapen consciousness get hold of these means of communication, in place of useful, helpful, sagacious and benign output, they instead broadcast torrents of effluent. ~ Just switch on your TV any day of the week, and see how long you can go before mass 'entertainment' renders up yet more depictions of bloody murders, fights, rapes, and other barbarities...
These are the factors which are shaping human consciousness *adversely*, whilst elsewhere there are legions of people trying to counter this dire effect, - eg: we who try to shape human consciousness so that each new generation ISN'T infected in the same way.
As to: "Only a worldwide Leviathan, a surpassingly well-armed global government, can stop war."
~ Well, the original concept of the United Nations was trying to succeed in exactly that.
But... the UN is cof it's members, and whilst the original conception omprised was a good one, if (as is now the case) the 'dark-hearted' ones, -(such as BushCo) seek to ruin the benevolent purpose of the UN, then we cannot blame the UN itself, - we can instead look to our OWN selves, and ask why it was we let such rabid lunatics into power in the first place, -that they can then wreak such havoc upon the world.
Were we asleep at the wheel whilst this 'rot' set in ?
Yes, I think we were.
Many at C-D and elsewhere have written and opined that American / western *self-indulgence* is at the root of the present malaise: Had we not been so stoned, drunk, sports / food obsessed, or out shopping for nonentities, we would have nipped this blight in the bud before it got out of hand....
There is a useful phrase: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Well, we didn't 'prevent' in time, (just as with WW2) so now we have to clean out our 'Augean stables' when the dung has really piled up and already reached ceiling level.
~ er... Maybe there's a lesson for us in there somewhere? ...
They die to glorify their leaders. This isn't religion, but vanity.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has so far cost the average American family $20,000. But hey, it's for a good cause according to the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate. War profits for the rich. Bush is now "worth" 20 million dollars --- a lot more than he had when he stole the election the first time. They had this all planned from the beginning.