The Root Cause of War: Is It Simply Human Nature?

[edward]

Okay Zoobyshoe, sorry to be late. I guess you do have a point and I certainly exaggerated with the generalizing "everybody". The proposed mechanism is probably weak for many individuals, no doubt.

However observing many conversations, it strikes me that many friendly people get very passionate about those evil ..fill in your favorite opponent... in an attempt to get the attention/admiration of the audience. It's getting so predictable that I got to detest it.

But it's beginning of the processes that ultimately may lead to the worst possible scenarios in the OP.

The media does a good job of spreading the hatred and fear in the political arena.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYBCEoxlxI&feature=related

 

[zoobyshoe]

Andre, I got your PM, which you are not sure is postable because it incidentally involves a subject banned here. Your point is not to discuss that subject, but to dispute that only juveniles gang up on people.

I'm not asserting that only juveniles are prone to fall prey to mob psychology. My point is that juvenile males are vastly more susceptible to ganging up and to actively performing direct physical violence than any other age group.

Here in the US, Latin American drug lords make pacts with local youth gangs to sell drugs on the street. In Africa, war lords systematically indoctrinate young men to spread their terror among the local villages. Legal national militaries the world around enlist young men. Chinese Tongs in US Chinatowns hire young men when they need someone physically intimidated or killed. It was the same in Germany: young men in Nazi uniforms were out on the streets in numbers, making their presence known, beating up National Democrats, Socialists, Communists, and Jews. Hitler probably never even thought twice about this being the demographic to tap for raw physical force, because of his experience in the military.

If you show me there is a "crew" of physical intimidators, all over the age of 30, somewhere in history (perhaps in the Sicilian Mafia, both Native and US versions, perhaps also in the Russian mob), I could probably demonstrate that the members actually started engaging in that activity before the age of 20.

Notice, I am not saying enemy-mongering is a youth thing. I'm saying that enemy-mongers tap the male youth as their enforcers. To the extent you can prevent that, you prevent enemy-mongers from gaining a power base.

 

[Andre]

I agree on that, there is little doubt that angry young testosteron producers can be easy executors of hate thoughts, but the co-ordination is likely originating from victims from the processes decribed by people like Irving Janis and Stanley Cohen

After all in WW-II the 'wrong' side was not particularly restricted to juveniles.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree on that, there is little doubt that angry young testosteron producers can be easy executors of hate thoughts, but the co-ordination is likely originating from victims from the processes decribed by people like Irving Janis and Stanley Cohen

After all in WW-II the 'wrong' side was not particularly restricted to juveniles.

You're right, the organizers aren't the young.

I brought this up in response to your earlier question about how to prevent future occurrences of holocaust type tragedies. Most would say we have to teach tolerance. My solution was meant to be a more out-of-the-box, practical one: look for and hit the pressure point where hate mongers tap into their power base.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Zoobyshoe.

The OP wondered about how a decent nice population could turn into monsters that seemed to have only one objective, to eradicate another group. The question that dominated my life was "why?".

The second question was, should it ever emerge again, can we prevent it?

The first major breakthrough for me was 1989, the fall of the Berlin wall. Finally, freedom, no more threat; we could work at our well being again. However this initial joy of relief was silenced quickly. this east/west mutual destruction threat was replaced with an incredible speed by other fear factors, the Balkan conflict, many hot spots in the equatorial regions, the year two kay bug (Y2K), weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of course a subject that should not be mentioned.

That made me think, what would we be, without our favorite enemy/threat?

More later.

 

[mheslep]

...

But why would we accept anything our friends tell us about the enemy without question?(remember Saddam Hoesseins weapons of mass destruction). Why do we exagarate his evilness. What's going on in the mind? Something like: "I can easily say that, even if he didn't do it, because he is so evil that he would have done it anyway"

Why?

I doubt anyone exaggerated Saddam's evil; he earned it well. It was his WMD and military capability people got wrong, at least in 2003. I think though that the Iraq rush to action came in some part from the same theme you've mentioned here: a remembering of WWII and that it can never be allowed to happen again. You'll recall one factor in WWII was a group think in the other direction - a deliberate discounting of Nazi military capability and intention. People are determined not to make that mistake again.

 

[Andre]

Well, let's try to put that in context. Obviously there is little doubt that Saddam was not a very honorable gentleman, considering his coup. Now, I'm not trying to justify anything he did, but try to think as him. Couldn't it be that he too saw so many enemies, threatening whatever was sacred to him, that he felt justified to do whatever evil he did? Maybe, because he was dead sure that his enemies would do the same to him, if he didn't prevent it.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Every year on the 4th of May, the Netherlands memorizes their deaths of world war II

When I was a toddler to teenager, every adult had memories of The War. Yes I am that old. Everybody knew plenty of people who died due to the hostilities or due to the holocaust. And every conversation in those times turned to that subject, invariably, ending to the question, how was it possible? How could a complete population, our neighbors, normally nice and kind people, have turned into such monsters? What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

I wasn't born during World War II, but my father was at Pearl Harbor when the bombs hit. He was in charge of the Electrical Engineering shops. My mother told me that he called home and told her not to worry. She said the sky turned black in an instant. Thank you Andre for remembering World War II. I have over the years gathered quite a bit of information about it since I was very young when my dad died though I do have a little bit of memorabilia from him in a box. I should mention I was born to very old parents. And great parents they were! Thanks for bringing back some fond memories of my childhood.

My father later died of cancer. I have always wondered if it was the dust on the ships and planes that returned form Hiroshima and Nagasaki that caused it. The Atomic Bomb's dust. My mother told me that the ships and planes had a lot of dust on them when they returned to Pearl Harbor after the bombings. I think the dust had radiation?

 

[mheslep]

Well, let's try to put that in context. Obviously there is little doubt that Saddam was not a very honorable gentleman, considering his coup. Now, I'm not trying to justify anything he did, but try to think as him. Couldn't it be that he too saw so many enemies, threatening whatever was sacred to him, that he felt justified to do whatever evil he did? Maybe, because he was dead sure that his enemies would do the same to him, if he didn't prevent it.

Could you not apply the same defense to Hitler or Stalin or any other grotesque tyrant?

 

[Andre]

Thanks for bringing back some fond memories of my childhood.

You're welcome, but obviously the thread is about understanding why things happened as they happened.

Could you not apply the same defense to Hitler or Stalin or any other grotesque tyrant?

It's not a defense, it's trying to understand how the human mind works in the face of threats and enemies. But certainly, those tyrants have been/are convinced for themselves that they had to do what they did. Of course one big factor in the process towards genocide is stage 3, dehumanization, demonisation of the enemy. That threat for them is subhuman, and should not exist in the first place.

Now is it imaginable that this line of thought is still happening today? ...among us?

 

[ViewsofMars]

You're welcome, but obviously the thread is about understanding why things happened as they happened.

Duh! The event happened because Japan attacked the United States of America! We fought back! And foremost above all else, my father didn't die during the attack at Pearl Harbor even though he was there. Fortunately, I derive pleasure in the memory of my father!

If someone breaks into my home, I won't hesitate to shoot the person.

 

[mheslep]

You're welcome, but obviously the thread is about understanding why things happened as they happened.
It's not a defense, it's trying to understand how the human mind works in the face of threats and enemies.

Ok, I understand. But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance.

Can a a modern society dump moral impediments that prevent unhinged power trips? It might. The US had many dabbling in totalitarian movements in the 1920s and 30s, both fascist and socialist.

You're the top!
You're the great Houdini!
You're the top!
You are Mussolini!

-Cole Porter Broadway tune 1933-34

 

[ViewsofMars]

Ok, I understand. But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance.

Can a a modern society dump moral impediments that prevent unhinged power trips? It might. The US had many dabbling in totalitarian movements in the 1920s and 30s, both fascist and socialist.

[/URL]

I think it best for you to explain yourself. Making a sweeping generalization such as, " But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance."

The reason I ask for clarification is that you are implying by your statement that soldiers and President(s) of the United States are sociopath(s)s and/or psychopathic(s), and people who defend their own home from intruders (ex. serial killers). Thus, I must state that there is no evidence of such. I haven't seen any courts (legal system) within the U.S. stating a U.S. soldier or President was convicted of a crime nor a person who shot a intruder once in a person's home. And, I would like to remind you that the topic is "Re: 4th May NL memorial day WW-II" so I hope that helps a tad bit.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks Zoobyshoe.

The OP wondered about how a decent nice population could turn into monsters that seemed to have only one objective, to eradicate another group. The question that dominated my life was "why?".

The second question was, should it ever emerge again, can we prevent it?

The first major breakthrough for me was 1989, the fall of the Berlin wall. Finally, freedom, no more threat; we could work at our well being again. However this initial joy of relief was silenced quickly. this east/west mutual destruction threat was replaced with an incredible speed by other fear factors, the Balkan conflict, many hot spots in the equatorial regions, the year two kay bug (Y2K), weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of course a subject that should not be mentioned.

That made me think, what would we be, without our favorite enemy/threat?

More later.

I believe you are confusing the effects of post traumatic stress with hardwired human "need". We actually do not need enemies. Those suffering from post traumatic stress, however, find it almost impossible to relinquish the hyper-vigilance acquired during war, or when otherwise threatened. Rather than a "need", you should recognize it as an artificially acquired habit which becomes an insistant psychological addiction.

For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdytWbl9sh8

A huge segment of any population is always scouting for enemies. It's not a basic human need, it's a sad fact that results from the traumatized not being able to overcome their trauma.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I believe you are confusing the effects of post traumatic stress with hardwired human "need". We actually do not need enemies. Those suffering from post traumatic stress, however, find it almost impossible to relinquish the hyper-vigilance acquired during war, or when otherwise threatened. Rather than a "need", you should recognize it as an artificially acquired habit which becomes an insistant psychological addiction.

For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous:
A huge segment of any population is always scouting for enemies. It's not a basic human need, it's a sad fact that results from the traumatized not being able to overcome their trauma.

The U-Tube video states "Scene from Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), novel by Gustav Hasford" and it is a fiction novel. I have a few friends in the military and don't think they *need* enemies. To make a statement "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous" seems to me to be the idea shown on the video. I know some soldiers that have returned from war and they seem perfectly normal to their family and friends. Protecting American's from harm appears to be an honor for those few that I do know.

 

[berkeman]

The U-Tube video states "Scene from Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), novel by Gustav Hasford" and it is a fiction novel. I have a few friends in the military and don't think they *need* enemies. To make a statement "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous" seems to me to be the idea shown on the video. I know some soldiers that have returned from war and they seem perfectly normal to their family and friends. Protecting American's from harm appears to be an honor for those few that I do know.

And I have friends for whom PTSD is very, very real. And not just in the military -- it is an issue in EMS (emergency medical services) and in law enforcement as well.

The video clip is from an intense mainstream movie that explores some of the issues involved in military service and traumatic stress. It is unpleasant, but there are unfortunately some very real aspects to it, IMO.

 

[ViewsofMars]

And I have friends for whom PTSD is very, very real. And not just in the military -- it is an issue in EMS (emergency medical services) and in law enforcement as well.

The video clip is from an intense mainstream movie that explores some of the issues involved in military service and traumatic stress. It is unpleasant, but there are unfortunately some very real aspects to it, IMO.

I'm not denying PTSD isn't real. What exactly do you agree with in the U-Tube Video that you know to be true? Are you agreeing with Zooby's statement, "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles." Do you think that ALL soldiers will agree with his statement? And what specifically does this have to do with the topic "4th May NL memorial day WW-II"? Do you think the soldiers that are alive are celebrating or not?

 

[berkeman]

I'm not denying PTSD isn't real. What exactly do you agree with in the U-Tube Video that you know to be true? Are you agreeing with Zooby's statement, "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles." Do you think that ALL soldiers will agree with his statement?

That is a very valid question. I think it depends on the person, and on the DI (drill instructor) and the service (Army, Navy, Marines, etc.). In today's services in the US, there is a bit of moderation in extreme DI behavior, but certainly a lot of the issues brought up (and a bit caricatured) by the video still happen. Have you seen the similar DI movie "An Officer and a Gentleman"?

One of the key points we deal with in CISM (critical incident stress management) is "stress innoculation", where you train your folks with some pretty stressful training scenarios. And that is just in EMS, where you don't usually get shot at. The military and para-military versions need to include that component. And in training for all of those fields, dealing with death and harm to others (and potentially to ourselves) has to come into play.

I know it is an unpleasant subject. Sorry.

 

[ViewsofMars]

That is a very valid question. I think it depends on the person, and on the DI (drill instructor) and the service (Army, Navy, Marines, etc.). In today's services in the US, there is a bit of moderation in extreme DI behavior, but certainly a lot of the issues brought up (and a bit caricatured) by the video still happen. Have you seen the similar DI movie "An Officer and a Gentleman"?

One of the key points we deal with in CISM (critical incident stress management) is "stress innoculation", where you train your folks with some pretty stressful training scenarios. And that is just in EMS, where you don't usually get shot at. The military and para-military versions need to include that component. And in training for all of those fields, dealing with death and harm to others (and potentially to ourselves) has to come into play.

I know it is an unpleasant subject. Sorry.

Yes, I think that we both agree on the above. Also, "Stress Management" is taught not only in the military.

 

[berkeman]

I'm not denying PTSD isn't real. What exactly do you agree with in the U-Tube Video that you know to be true? Are you agreeing with Zooby's statement, "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles." Do you think that ALL soldiers will agree with his statement? And what specifically does this have to do with the topic "4th May NL memorial day WW-II"? Do you think the soldiers that are alive are celebrating or not?

Yes, I think that we both agree on the above. Also, "Stress Management" is taught not only in the military.

Thanks VoM.

On a more positive note... I'm an "Army brat" (born into a career Army family). When I finished high school, the world was at relative peace (after my dad served in Vietnam, and I was old enough to know that he might not come back home alive). So I pursued a technical education and career as an EE.

Then there was a period where there was a very intense few years of nuclear tension between Russia and the US, where it looked like one misstep could result in a nuclear exchange. Ouch. When the Berlin wall came down, I was so relieved -- the world seemed to be trying and succeeding in easing tensions, and working toward a peaceful coexistense. That was a good time -- feeling the relief from the intense nuclear showdowns, and seeing a good future ahead.

Now we have the ongoing problems with the Middle East, and we are back towards the nuclear tension phase. I hope that cooler minds prevail.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic from the OP. But maybe it's not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The U-Tube video states "Scene from Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), novel by Gustav Hasford" and it is a fiction novel. I have a few friends in the military and don't think they *need* enemies. To make a statement "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous" seems to me to be the idea shown on the video. I know some soldiers that have returned from war and they seem perfectly normal to their family and friends. Protecting American's from harm appears to be an honor for those few that I do know.

The novel is based on the authors real experiences during the Vietnam War and R. Lee Ermy, who you see playing the drill instructor in the clip was hired because he was a real drill instructor during the Vietnam War, and not an actor. Kubrick wanted it all as real as possible.

I saw Ermy interviewed on TV and he said that, in this film, he was just doing what he did back in the day. He did say that during Vietnam, drill instructors had more leeway. They could sock a guy in the stomach for wisecracking, as is shown in Full Metal Jacket, and he said that was a good thing, it's too bad they can't do that anymore.

The boot camp of this movie is echoed in the autobiographical book and film "Jarhead", a gulf war era marine story. The author reports that, after signing his enlistment papers, the recruiter said to his parents something to the effect, "We're happy to have your son and I'm sure he'll make a good killer." The Marines are frank about that being their goal.

A Vietnam era Marine I know personally, told me his son had also gone into the Marines and been sent to the Middle East where he saw combat. Upon returning he thought he'd become a cop. The father said he advised him not to do that because he'd been turned into a killer, and police can't solve problems that way as a matter of course.

San Diego is full of Military people, either Marines or Navy. Navy people are less stressed out (unless you're talking about SEALS), but they are all obviously institutionalized: they live their lives around a strict system. The Marines I've met who saw action are all traumatized.

 

[ViewsofMars]

A Vietnam era Marine I know personally, told me his son had also gone into the Marines and been sent to the Middle East where he saw combat. Upon returning he thought he'd become a cop. The father said he advised him not to do that because he'd been turned into a killer, and police can't solve problems that way as a matter of course.

San Diego is full of Military people, either Marines or Navy. Navy people are less stressed out (unless you're talking about SEALS), but they are all obviously institutionalized: they live their lives around a strict system. The Marines I've met who saw action are all traumatized.

My ex-husband was in the Navy. A Vietnam vet. So I know a lot of Vietnam vets. Also, saw a ton of rock concerts while in California and stood at the shores in San Francisco when Joan Baez took off on a boat to Alcatraz singing her songs against the war. I saw and heard and so did my friends that returned from war the best of musicians during the war era. I think exposure to music is most definitely beneficial. The vets coming home found jobs not like today. None of the vets that I know are traumatized. They came home and got on with their life. Their happiness was that they survived and were welcomed home by loved ones. Time heals all wounds, especially for those who have family and friends (support system) and of course great music to listen too. Positive activity in ACTION seems to be the key though I realize not all people may have that available.

My father and mother lived through the attack at Pearl Harbor as mentioned on the previous page and they both were kind and loving people.

The novel is based on the authors real experiences during the Vietnam War and R. Lee Ermy, who you see playing the drill instructor in the clip was hired because he was a real drill instructor during the Vietnam War, and not an actor. Kubrick wanted it all as real as possible.

I saw Ermy interviewed on TV and he said that, in this film, he was just doing what he did back in the day. He did say that during Vietnam, drill instructors had more leeway. They could sock a guy in the stomach for wisecracking, as is shown in Full Metal Jacket, and he said that was a good thing, it's too bad they can't do that anymore.

The boot camp of this movie is echoed in the autobiographical book and film "Jarhead", a gulf war era marine story. The author reports that, after signing his enlistment papers, the recruiter said to his parents something to the effect, "We're happy to have your son and I'm sure he'll make a good killer." The Marines are frank about that being their goal.

Hard to believe. I personally know quite a few marines and never heard them say what YOU are telling me. Apparently, there are two life events that are quite separate in detail.

Thanks, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Andre]

I believe you are confusing the effects of post traumatic stress with hardwired human "need". ...

No most definitely not, Nobody needs an enemy forced down their throat. The process I indicate is a voluntary choice. BTW boot camp (been there, got that) boot camp is an initiation play. The drillers can be the nicest people in the world, giving their last pennies to charity.

No, what I mean was perfectly wrapped up by Borek:

It occurred to me now - we (as a species) have a (sometimes nice) trait of uniting in the face of danger (danger, not Danger). I guess it is deeply rooted in our genes, as herd cooperation was needed for survival. Sadly, seems like this trait can be easily triggered by imaginary dangers, which makes us susceptible to manipulation, especially when we feel insecure.

To which I reacted:

Exactly Borek, exactly.

My two cent addition to that idea is that some people are so eager to unite that way, that they invent imaginary dangers. Moreover, showing that you know how counter such an imaginary threat, promotes you way up in the pecking order. Others accept those dangers happily because they look at the pecking order too and it unites, having a common enemy. After all, The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So, if we elect to see that danger in other humans- that proces in the weakest form starts with ad hominem attacks, in stronger form you get scapegoating, folk devils, by the time you arrive at witches, you're about to initiate the genocide.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Initiation play, yes. Ermy said drill instructors are told "Don't BE mad, ACT mad." Regardless, the recruits end up becoming killers, and they are also killed.

So, if we elect to see that danger in other humans- that proces in the weakest form starts with ad hominem attacks, in stronger form you get scapegoating, folk devils, by the time you arrive at witches, you're about to initiate the genocide.

This can only come about in an atmosphere of post-traumatic stress. Non-traumatized people don't go looking for enemies. Traumatized people have to live at a level of stress and hyper-vigilance that will prevent them from being surprised and traumatized again. Sometimes whole societies live for generations in a state of post trauma, each generation passing it on to the next. Your country was traumatized by the German invasion. It can't have been difficult to switch to fear of the Soviet Union after Germany fell.

As a kid I was terrified of Communists. I didn't choose them as an enemy. I was taught they were over there in Russia just waiting for the chance to come over, take me from my family, and indoctrinate me. Indeed, when I was four, Khrushchev came to the UN, banged his shoe on the table, and proclaimed "WE WILL BURY YOU!" That upset my parents a lot, and, in turn, upset me. There was a period when I was paranoid about even going out of the house. I had visions of army trucks full of communists driving down our road grabbing me as they passed and taking me away. A couple years later everyone was sitting on pins and needles when he threatened to launch missiles at us from Cuba. We had atomic bomb drills at school. "Don't look at the flash! Duck and cover your head!"

The point being, I didn't choose that, and neither did my parents. It took me years to de-stress and be able to even mention Russia without a pang of fear, tightening of the gut.

The 911 attacks were not good for the US. We are not galvanized against a new enemy, feeling purposeful and co-operative. We feel beset, paranoid, and vulnerable. It devastated the moral of NYC and they have not yet fully recovered. I am now always suspicious of Middle-Eastern people and uncomfortable around them. Before, I never was. Some of the "pilots" lived here in San Diego prior to the attack. Did I ever unknowingly pass one on the street? Is that Middle-Eastern guy over there I see now a terrorist?

So, I have half an eye open for enemies, yes, but I wish I didn't feel that way, and any urge to do so was preceded by real threat, real attack. We do not need it. The whole country would be much happier if we didn't have the Middle-East to worry about.

 

[Andre]

This can only come about in an atmosphere of post-traumatic stress.

I guess, there is the problem. But no, I don't think so. All that is required is a perceived threat, which you can generate yourself, like for instance Frankenstein or Weapons of Mass Destruction or subjects that may not be mentioned.

 

[Andre]

And for me there is little doubt that this mechanism playes a major role.

 

[Andre]

..As a kid I was terrified of Communists. I didn't choose them as an enemy.

Exactly, same here. No doubt about it, again we don't need enemies, enforced upon us. What I try to figure out, however is the mechanism that leads to such a terrifying end result, especially given that the east had much similar thoughts about the west. Because we (some of us) demonized each other mutually.

I risk going on thin ice and become scapegoated, but I do want to give one of those examples here (one in the pm) how this works on a much much smaller scale.

On 4th June 2011 an australian newspaper reported about 'leading ... scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.' Apparantly 'More than 30 researchers across Australia ... told The Canberra Times they are receiving a stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members'

Sounds like a pretty mean enemy, doesn't it? A shock went troughout the world and a serious investigation followed and there was some quarreling about releasing these emails -after all, who dares to challenge these scientists- but the legal decision was: '... edited copies (with information removed that would identify the individuals sending or receiving the emails) should be released to the applicant under s 22 of the FOI Act.

Result: In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

So, what the heck was going on here? Can anybody explain it differently than enemy image building? Creating your own enemy: Those d... are so vicious, they could have done it, so we can easily say they did it. They would have anyway.

 

[mheslep]

I think it best for you to explain yourself. Making a sweeping generalization such as, " But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance."

The reason I ask for clarification is that you are implying by your statement ...

No I did not. The genocides of Hitler (it is a WWII thread) and Stalin, to which I refer, have nothing in common with the actions US soldiers or someone defending their home.

 

[Ms Music]

Gentlemen, if I may pitch in with my two cents here? I just found this thread, and find the main subject interesting, so I would like to pitch forward an idea, although the sociopath portion has already basically been touched on. As to the OP question of can we prevent this from happening again, my thoughts are no. Unfortunately!

I believe humans are mostly made up of peaceful sheep, but there are definitely wolves amongst us. Andre and Borek both mentioned the herd mentality, but unlike Borek and Andre, I don’t feel the fear is in our genes or imaginary/voluntary. The wolves are there, constantly intimidating us, watching for the weak one that is easy for the taking. Sheep aren’t fearful without the wolves. The wolves probably are sociopaths, but I won’t get into that now.

When Zooby said he is now suspicious of Middle Eastern people, it made me think of my own experience of 9/11. At the time I was living in an apartment, and the apartment below me had two Middle Eastern men living in it while attending school. In the period of time after the attack, I never once was suspicious of my neighbors. It wasn’t until the media and government started the heavy racial profiling, and it was constantly in the news, that I started to wonder about their innocence. I believe I was actually conditioned to be suspicious of them in that way by the media.I keep asking for world peace, but all I have received so far is whirled peas.

 

[Andre]

Thank you for your thoughts, Ms Music. Obviously your reaction together with several others suggests that the herd instinct is not very strong for the average member of PF. Natural selection, maybe. I agree we cannot prevent excess enemy image creation, but maybe it helps if we are able to recognize the process and refrain from being a part of it, which is actually the hidden agenda in this thread.

The interesting element you bring in, is the considerations for the neighbors. For instance, were those 30 scientist from my audacious example sociopaths? Unlikely, but it sure looks that they are convinced, having a very vicious enemy. Why?

Is there any proof at all that justifies the suspicion? Take for instance the Peter Gleick case, I don't think I should push my luck and elaborate here but just google Gleick fakegate and you find lots of information about the failed attempts to generate such proof. But more interesting even, is his promotion to hero status, rather than seeing justice being done. Are all those people sociopaths?

No they are afraid, they fear a huge threat -much bigger than two allochtone neighbors- and they love to fear it and nobody is going to take that away. So anybody brave enough to confirm that threat, deserves respect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Exactly, same here. No doubt about it, again we don't need enemies, enforced upon us. What I try to figure out, however is the mechanism that leads to such a terrifying end result, especially given that the east had much similar thoughts about the west. Because we (some of us) demonized each other mutually.

I risk going on thin ice and become scapegoated, but I do want to give one of those examples here (one in the pm) how this works on a much much smaller scale.

On 4th June 2011 an australian newspaper reported about 'leading ... scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.' Apparantly 'More than 30 researchers across Australia ... told The Canberra Times they are receiving a stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members'

Sounds like a pretty mean enemy, doesn't it? A shock went troughout the world and a serious investigation followed and there was some quarreling about releasing these emails -after all, who dares to challenge these scientists- but the legal decision was: '... edited copies (with information removed that would identify the individuals sending or receiving the emails) should be released to the applicant under s 22 of the FOI Act.

Result: In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

So, what the heck was going on here? Can anybody explain it differently than enemy image building? Creating your own enemy: Those d... are so vicious, they could have done it, so we can easily say they did it. They would have anyway.

Going back to my Trauma-Is-The-Root-Of-All-Evil tune, I think that the explanation for demonization lies in trauma. The traumatized person cannot think logically and is hyper-vigilant. ("Hyper-vigilant" is the new term for "paranoid". Psychiatrists find it more neutrally descriptive.) The dynamic is simple and is embodied in the observation, "Once burned, twice shy." When something surprising and very bad happens to you, you become obsessed with making sure you are never surprised like that again.

Example:

I had a supervisor in a machine shop once who was a pretty easygoing guy. One day I came into work and he was all tense and shot me a very dark look. Later he came up to me and I saw he was holding a sharpening stone and a pocket knife. He started sharpening the knife on the stone, and he goes, "Last night someone called my wife and didn't say who they were. All they said was that she'd better be careful and watch the children when I was at work. Do you know anything about that phone call, zoob?"

As the night went on, he went through the same routine with all the other guys in the shop. He was essentially terrified and his reaction was to conduct a kind of witch hunt/inquisition of all the people he could think of who might have done such a thing. He turned each of us in the shop into a trial-scapegoat.

You can imagine that after this he would be scouring the crowd at McDonald's looking for anyone who seemed to be interested in his wife or kids, calling home several times a night checking on things, making double sure the kids were in the school building before he drove away. The kids would be lectured on staying away from strangers, locking the door and windows, not answering the phone. Trauma -->Hypervigilance

If and when there had been a second similar threat he'd have been starting off much less rational than he was before the first one, and would have reacted even more extremely. A third: even worse, and so on.

So, what I'm suggesting is that there is something similar going on in the case of the over-interpreted e-mails. The recipient had experienced something, or many things, prior that had unhinged them and predisposed them to paranoia. A high school bully had left threatening notes on their locker, a bully older sibling had messed with their head, maybe their parents had received mysterious threatening phone calls, I don't know, but if we could investigate I bet we'd find something like that.

In each individual case of someone like this, there'll be a specific history. I can't cover them all, but I've seen enough permutations. That's the "nurture" side. There's also the "nature" side: some people traumatize much more easily than others, they're more sensitive, more likely to get pushed over into mental illness by less stress.

Ms Music's point about wolves and sheep is an important one. But I want to add the important point that traumatized people often adopt wolves clothing, as my boss did when he went around threatening everyone with the knife-sharpening routine. The cure for being scared is most often decided to be to become scary yourself. A sheep in wolf's clothing is often worse than an actual wolf: they try harder. I would characterize Stalin as a true wolf, a sociopath, while Hitler was a convert to monsterism; he dealt with his fears by deciding to become, himself, the scariest thing around.

Hitler, you should know, was not elected leader of Germany. The Nazi party never became quite popular enough. It was decided in back room discussions behind closed doors that, since the Nazis were relatively big that they should be included in the government, but only because the decision makers thought he was an ultimately harmless crackpot who could be controlled, a token leader who'd never be allowed real power. By this argument, Hindenburg was persuaded to appoint him chancellor. Big mistake because he couldn't be controlled. He immediately muscled Hindenburg out of the way and launched the Nazi Erhebung ("uplifting"). He quite simply started taking everything over and there was no one strong enough to stop him.

This book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0531056333/?tag=pfamazon01-20

is the best book you could possibly find to explain how the Nazis took over in Germany at the local level. It is the history of one specific town but representative of how they operated everywhere, particularly how their fanatic political campaigning machine turned to a rule of terror after Hitler's appointment. Hitler did not get the Germans to rise up and kill the Jews, he only terrorized them into silence while the Nazis went about the genocide. The first country the Nazis subjugated and occupied was Germany, itself.

 

[Andre]

Good points Zooby, can't disagree. But apart from the bully - sheep in wolf's clothing - or moral entrepeneurs, there is also the side of the accepters. Even that Gleick actually proved the opposite of what he intended to prove, but who cares? Who needs proof that these people are so vicious. Everbody knows it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Good points Zooby, can't disagree. But apart from the bully - sheep in wolf's clothing - or moral entrepeneurs, there is also the side of the accepters. Even that Gleick actually proved the opposite of what he intended to prove, but who cares? Who needs proof that these people are so vicious. Everbody knows it.

There are more sheep than anything else. Most people are dying to be told what the rules are, what to believe, what to do.

Thanks for the link to the Moral Entrepreneurs. I hadn't heard that term, though I knew they existed. I have always called them "The School Board", or "Meme Mongers".

 

[Ms Music]

The interesting element you bring in, is the considerations for the neighbors. For instance, were those 30 scientist from my audacious example sociopaths? Unlikely, but it sure looks that they are convinced, having a very vicious enemy. Why?

No, not a sociopath. Same with Gleick. Maybe what it comes down to is motivation. What were the 30 scientists reason for believing they had been threatened? Why did Gleick do what he did? And to tie it to the OP, why did the nation's people do what they did? Fear, self preservation is what I would guess at least with WW2.

To keep that from happening, society on a global scale needs to find a way to keep these monsters from rising to power, then at least the people would never need to turn on each other for survival. I guess that would be a start...

As to your comment on PFers not being "herders," I think it is because we all have scientific minds and we analyze first before coming to conclusions. That is why I spend my lunch break here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To keep that from happening, society on a global scale needs to find a way to keep these monsters from rising to power, then at least the people would never need to turn on each other for survival. I guess that would be a start...

You have to be extremely careful because this is how it usually starts: "We must eradicate the monster threat!"