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

[daveb]

There's a great quote in the movie Cast a Deadly Spell: Witch Hunt, in which Eric Bagosian says (paraphrased), "Put ten people in a room, and though they may not choose a leader, I guarantee they'll choose one of the ten to hate" It's a rather pessimistic, albeit probably realistic, vew of humankind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To get back on track, do we need an enemy?

I addressed this in post #22 and am interested in your response to what I said.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

In the absence of something better, people will accept the threat of an enemy as the basis for a sense of purpose. I think what we have to worry about is young men, particularly disenfranchised young men and young men with little or no education. They are brimming with hormones, and craving a sense of identity and purpose. It's easy to tip them over into violence and they are easy prey to demagogues who would use them to further their own ends. They are susceptible to accepting pre-packaged enemies.

Hitler's ability to forms gangs of such young men is what allowed him to rise to power, terrorize his own nation and people, and then, when the opposition was cowed, start rounding up Jews.

10 or 15 years ago teenaged boys started hanging out in front of the markets in my neighborhood asking for change. They were in groups of three or more, so people were intimidated and many would give them change out of fear.

They weren't official gangs at all, just a bunch of teenagers who had stumbled on the principles of organized crime by accident and started to explore it.

Anyway, the neighborhood passed an ordinance making illegal for 2 or more high school students to "gather" in public. The cops enforced it rigidly, and the problem went away. Sometimes it's that simple.

Germany did not deal with Hitler properly after the Beer Hall Putch. He and the other party leaders should have been jailed for life for attempting the violent overthrow of the government, prevented from disseminating any propaganda from jail, and the Nazi party dismantled and made illegal.

 

[edward]

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.

That is my feeling exactly. Reflecting on your OP. I too am old enough to remember some things about WWII. Luckily I mostly remember the rationing of food and gas and the fact that my father couldn't get tires for his car. I didn't learn about the atrocities until I was an adult.

In the 1960's I spent three and a half years in ICBM silos. The Titan ll missiles were topped with a 10 megaton hydrogen dirty bombs. We used the term enhanced yield instead of dirty at that time. There was a nuclear fission reaction to start the hydrogen fusion reaction and then the the heat and pressure on a canister of radioactive tritium gas from the fusion reaction would trigger a second nuclear explosion.

All of that time I had been trained to believed that the threat was not only real but imminent. I later learned that the "enemy" only had a fraction of the nuclear weapons that I had been taught to believe.



Moving on; we have seen, just in the landmark game alone, a number of great civilizations that have risen and then fallen all because they were either enticed or forced to believe in an idea and then grouped around it.

The ideas varied from alerting people to a real enemy or a fictitious enemy. It didn't seem to matter whether that enemy was real or imagined. Many wars were strictly about financial gain.

I think that the precipitating factor to convincing people that there is an enemy is to use "fear" to incite the people. Fear is a powerful motivating factor whether real or imagined.

In my opinion we really haven't changed that much over the last several thousand years. Only the weaponry has changed.

More recently, for many Americans, the so called enemy has evolved from being an invader to being the "fear" of losing a freedom, or of being subjugated to an unwanted form of government.

just venting

 

[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.