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

[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!"

 

[Andre]

The motivation of Gleick may be reflected in the few book reviews he wrote for amazon.com. Especially the one dated February 8, 2012, and also in the book that he is reviewing. I think it's not prudent to link to that, but with this information it's an easy google. I guess that would clarify a lot.

 

[Ms Music]

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

Yes, I know. Amazing how easy it was for me to fall into the Moral Entrepreneur category, huh? But really, where else do you start? Other than to have the moral police say "We don't believe you are qualified to be in politics anymore, as your actions don't seem to be what is best for the human flock."

For society as a whole to get along, we all need to self govern. Where self governing doesn't happen, others must step in and decide what must be done. I think that is how it has gone on for tens of thousands of years.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, I know. Amazing how easy it was for me to fall into the Moral Entrepreneur category, huh? But really, where else do you start? Other than to have the moral police say "We don't believe you are qualified to be in politics anymore, as your actions don't seem to be what is best for the human flock."

For society as a whole to get along, we all need to self govern. Where self governing doesn't happen, others must step in and decide what must be done. I think that is how it has gone on for tens of thousands of years.

It's an eternal dilemma. To defeat the monster you have to be at least slightly more powerful than the monster and that much power is just going to attract more monsters. To defeat Hitler we made friends with Stalin! Then the new friend became the same as the old enemy. In the end, though, keeping that war "cold" worked out. The new enemy eventually crumbled away by attrition, and we never had to suffer a direct, full blown conflict.

So, there's something to be said for the "Mexican Standoff." That's all I mean: there's something to be said for it. Not suggesting it's a panacea.

In general, though, I am not aware a blanket solution guaranteed to work has been found. "Interventions" and direct confrontations can often be counter-productive. All I can say is you have to be extremely careful in all cases where you're thinking about taking some action.

 

[Ms Music]

It's an eternal dilemma. To defeat the monster you have to be at least slightly more powerful than the monster and that much power is just going to attract more monsters...
...
.. All I can say is you have to be extremely careful in all cases where you're thinking about taking some action.

Very true. So maybe the direction of fixing the problem by eliminating the monster is wrong. Well, that IS why I said the problem couldn't be fixed in my first post.

So how about taking it from the angle of the group? Once again back to Andre's first post, do humans need an enemy? If we can't eliminate the enemy, then what is the need inside the human to have something to fear?

I have a friend that just today is freaking out thinking the world will end soon due to the financial crisis. She suddenly has an enemy. I would not have made the connection, except for the fact that we are talking about human fears now. Why are so many people creating a fear of Armageddon?

I hope Andre doesn't mind my taking it off subject, but I think it is the same root fear that he is asking about. The need for an enemy. If he doesn't like it, he can redirect me in the correct direction.

 

[DaveC426913]

They cannot have their celebration on the 4th of May. That day is already taken.

It is the Official International Happy Star Wars Day.

May the 4th be with you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Very true. So maybe the direction of fixing the problem by eliminating the monster is wrong. Well, that IS why I said the problem couldn't be fixed in my first post.

So how about taking it from the angle of the group? Once again back to Andre's first post, do humans need an enemy? If we can't eliminate the enemy, then what is the need inside the human to have something to fear?

I have a friend that just today is freaking out thinking the world will end soon due to the financial crisis. She suddenly has an enemy. I would not have made the connection, except for the fact that we are talking about human fears now. Why are so many people creating a fear of Armageddon?

I hope Andre doesn't mind my taking it off subject, but I think it is the same root fear that he is asking about. The need for an enemy. If he doesn't like it, he can redirect me in the correct direction.

The need for an enemy is Andre's diagnosis, not mine. I don't believe it's the case. If you look at primitive societies you'll see that they often become cooperative for cooperation's sake in the absence of an enemy. They work together to erect houses for newlyweds, fish as a tribe, gather fruit en mass when it ripens, etc. They don't look for enemies. Enemies happen, and when they do, you have to drop everything and deal with it.

 

[Ms Music]

May the forth be with you too, sir! For we have the Revenge of the fifth, and the revenge of the sixth to deal with, at least until the Return of July.

And now back on track, do humans need Darth Vader?

I mean,... do humans need enemies? Why do we create enemies?

 

[DaveC426913]

For we have the Revenge of the fifth, and the revenge of the sixth to deal with,

Bahahahahah! That's great! I've never heard that!

Now, when I traditionally send out this greeting to all my friends, family and colleagues, they will have - not just one but three days groaning!

I love it! :!):!):!):!):!)

 

[Ms Music]

If you look at primitive societies you'll see that they often become cooperative for cooperation's sake in the absence of an enemy. They work together to erect houses for newlyweds, fish as a tribe, gather fruit en mass when it ripens, etc. They don't look for enemies. Enemies happen, and when they do, you have to drop everything and deal with it.

That is the outlook I had until the other day. Unfortunately I had two abnormally busy days, and didn't get back here to respond.

When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for now, I should be back Monday.

*peace*

 

[lisab]

That is the outlook I had until the other day. Unfortunately I had two abnormally busy days, and didn't get back here to respond.

When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for now, I should be back Monday.

*peace*

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

 

[mheslep]

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

+1. At least that is my operating theory. Eventually a harder look will have to be taken for what this implies for the separation of church and state doctrine when the state takes up various fervors. Imagine the outcry if the hundreds of municipalities had abandoned the public parks day and night or, say, Baptist revival meetings for months on end instead of Occupiers.

 

[Andre]

...When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

The crusades, the medieval witches, suppressing heresy thoughout history, revolutions, and other protracted social conflicts?

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

Maybe, if you got to have something to believe in.

Notice also the element of group polarization.

In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individual's initial tendency is to be risky and towards greater caution if individual's initial tendency is to be cautious... The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individual's initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion...

Sounds familiar? Isn't each gathering of the group intensifying the group cohesion about their beliefs? political conventions, religious services.

 

[Andre]

An example of moral panic. Gay pride cancelled.

On the tv news was a life event of people harassed by a member of a hate group.

 

[Ms Music]

It sounds to me that you pretty much nailed it with your Group Polarization wiki link:

War and violent behavior

Group polarization has been reported to occur during war time and other times of conflict. When there is a feud, individuals with the same viewpoint or on the same side, unite and share information; creating a heterogeneous group.[28] During a time of conflict, it is not normal practice for an individual to mingle with the enemy. When individuals with the same views spend all of their time together, their viewpoints become stronger and more extreme.[28] Group polarization can also help in explaining violent behavior. A notable example from history is the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, Hitler united a group of like-minded individuals, Nazis, who shared the common belief that Jews should be exterminated. Once these individuals united into a group, they viewed anyone who didn’t hold Nazi beliefs as outsiders, thus demonstrating polarization.[29] As they polarized, their sense of unity increased and their Nazi pride intensified, ultimately causing them to engage in the violent behavior that they did. Group polarization is also evident in similar situations, such as terrorist attacks and gang violence. While polarization can occur in any type of conflict, it has its most damaging effects in large-scale inter-group, public policy, and international conflicts.

I also like Lisa's idea that it is a replacement for religion.

What bugs me, is a few weeks back my daughter said she really knows very little about the holocaust. They don't teach it in her high school apparently.

 

[OmCheeto]

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?

And then silence. Of course nobody had any sensible answer to that. But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

Nowadays after decades of good progress in sociology studies, things slowly start to get clear.

It seems that everybody needs an enemy.

Does that make sense?

Sense?

Yes.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

People don't want to be wrong. No matter how wrong they've been. So they, through magical misdirection, point the finger at something else.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Ms Music and Om, it's really quite revealing how this group polarization works. Obviously, the question arises if science can be affected too. Maybe have a look at Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

You can read how Lysenko managed to defeat main stream science ultimately resulting in a purging (genocide) of the scientific community

On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research.[3] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as 'bourgeois' or 'fascist', and analogous 'non-bourgeois' theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time (see Japhetic theory; socialist realism).Interestingly, perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin's lifetime to escape liquidation came from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists. But as Tony Judt has observed, "Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone... [He] may well have been mad but he was not stupid." ...

"the only correct theory".....Sounds familiar today?

I think this is a key observation:

It is often suggested that Lysenko's success came solely from the desire in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their 'bourgeois' or 'fascist' instincts.

Hence Lysenko's ideas were idealistic. They needed to be true to propagate the dogma, hence they became true or..rather truthiness.

Maybe this looks very familiar today too.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks Ms Music and Om, it's really quite revealing how this group polarization works. Obviously, the question arises if science can be affected too. Maybe have a look at Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism reads like an Onion post today.

Though, to me anyways, most everything reads like an Onion post...

 

[Andre]

Maybe it's not that uncommon.

http://redstatepatriot.com/preconceptual.gif

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/preconceptual.GIF

 

[ThomasT]

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.

Me too. I was born just after WWII. A US baby boomer.

And every conversation in those times turned to that subject ...

I grew up in the US, which was unaffected by the violence, so, as I recall, it was never a topic of conversation ... even though my father was in it.

... 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?

I don't think that that's the best way to characterize it. People were faced with difficult choices. Mostly, I think, there were few actual monsters. Sometimes, otherwise good people acted questionably out of fear. Which seems to me to be quite understandable.

What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

The force behind it is when you're put, circumstantially, between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.

And then silence. Of course nobody had any sensible answer to that.

There's a sensible answer. Faced with tough choices involving danger, some people will act courageously, but most people won't.

But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

It has and will continue to happen. Let's be clear what we're talking about, in general terms. The oppression of basic individual human liberty and dignity. The oppression of individual sovereignty.

A minority of people will have the courage to stand up to and oppose that. But most won't, imho. That doesn't make the people unable to resist oppression monsters. It's just part of the human/animal condition. Most of us aren't heroes. Most of us aren't especially strong. Most of us are simply not willing to forsake any hope of a normal, comfortable, life in order to actively oppose oppression.

Actually, the question I intended to discuss in this thread is, can we? Can we prevent that it ever happens again?

Imho, no. But I think there is hope that it can be minimized.

 

[OmCheeto]

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

It seems that everybody needs an enemy.

Does that make sense?

Tomorrow is our May 4th, and this still makes sense.

Actually, the question I intended to discuss in this thread is, can we? Can we prevent that it ever happens again?

We can only do what we can.

Here are some ideas about that.

Maybe that many 'characteristics' are happening today?

Too often. I looked at some genocide web sites the other day and ran across a picture subtitled: "Prisoners digging their own graves". It somewhat reminded me of a video I'd seen a while back:
It struck me that "moral entrepreneurs" had manipulated the financial system to basically commit genocide on businesses, for their own financial gain. A bit of a stretch? Maybe, but people are looking the other way. And looking the other way is one of the things I've learned that you simply cannot do.

I don't need any enemies, and I can do without them. I'm not sure why one would need an enemy. Does the term 'enemy' extend to adversary? Evenso, I don't really need adversaries.

Nature and the universe are challenging enough, and certainly interesting and not boring.

liar...

Racketeering and corruption is not a mistake - it is a choice and it is a crime - besides being immoral and unethical.

Enemies come in all forms. Your choice of enemies is fortunately based on something legitimate.

Exactly, but did we really learn that lesson? Are we practicing preventive measures? Look at stage 1 classification:

People are divided into "us and them".

As I said, we can all try to do our part. The first thing I did when focus moved from Iraq to Iran, was to attempt to learn the Parsi language, (A dismal failure by the way). among other things. I've facebook friends from Tunisia, Greece, Poland, The Netherlands, South Africa, Germany, Bosnia, England, Kuwait, and even someone from Kansas. I can think of no other way to remove the "them" from one's thought processes, then to make them all one of us. (kumbaya)

I suppose I'm a bit more aware of what's transpired than many, as I grew up at the exact correct time. I got to watch Hogan's Heros. I got to watch my mother cry after JFK was murdered. Then MLK, and RFK. Then I watched the World at War series. (not to be confused with World of Warcraft). Then I got to watch the war tallies from Vietnam every night. I thought it was odd that it was ok to kill so many of them, but it was very bad for our soldiers to die. Then I watched Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man". Probably one of the most influential documentaries I'd ever witnessed. Not to mention that I studied under Alan Watts through my adolescence. (My clock radio was above the level of my head when his talks came on every Saturday morning, so I can say that, literally).

Sadly, I agree.

I think the Holocaust is taught wrong in schools. It's made out to be a "German thing" -- totally, totally wrong (as evidenced by examples given by other posters).

It's a *human* thing. We're all capable of it, and that's really frightening.

This reminds of the week after my mother passed away. My sister took the framed picture of my mother, aged 16, in her Luftwaffe uniform, eyes pointed towards the heavens, smiling like Mona Lisa, and removed the picture from its frame. She noticed something odd, that no one in 40 years had ever noticed. The broach on her neckerchief was a bit shinier than the rest of the image. So my sister touched it, and it was pencil lead. So she got an eraser, and removed the penciling. Low and behold, mom had a swastika on that little neckerchief broach thingy. Mom was a freakin' Nazi after all!

But anyways, if your own mom can be a Nazi, which I'm sure she wasn't, then why can't I?

I had long talks with several of Czech, Hungarian, and Polish colleagues, who were not only kind, honest and actually just like us, but they also told us in turn what kind of incredible villains we had been. From their stories it became clear that our mutual enemy image was somewhat exaggerated.

Soldiers are often like this. Thrust into battle against each other, yet they all want the same thing; to go home and see their girlfriends.(and boyfriends now). I remember thinking to myself during both Iraq wars, that I admired the soldiers on the other side, as much as I admired ours. I don't think this is an isolated attitude.

There is a story of the Kamikaze pilot who crashed his plane into the USS Missouri during WWII. The crew recovered his body and gave him a fully honorable and dignified burial at sea..

The conclusion was that the leadership of both our and their side had grossly overestimated and overstated the evilness of the opponent and shockingly, we had accepted all of that eagerly, because it seemed that we wanted it to be true.

I think there is a root of the problem.

And that, is just as true today, as ever. (biting lip from elaborating...)

Kennis is macht. Our leaders (and us) need to know the potential enemies and neighbors and they (and us if possible) need to keep an eye on things, and know
what is going on around us.

I agree, absolutely.

Part of the problem is that it is rare for a country to teach it's own atrocities.

And then get hammered for "apologizing" if they do. [nixonian expletive deleted] apologies. If we were wrong, admit it, and fix it. If we were right, pat ourselves on the back. But DON'T call it apologizing. (ps. I will admit to being wrong, but I never apologize for anything. Life is. And **** happens. Sometimes I'm responsible for some freaky ****. Are you dead? No. Are you crippled? No. Then get the **** over it.)

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

Double Duh!

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

On a more positive note... I'm an "Army brat"

Me too! Though an Air Force brat.

So I pursued a technical education and career as an EE.

Me too! Though I never graduated, and ended up with a big "L" tattooed on my forehead.

I hope that cooler minds prevail.

Me too!

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

Common ground! It's the first step in friendship.
(kumbaya again)

it made me think of my own experience of 9/11

That was interesting, wasn't it. Not sure if anyone else noticed. I noticed that people who "looked" Middle Eastern, started eating lunch together. It was very strange. It took them several years to re-assimilate themselves into the "I don't give a **** what nationality you are" lunchroom society.

I keep asking for world peace, but all I have received so far is whirled peas.

I once gave someone a can of peas, nested in a dirt filled brass flower pot for xmas. She said all she wanted was Peace on Earth. Peas on Dirt was the closest I could get.

which is actually the hidden agenda in this thread.

And I've been suckered in...

The need for an enemy is Andre's diagnosis, not mine. I don't believe it's the case.

Enemy or scapegoat, it's the same thing to me. When things go haywire in a society, someone needs to be blamed. As I pointed out the other day, it can't be me who's at fault for all this poop that's going on, I'm never wrong, and if you're the only other person on the planet, then it must be your fault.

It's just part of the human/animal condition. Most of us aren't heroes. Most of us aren't especially strong. Most of us are simply not willing to forsake any hope of a normal, comfortable, life in order to actively oppose oppression.

You got me there.

In conclusion, it is Memorial Day now on the right coast. I'll have to go visit my dead Luftwaffe mother and dead USAF father's grave tomorrow, they share the same plot.

ps. Sorry about deleting the Nietzsche post the other day. In hindsight, it was a mistake. (OK! I was wrong!) But I only knew at the time that Nietzsche was some sort of philosopher with a pretentious name. I've since learned that he was correct. As evidenced by the bumper sticker, which kind of, IMHO, expresses the angst of the thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Umbn6ZBuE​