Chapter 11: Global Wars to Restore U.S. Masculinity

Chapter 11
Global Wars to Restore U.S. Masculinity
Rough, tough, we’re the stuff,
We want to fight and we can’t get enough!
– Theodore Roosevelt1

The spectacular economic and political progress of much of the world in the 20th century was an achievement of the improvement in childrearing modes of the families that reduced child abuse, as more caring mothers began to give their children love and respect, plus were also able to reduce the jealousy of their spouses so fathers could be closer to their children. Yet because most 20th century families still abused their children, the improvement in industrialization during the century produced periodic “growth panics” (Fromm calls them “escapes from freedom”)2 during which adults re-experienced their parental abuse, and men went on more and more destructive wars to restore their masculinity and “get respect” from other nations. Plus of course the technological improvements soon led to a tremendous increase in the ability to kill others during wars, so that wars in the 20th century killed over 180 million people, mostly civilians—culminating in the current global-annihilation possibilities of nuclear nations.

Traditionally historians have idealized childrearing in twentieth-century families in the West. None have provided evidence to disprove my over 80 scholarly articles and 9 books written during the past 40 years on the history of child abuse, much less the over 600 articles and books by fellow psychohistorians confirming my work. In my article “On Writing Childhood History”3 I cite the usual “disproof of deMause” type of argument:

Linda Pollack’s book Forgotten Children,4 is uniformly hailed as ‘disproving deMause.’ It is claimed that children in past centuries were happy, free from worry, and certainly not oppressed or regimented….Pollack says all the primary sources used by child historians to date must be ignored, and only a few parents’ diaries can be relied upon. Thus, in order for abuse of child to be considered present for her, it would have to have been written down by the perpetrator….every absence of evidence for mistreatment was counted as positive evidence of love and proof that no punishment was ever administered. Where the parent simply did not mention in their diary how they treated the child, this counted as proof that there was no abuse. The notion that one could abuse one’s child without writing it down in one’s diary is considered impossible.

Since Pollack only found a tiny minority of admissions in parental diaries of child abuse, she could claim this proved that only a small minority of parents actually abused their children, about the same percentage as she said were abused today: so, she says, “no change at all in four centuries.”5

Other historians simply denied that whipping and sexual use of children had any ill effects, since that would be “imposing our current values upon other societies,” a forbidden act. As Philippe Aries put it when relating cases where children were regularly beaten and used sexually by their parents and other caretakers: “Since the practice of playing with children’s privy parts formed part of a widespread tradition…it had no meaning for him; it became purely gratuitous and lost its sexual significance…While it is easy to imagine what a modern psycho-analyst would say about parents and children masturbating each other, the psychoanalyst would be wrong…All that was involved was a game.”6 Or they cite approvingly Kinsey’s statement that “It is difficult to understand why a child should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched.”7

Still other historians declared that the lack of evidence for paternal love in their sources proves how loving they were. Allan Valentine, examining 600 years of letters from fathers to sons without finding a single one that gave any evidence of warmth or empathy, only cruelty, proclaimed the historian’s argumentum ex silentio as follows:

Doubtless an infinite number of fathers have written to their sons letters that would warm and lift our hearts, if we only could find them. The happiest fathers leave no history, and it is the men who are not at their best with their children who are likely to write the heart-rending letters that survive.8

Since hardly any college course on the history of childhood ever mentions my work, students instead depend upon such popular works as Philip Greven’s The Protestant Temperament, which states without evidence that American parents were “notable for the intensity of their affection and love and adored their children.”9 Or they cite historians who claim that American laws “making it a capital offense for youths to curse their fathers” were “not harsh.”10 Or they counter the possibility that the usual lengthy abandonment of children to wetnurses and nannies and to other families as servants could affect them, citing Lawrence Stone in The Family, Sex and Marriage that there was no progress in the historical treatment of children since “most children in history have not been loved or hated, or both, by their parents; they have been neglected or ignored by them.”11

As the 20th century produced more women’s rights and mothers were more able to love and care for their children, the children’s more secure attachments allowed them more empathy and independence as adults, making them political Progressives, who began to produce a more egalitarian democratic society. Their socializing mode parents thought of themselves as “training them,” of “molding their minds,” which were “like wax” awaiting the dictates of the parent. Most families were those where the parents’ commands were arbitrary; all freedom was lost, like in totalitarian governments that depend upon the changing dictates of the Leader.12 Those parents who were in previous modes of childrearing, the majority, lacked empathic mirror neurons, and continued to see their children as “full of evil,” “utterly corrupt at birth,” “needing conquering” and “having to be beaten to enforce instant and unquestioning obedience.”13 These insecurely-attached, badly abused children grew up to become Reactionaries who needed more authoritarian leaders, who were more misogynist paranoid and less empathic toward others;14 British Conservatives were found to have larger amygdalan fear areas.15 Reactionaries regularly oppose the freedoms asked for by Progressives and constantly project their Bad Selves and their Punishing Parents upon other states, favoring military action rather than peaceful negotiations to solve international problems.16 The 40% of U.S. families who today are apocalyptic fundamentalists believe that in their lifetime “the earth will be purged in the fires of God’s anger.”17

Men routinely vote for Reactionary leaders and causes more than women do.18 According to U.S. polarization experts, “this is why the Republicans are known as the Daddy Party [fathers more authoritarian] and the Democrats as the Mommy Party [mothers more caring].”19 Reactionaries believe parents and nations “must be strict because kids are born bad and need to be punished painfully.”20

The most important changes in childrearing in the West were the reduction of abandonment and infanticide, so that parents rather than wetnurses mainly brought up the child (despite the census figures showing less than ten percent of Parisian mothers nursing their own infants in 1900) and a dramatic drop in infanticide after contraceptives began to be used,21 so that the number of unwanted children born per family decreased. Not that abandonment of children by parents was thought abusive. Even advanced middle-class British parents saw their children only for a few minutes a day as they gave their infants over to nannies for care, and then soon “speedily sent their boys off to boarding schools which offered plentiful battering to toughen them.”22 None questioned, for example, the wisdom of sending 80,000 British children to Canada without their parents in the 19th century to work as servants,23 plus the half of all persons who came to the American South who were indentured children.24 Most parents still agreed that when children were around 6 years old, “it is good to remove children from the sight of their father and mother and give them to friends as servants so that they do not become quarrelsome.”25

By 1990, U.S. and British parents still hit their young children over 90 percent of the time, mostly by disrespect and spanking, with about a third being hit with instruments.26 But the U.S. and U.K. even today are near last among developed democracies in stopping the hitting of their children. Beginning in 1979 with Sweden, there have been over 30 nations who have recently passed laws making hitting children even by parents illegal, reducing corporal punishment of their children to very low figures,27 especially in the European Union—which explains the current low E.U. dependence upon military solutions to their problems and the effective E.U. policy of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.28 Most U.S. and U.K. parents admitted they regularly hit their one-year-old infants, “because they can’t talk and had to be disciplined.”29 The British have finally ended school beatings, though the U.S. still has legal school paddlings in 21 states, making the U.S. “next to last place in children’s well-being among 21 of the world’s most affluent and developed nations” according to UNICEF.30 In addition, the U.S. is the only nation not to sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child—all of which helping us understand why the U.S. spends half of the world’s military budget.

By the beginning of the 20th century more Western parents had their children sleep in separate beds, so they grew up not being part of their parents’ sexual intercourse. Most family historians underestimate the amount of actual sexual abuse of children during the century, since they depend upon “responses to written questionnaires or brief telephone calls,” whereas more accurate figures of around 60 percent of girls and 45 percent of boys are the more accurate results of recent U.S. eight-hour interviews.31 The days have passed when British sex abusers declared that “they had to have intercourse with little children because that was the only way they could be cured of venereal disease”32 and when mothers “commonly rented out rooms to boarders and forced their daughters to sleep with them.”33 Most of the 100 million sexual slaves today are in the East, or imported to the West from the East,34 and few doctors today advocate, as did previously, that fathers should have sexual intercourse with their three-year-old girls “in order to familiarize them with carnal matters.”35 Since the average age of molested children was often only 7 years old, most perpetrators lived under the same roof as their victims and boys were more often molested by females than by males.36 It is obvious that mothers and other women in the family have been molesting their little children far more often than admitted.

Most books and articles analyzing the reasons nations have gone to war in the past century are termed “realist” because they begin with the belief that wars are for utilitarian purposes, “to get something.” They may admit that wars are “anything but rational,” but explain the causes of wars by saying they occur “when hardliners dominate their leadership”37—never asking why only periodically do these hardliners come to power, promising that they “will not discuss individual factors of human nature” 38 and consider the minds of nations starting wars as “black boxes.”39

But no modern war has been shown to have been started because of greed, and none have in fact been profitable for nations starting them if the full cost of maintaining the military and of loss of productive life are considered. Even maintaining the British Empire was actually an economic loss.40 Wars are pathological moral crusades against “evil,” revenge group-fantasies, designed to “get respect” for oneself and make up for the disrespect and abuse of their early years. Both parental child abuse and genocidal wars have claimed they were done “to teach them a lesson.” The entire world during the 20th century was dominated by totalitarian dictatorships whose goal was the destruction of the Bad Self.41 Every trauma inflicted on children in the past century’s bloody wars and ethnic cleansings was passed on to new generations as “bombs in the brain” that were repeated as adult violence.42 U.S. wars alone this past century have caused the death of 650,000 American soldiers and tens of millions of “enemies,” plus now costing over a trillion dollars a year—more than the rest of the world combined spends on their military43—as U.S. global military empire replaced the retreating British Empire . Wars are mainly the result of Reactionaries engaging the nation in destructive provocative conflict spirals, falsely believing that “other nations will back down from the pursuit of their interests when faced with threats, that saber rattling will deter aggression.”44

Nor are wars begun mainly in periods of economic distress as is often claimed. Goldstein’s study of economic cycles and war found a strong and consistent correlation between the severity of war and economic upswings.45 Although developed democracies do not go to war with each other, they nevertheless go to war against non-democratic nations do even more often than other nations,46 since they must act out the emotional distance between their Progressive and Reactionary classes, with the Progressives advocating the diplomacy and trust that the Reactionaries fear. I devoted a chapter of my last book to giving the four emotional group-fantasy stages (Innovative, Depressed, Manic and War) that accompany the four war cycles, with economic Depressions occurring in between major wars, and I have provided charts showing these follow exactly Klingberg’s “mood cycles” in U.S. foreign policy.47 Depressions therefore are periodically experienced when nations feel they are too successful, growing too fast, and then engage in hyper-risky behavior, like the unregulated borrowing that the world engaged in during the past two decades.48 Like gambling addicts, they were not being “greedy” but were self-destructive, causing grandiose internal sacrifices costing many billions of dollars each time they occur, even though each time the risks taken are excused as “This time is different.”49

The more loving families at the end of the 19th century produced so much economic and social progress that the majority, the Reactionary psychoclass, feared the new freedoms would cause their worlds “to collapse.” Modern women in particular demanded new rights to education and employment and even suffrage. Even Germany  demonstrated progress, going from half the production of steel of Britain to over twice their production, “with marvelous progress marking almost every branch of German industry.”50 Why then did Germany, “the strongest and most efficient military state in Europe,”51 feel it was about to be attacked by its neighbors so that it had to start a “preventive war” to “avoid disappearing”?

To begin with, Germans feared women would “take over men” and “oversexed wives would threaten her husband’s life with her insatiable erotic demands.’52 Females were depicted in art and cinema as vampires devouring helpless men.53 “On the eve of the 20th century, the image of the New Woman was widespread…university-educated and sexually independent, she engendered intense hostility and fear as she seemed to challenge male supremacy and turn the world upside down.”54

Purity crusades were everywhere directed against women, against prostitution, against alcohol, against bicycles seats that “might cause women’s moral downfall”55 and even against women driving cars, because they could be turned into “houses of prostitution on wheels.”56 The reduction of the workweek was opposed since it was likely to cause women to turn to “dancing, carousing and murder.”57 Women’s rights were associated with social decay, and men were told “You must remain masculine, warlike, for the deterioration of military strength in a nation marks its decline.”58

The Motherland Hates the Freedom of Her New Citizens

Fig. 11-1 Theda Bara as a Devouring Vampire

Although Germans could have easily reached accommodation with the Russians, they felt so much a­­nxiety about their economic and military growth that they dismissed  peacefulness as “displaying feminine weakness,” “equivalent to ‘self-castration,’” and told the Kaiser he had to “prove his masculinity…be tough, unyielding, and arrogantly belligerent.”59 As Germans began fusing with their Killer Mutterland, scathing editorials warned against Germany being seen as “a race of women,” so it needed to go to war to avoid becoming “a race of women.” Any efforts to keep peace “must be energetically combated. A people that has ceased to regard virility as its chief aim is lost.”60 Other Germans warned that “if Germany does not rule the world, it will disappear from the map… Germany will be a world power or nothing.”61

Even the U.S. felt the need to ward off its growth panic by joining in WWI, as did the journalist who wrote that “a nation needs a war from time to time to prevent it from becoming effeminate, to shake it up from demoralizing materialism.”62

The Motherland Hates the Freedom of Her New Citizens

Fig. 11-2 Fusing with the Motherland

President Wilson’s initial hesitation to join the European war was denounced by Theodore Roosevelt as “emasculating American manhood.”63 Since Roosevelt was badly beaten as a child and forced by his father to combat his childhood asthma by climbing mountains and smoking cigars, “his speeches were filled with words like ‘flaccid,’ ‘potent,’ ‘soft,’ ‘hard,’ ‘virile,’ and ‘manly,’”64 telling friends: “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”65 That joining in such an meaningless war came from irrational internal emotional sources was noticed to some; as one U.S. Congressman said in 1917, “something stronger than you and I can realize or resist seems to be picking us up bodily and literally forcing us to vote for this declaration of war.”66 Wilson himself had what his biographer called “a need to dominate,” and said that joining WWI was dictated to him by “the hand of God.”67

As nations fused with their Killer Motherlands, they felt like they were infants enveloped by their mothers, saying of the war “We are no longer alone!68 Soldiers wrote home that their “regiments are our mothers,”69 and that “sacrificing oneself is a joy, the greatest joy.”70 The war was the most destructive in history, with over 9 million killed and another 15 million horribly wounded,71 as British officers ordered their troops to “advance in long rows [into machine gun fire] at a walk that was suicidal but that was the plan.”72 Suicidal slaughter was the rule in WWI, with battles called “mincing machines”73 and soldiers declaring “We want joyfully to bleed.”74

Intellectuals all over Europe cheered WWI as a “cleansing fire,” “a purifying experience,” “the greatest agency by which human progress is effected.” WWI was the first war to abandon entirely the distinction between soldiers and civilians.75 As Von Moltke proclaimed, “Without war the world would wallow in materialism.”76 British intellectuals were equally delighted, saying “the war is the most valuable experience of our lives” and “the war years will stand out in the memories of those who fought as the happiest years of their lives.”77 Even Winston Churchill—who was grossly abandoned by his parents as a child—declared during WWI: “I love this war…I can’t help it—I enjoy every second of it.”78 Psychotherapists today have found suicidal patients always have inner dissociated parental voices telling them they must kill themselves.79 Many Germans during WWI saw the suicidal goal of the war. As one German General Staff member wrote in his diary in 1916: “Germany is like a person staggering along an abyss, wishing for nothing more fervently than to throw himself into it.”80 If your Killer Motherland tells you that she will only respect you if you commit suicide, you march joyfully into the machine gun fire. The 26 global wars of the 20th century—killing over 250 million people81—were all started by nations saying their Motherlands would only give them love and respect if they died for Her.

Although President Harry Truman’s military advisors, including Eisenhower, told him that “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the nuclear bomb was completely unnecessary,”82 he felt so pleased that he was able to murder over 300,000 civilians with one bomb that he jubilantly announced the Hiroshima bombing was “the greatest thing in history” and that it would “impress the Russians.”83 During the next half century, the U.S. would spend $5.8 trillion on suicidal nuclear weapons, accumulating over 30,000 deliverable bombs, equivalent in power to more than a million Hiroshimas, with the world’s arsenal soon surpassing 100,000 weapons, hundreds of times enough to eliminate all human life on earth.84 Over 85 percent of Americans approved of Truman’s dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, and various polls in the coming years continued to reveal the majority of Americans favored using atomic warheads against Communists, as military hawks like MacArthur and Kissinger regularly advocated.85

After rejecting a Soviet proposal to ban the production or use of atomic weapons,86 Truman directed South Korea to provoke North Korea and later China into a war with the U.S.,87 despite the opinion of the Joint Chiefs that “Korea was of little strategic interest” to America.88 After killing 2 million troops and civilians, including 54,000 young Americans, President Eisenhower “contemplated using atomic warheads on a sufficiently large scale to bring the conflict to an end.”89 Truman considered dropping atomic bombs on China, as his military had suggested, but eventually admitted, “I could not bring myself to order the slaughter of 25,000,000 noncombatants.”90 For the next four decades, the popular Truman Doctrine “kept the American people in a perpetual state of fear” by “confronting the USSR” and provoking Russians to develop their own nuclear forces so they could be “conveniently blamed for all the troubles of the world.”91 Reactionaries proclaimed “coexistence with Communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable,” and “all negotiation was appeasement” because “a nuclear war was winnable.”92 Not until Mikhail Gorbachev became the head of the Soviet Republic did they change from a nation ruled by a leader brought up with the usual tight swaddling, hardening icewater baths, severe whippings and sexual abuse to one headed by someone “whose parents treated him with respect.”93

Eventually Nikita Khrushchev “wanted the Soviet Union to be admired rather than feared and hoped for a thaw in the Cold War, removing Soviet troops from Austria.”94 Nevertheless, despite the ability of the U.S. to destroy all human life on earth with its nuclear missiles, John F. Kennedy got elected to the Presidency on a mythical “missile gap” claim, and then gave the go-ahead to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba over the objections of his military.95 Then, saying he had to “make us appear tough,”96 he began what was termed Operation Mongoose that included inciting insurrection and sabotage in Cuba.97 One of the first plans the military suggested to him was Operation Northwoods, “calling for innocent people to be shot on American streets and people framed for the bombings, all blamed on Castro.”98 The CIA warned Kennedy that attempts to remove Castro might cause the Soviets to “establish a medium-range missile base in Cuba.”99 Krushchev responded by putting Soviet missiles into Cuba.100

The origin of Kennedy’s need to prove his masculinity was his early child abuse. His mother had battered him as a child with coat hangers and belts, his father smashed his childrens’ heads against walls, so that his resulting fears of impotence made him fill the White House during evenings with sexual partners to demonstrate how hyper-masculine he was.101 After the U.S. discovered that Soviet missiles had been placed in Cuba, Kennedy deemed this a threat to his hyper-masculine hawkish pose, despite the opinion of his Secretary of Defense, who “saw no major threat to U.S. security from the missiles”102 since Soviet missiles were already in the area on their submarines. The Cuban missiles were just the excuse for Kennedy to demonstrate his manhood. As Wofford puts it: “The real stake was prestige…In the Kennedy lexicon of manliness, not being ‘chicken‘ was a primary value.”103 Kennedy admitted “there may be 200 million Americans dead” if he precipitated a nuclear war,104 but nevertheless when it looked like the Soviets might not agree to keep secret his promise to remove the U.S. Turkish missiles which might make him “lose face,”105 Kennedy sent American planes carrying 1,300 nuclear bombs into the air on Sunday with orders to begin bombing Russia the next day if Khrushchev didn’t immediately say he would keep the secret.106 Few Americans opposed Kennedy’s actions, even though they said they would likely lead to a nuclear war.107 Only Khrushchev’s agreeing to remove his missiles without making Kennedy seem “chicken” avoided a nuclear WWIII.

Kennedy soon needed a new war to consolidate his defensive masculinity pose, increased the U.S. military spending the largest amount in any peacetime, and then committed 16,300 U.S. soldiers to Vietnam. When he went to Dallas, where there were many highly publicized death threats to kill him, he needed still more “toughness,” and told his wife, “Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it.”108 “His Secret Service aides told him he better put up the bulletproof plastic top on his limousine, so he specifically told them not to do so,”109 committing suicide to demonstrate his hypermasculinity.

Lyndon Johnson had an alcoholic father who whipped him with a razor strap and an abandoning, overcontrolling, disrespectful mother who sometimes “walked around the house pretending I was dead.”110 His mother was described as “tough, stern, unyielding, obstinate, domineering.”111 He kept running away from home because he felt “smothered … oscillating between grandiosity and gloom and always questioning his worth.”112 Like Kennedy, he had to have many sexual affairs to prove his masculinity.113 He created the Vietnam War only to show he was a man, since he claimed “those who opposed the war were women: ‘They have to squat to piss.’”114 Although Ho Chi Minh would have negotiated with the U.S. and made peace, Johnson needed to restore his manhood with a bloody war that would kill millions: “Unzipping his fly and pulling out his penis and asking reporters, ‘Has Ho Chi Minh got anything to match that?’”115 His biographer revealed: “He demanded his subordinates join him for nude swimming in the White House pool [because] he was enormously proud of his large penis (which he called Jumbo) and delighted in humiliating his less-well-endowed associates.”116

The incident that began the war was a completely faked provocation, a supposed attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin that Johnson later admitted “was just some stupid sailors shooting at flying fish!” 117 As David Halberstam later wrote: “Manhood was very much in the minds of the architects of the Vietnam War. They wanted to show who had bigger balls.”118 Johnson himself told his biographer he started the war to prove he wasn’t “an unmanly man.”119 Since over 90 percent of American parents were still hitting their children, they were pro-war, and Johnson’s popularity after the Gulf of Tonkin soared overnight from 42 percent to 72 percent.120 The U.S. could now castrate a new enemy to restore its manhood. As Johnson put it, “I didn’t just screw Ho Chi Minh. I cut his pecker off.”121 In 1965, he ordered U.S. bombers to hit North Vietnam with Rolling Thunder and—to demonstrate that he was “firm”—soon sent in over 200,000 more U.S. troops to fight what was to be America’s longest war, killing millions of “enemies” for the sake of U.S. “masculinity.”122

Although prior to Vietnam “nearly 80 percent of U.S. riflemen neglected, declined, or omitted to fire at an exposed enemy,” Johnson and his military team invented a new “desensitivity training” program for U.S. soldiers sent to Vietnam, so the non-firing rate fell to only 5 percent,123 killing millions of innocent civilians and children, enabling a new generation to chant: “Hey, hey, LBJ; How many kids did you kill today?”

Richard Nixon continued the war, expanding it to Cambodia so the U.S. wouldn’t be thought “a pitiful, helpless giant,” which led to the killing of another two million people, after having been elected by promising to withdraw from Vietnam. Having been kicked a lot by his father, he became famous for his saying, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more.”124 Saying that the U.S. must not continue feeling like “a pitiful helpless giant,” Nixon told Kissinger he was contemplating dropping a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam: “I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.”125 Nixon was extraordinarily popular for his mass killings; he was re-elected by the largest popular majority ever recorded.126 As he bragged to Senator Alan Cranston, “I can go into my office and pick up the telephone and in twenty-five minutes seventy million people will be dead.”127 Now that’s U.S. POWER!

The advance in the Soviet Union from abandonment of children in street gangs and “round-the-clock boarding schools” to actual family care of children began to take place in the 1970s,128 resulting in a switch in parenting from traditional “hardening” childrearing like that experienced by Joseph Stalin—who was “kicked and tried to be killed”—to that of Gorbachev—who was treated with respect and was remembered as being “very joyful” as a child.129 The result was a more advanced psychoclass, electing Gorbachev in 1985 as General Secretary of the Communist Party, who immediately declared his goal was “the abolition of nuclear weapons [by the year 2000, and] a democratic Soviet Union at peace with the West.”130 This posed a terrible problem for the U.S. As George H. W. Bush became President, Gorbachev “stood at the podium of the U.N. and offered a unilateral cut of 500,000 troops in the Soviet military”131 and “promised that he would never start a hot war against the U.S.”132 Bush “declared the U.S. had won the Cold War…but in America more weapons were still being developed, built and deployed. For use against whom? To protect America from what?”133

Despite Reagan’s rise in military spending to $1.6 trillion, he had declared the U.S. was “weak and disintegrating [and] had to show their firmness of manhood.”134 H. W. Bush soon invented a new U.S. global enemy: terrorism. When cartoonists pictured him in a dress with a woman’s purse,135 Bush’s aide “told people that a short successful war would be pure political gold for the President.”136 So when Iraq was upset that Kuwait had stolen some of its oil, Bush had his State Department representative announce “we do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait,” inviting the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.137 Bush began calling Saddam “worse than Hitler” and started the U.S./U.N. war against Iraq, and so was now shown in cartoons as a hero not a wimp.

The Motherland Hates the Freedom of Her New Citizens

Fig. 11-3 Bush as a Woman

The mood of the U.S. changed overnight from depression to grandiosity: “We’ve felt bad for months…Suddenly we feel like we have a purpose.” Saddam’s promise to remove his troops from Kuwait peacefully was rejected by Bush, who stated: “We have to have a war.”138 As The New Republic put it, “Saddam Hussein did the world a favor by invading Kuwait.” As The New York Post headlined, “Thanks, Saddam. We Needed That.”139 Bush’s popularity rating rose to 91%; cartoonists showed his woman’s purse to be “in the closet.” The stock market soared. Bush said he was now “upbeat about America…it is like when a mother tells you every day how much she loves you.”140 The invasion of Iraq was “like poking at a snake to make it strike” and would “increase the chances that America will be attacked by terrorists.”141 Most of the Iraqi terrorists were former Iraqi army personnel, which Bush ordered demilitarized so they could become a proper U.S. enemy.142 As Kenneth Timmerman put it: “Saddam Hussein was our creation, our monster. We built him up and then tried to take him down.”143

Even though the U.S. had for years been sending Saddam billions of dollars in military equipment, including uranium and plutonium,144 the new task of smashing into family homes and slaughtering over a million innocent Iraqi women and children in the Gulf War and the years of sanctions that followed it “was burned into the minds of Arabs and Muslims everywhere”145 and provoked terrorist attacks on Americans, centered in the Middle East but extended to terrorist groups all around the world under Condoleezza Rice’s stated task that “it is America’s job to change the world in its own image.”146

The childhood of terrorists is as abusive as that of medieval martyrs described earlier. A recent survey of 652 Palestinian undergraduates asking if they recalled sexual abuse showed 18.6 percent said they had been used sexually by a family member, 36. 2 percent by a relative and 45.6 percent by a stranger.147 Islamic boys are routinely sexually abused, usually anally, with mothers often caressing their penises, families usually using their young boys sexually since females are considered “unclean,” and with teenage boy gangs routinely preying sexually upon younger boys.148 Murray documents that “a boy cannot learn the Koran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him and an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master.” In addition, “guests are often entertained and sexually serviced by ‘dancing boys.’”149 Human Rights International reports Islamic warlords “routinely sexually molest young boys and film the orgies.”150 Girls’ genitals are considered so “poisonous” that “when she is five or so the women grab her, pin her down, and chop off her clitoris and often her labia with a razor blade and the area sewed up to prevent intercourse.” In many Islamic areas 90 percent of the women surveyed say they have genitally mutilated all of their daughters.151

It is not surprising that mutilated and battered females make abusive mothers who reinflict their own miseries upon their children, swaddling, neglecting, beating, whipping, kicking, biting and stabbing them regularly, according to visitors.152 Mothers often train their sons to be terrorists, teaching them how to be martyrs and how to enter a trance state that feels like they were “floating” (dissociated) and about to be loved by Allah (their Killer Mother). Terrorists say, “If I blow myself up and become a martyr, I’ll finally be loved.” 153 They are taught they will go to paradise where they will “have permanent erections.”154 Mothers report: “I was very happy my son blew himself up, I thanked Allah he was still close to me.”155 Their standing in the village goes up when their sons become a human bomb: “Everyone treats me with more respect now; I will send all seven sons to be martyred.”156 Although being made into a “human time bomb” is consider by mental health experts like Joan Lachkar and Nancy Kobrin as severely disturbed borderline psychopathic personalities,157 the majority of writers on terrorism consider them “normal,” “not mentally disturbed,“158 since they do not recognize dissociated personalities.

Barbara Bush, George W. Bush’s mother, was devoted to corporal punishment and would “slap around” little George all the time, becoming known as “The Enforcer…the one who instills fear.”159 George grew up alcoholic, often going into a fundamentalist religious alter trance state and hearing his mother’s fearful voice as a “God voice” speaking to him and giving him orders, saying in 2000, “I believe God wants me to run for president” and in 2003, “God told me to strike at Al Qaedabosot and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”160 Bush and his neoconservative staff had been following their alter-God voices long before 9/11, Bush saying, “I’m driven with a mission from God…God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’”161 Since as President he carried the nuclear football with him 24 hours a day and was authorized to launch a world-annihilating nuclear war at any moment, his belief that the U.S. could be “revitalized” by war and that “the United States has grown because of wars”162 fed his hypermasculine grandiosity defenses and made him tell his biographer he was “thinking about invading Iraq in 1999…One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’”163 When the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, he agreed with Donald Rumsfeld’s opinion they were “a blessing in disguise”164 since Bush’s job approval rating immediately soared to 90 percent. “Bring ‘em on” said Bush, since global terrorists would replace global Communism as an enemy, “transforming Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for Islamist terrorism.”165 As Dick Cheney admitted in 2002: “When America’s great enemy suddenly disappeared, many wondered what…global threat [we would face]…All of that changed five months ago. The threat is known and our role is clear now.”166 Ignoring the many unexplained contradictions surrounding the 9/11 attacks,167 Bush started wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Michael Haas has written a splendid book carefully documenting 269 war crimes engaged in by the U.S. in engaging in “preemptive wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq.168

Each time the CIA located bin Laden, Bush told them not to attack him,169 so the U.S. could have a proper enemy. (The CIA was established as the President’s private army.) The U.S. felt their grandiose manic omnipotence once again, and The New York Post headlined: “U.S. WARNS IRAQ: WE’LL NUKE YOU.”170 Bush published a new National Security Strategy that said terrorism “opened vast, new opportunities” for global command.171 U.S. military expenditures rose to more than the rest of the world combined, the Iraq war costing over $3 trillion, killing 2 million people and producing over 4 million refugees,172 plus creating tens of thousands of new terrorist enemies. In Iraq, the U.S. allowed over a million tons of guns and explosives to be given to the terrorists.173 Bush announced that the U.S. military could now “establish a global supremacy” and a world-wide nuclear Global First Strike arsenal that he said must be “ready to strike at any moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.”174 The neocon American Enterprise celebrated the global restoration of U.S. manhood with a special issue entitled: “REAL MEN: THEY’RE BACK.”175


1 Evan Thomas, The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898. New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2010, p. 268.

2 Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Co, 1969.

3 Lloyd deMause, “On Writing Childhood History,” The Journal of Psychohistory 16(1988): 1334-171; also on <> for free downloading.

4 Linda A. Pollock, Forgotten Children: Parent-Child Relation from 1500 to 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

5 For one reviewer who caught Pollock’s trick, see Elizabeth Fleck, Domestic Tyranny: The Making of American Social Policy Against Family Violence From Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

6 Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. London: Jonathan Cape, 1962, pp. 103-106.

7 Alfred Kinsey, et al, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, p. 121.

8 Alan Valentine, Ed., Fathers to Sons: Advice Without Consent. Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 1963, p. xxx.

9 Philip Greven, The Protestant Temperament: Patterns of Child-Rearing, Religious Experience and the Self in Early America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977, p. 265.

10 Steven Mintz, Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004, pp. 10, 13.

11 Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. New York: Harper & Row, 1977, p. 758.

12 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1973, p. 395.

13 James R. Kincaid, Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992, pp. 71, 94.

14 John W. Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience. New York: Penguin, 2007.

15 “Political Views ‘Hard-Wired’ Into Your Brain.” London Telegraph, 12/28/2010.

16 Michael A. Milburn and S. D. Conrad, “The Politics of Denial.” The Journal of Psychohistory 23(1996): 29.

17 Charles B. Strozier, Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994, p. 5.

18 Stephen Ducat, The Wimp Facto: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004, p. 177-207.

19 Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 191.

20 George Lakoff, The Political Mind. New York: Penguin, 2008, p. 78.

21 Edward Shorter, Written in the Flesh: A History of Desire. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005, p. 120.

22 James R. Kincaid, Child-Loving, p. 86.

23 Ibid., p. 75.

24 Mary Ann Mason, From Father’s Property to Children’s Rights. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 32.

25 Philipe Aries, “An Interpretation to be Used for a History of Mentalities.” In Patricia Ranum, Ed. Popular Attitudes Toward Birth Control in Pre-Industrial France and England. New York: Harper, 1972, p. 117.

26 Murray Straus, “Theoretical Approaches to Corporal Punishment.” In M. Straus and M. Donnelly, Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 4.; Matt Everett, “The Evolution of British Childrearing,” The Journal of Psychohistory 34(2006): 18.

27 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 338-339; Joan F. Durrant, “A Generation Without Smacking: The Impact of Sweden’s Ban on Physical Punishment.” London: Save the Children, 2000, p. 6.

28 James J. Sheehn, Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern Europe. London: Mariner Books, 2009; Ian Anthony, “The Role of the European Union in WMD Nonproliferation.” In Nathan E. Busch, Ed., Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Future of International Nonproliferation Policy. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2009, pp. 197-219.

29 Lloyd deMause, “What the British Can Do To End Child Abuse.” The Journal of Psychohistory 34(2006): 5.

30 Robin Grille, “The Rod, the Paddle, and Abu Ghraib.” The Journal of Psychohistory 37(2010):257.

31 Lloyd deMause, “The Universality of Incest,” p. 136.

32 Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 201.

33 Louise A. Jackson, Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England. London: Routledge, 2000, p. 111.

34 Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth. New York: Harper, 1991, p. 161.

35 A Woman Physician and Surgeon, Unmasked, or, The Science of Immorality. Philadelphia: William H. Boyd, 1878, p. 88.

36 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 359; Lloyd deMause, “The Universality of Incest,” The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 137.

37 John A. Vasquez, The War Puzzle Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 217.

38 Ibid., p. 167.

39 Greg Cashman, What Causes War? An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict. New York: Lexington Books, 1993, p. 161.

40 Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War. New York: The Free Press, 1991, p. 22; Timothy Parsons, The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

41 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 329-331.

42 Francoise Davoine and Jean-Max Gaudilliere, History Beyond Trauma: Whereof One Cannot speak, Thereof One Cannot Stay Silent. New York: Other Press, 2004.

43 Chalmers Johnson, Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010, p.159.

44 Greg Cashman, What Causes War?, p. 184.

45 Joshua Goldstein, Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. 239-48.

46 Greg Cashman, What Causes War?, pp. 128, 129.

47 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 158-181.

48 William D. Cohan, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street. New York: Anchor Books, 2009.

49 Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

50 R. J. W. Evans and Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann, The Coming of the First World War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, p. 464.

51 Ibid., p. 465.

52 Elaine Showalter, Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siecle. London: Penguin Books, 1991, p. 180.

53 Bram Dijkstra, Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Siecle Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 347.

54 Elaine Showalter, Sexual Anarchy, p. 36.

55 David J. Pivar, Purity Crusade, Sexual Morality and Social Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1973, p. 176.

56 Edward Chancellor, Devil Take the Hindmost. New York: Farrar Straus, 1999, p. 204.

57 Ibid., p. 233.

58 Michael C. C. Adams, The Great Adventure; Male Desire and the Coming of World War I. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, p. 58.

59 Robert G. L. Waite, “Leadership Pathologies,” in Betty Glad, Ed., Psychological Dimensions of War. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990, p. 153.

60 Frankfurter Zeitung, May 20, 1913.

61 Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999, p. 203.

62 Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: The Free Press, 1996, p. 112.

63 Stephen J. Ducat, The Wimp Factor, p. 76.

64 Glenn Davis, Childhood and History in America. New York: The Psychohistory Press, 1976, pp. 75, 188.

65 Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997, p. 230.

66 Richard W. Leopold and Arthur S. Link, Problems in American History. New York: McKay, 1965, p. 762.

67 Gregg Cashman, What Causes War?, p. 43; William Pfaff, The Irony of Manifest Destiny. The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy. New York: Walker & Co., 2010, p. 71.

68 Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982, p. 85.

69 Michael C. C. Adams, The Great Adventure, p. 32.

70 Maria Tatar, Lustmord: Sexual Murder in Weimar Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 182.

71 Daniel S. Geller and J. David Singer, Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 167.

72 Jim Powell, Wilson’s War. New York: Crown Forum, 2005, p. 6.

73 Ibid., p. 56.

74 Alan Kramer, Dynamic of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 85.

75 J. Semelin, Purify and Destroy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007, p. 134.

76 John Mueller, The Remnants of War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007, pp. 36-37.

77 Michael C. C. Adams, The Great Adventure, p. 115.

78 Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War. London: Basic Books, 1999, p. 178.

79 Robert W. Firestone, Suicide and the Inner Voice: Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Case Management. London: Sage Publications, 1977.

80 Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984, p. 28.

81 Nigel C. Hunt, Memory, War and Trauma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 1.

82 Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York, PublicAffairs, 2009, p. 4.

83 Ibid., p. 3; John W. Dower, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9/11/Iraq. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010, p. 246.

84 Chalmers Johnson, The Last Days of the American Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006, p. 274; James Carroll, House of War, p. 180.

85 Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Worse Than War, p. 201; Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict, p. 598.

86 The Nation, April 25, 2005, p. 21.

87 Channing Liem, The Korean War: An Unanswered Question. Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1993.

88 Joseph de Rivera, The Psychological Dimension of Foreign Policy. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1968, p. 67; John Quigley, The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 36, 39.

89 I. F. Stone, The Hidden History of the Korean War, 1950-1951: A Nonconformist History of Our Times. New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1988; Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: Penguin Press, 2004, p. 92.

90 James Carroll, House of War, p. 193.

91 Morris Berman, Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006, pp. 118, 119.

92 J. Peter Scoblic, U.S. vs. THEM: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America’s Security. New York: Viking, 2008, pp. 28, xv.

93 Lloyd deMause, “The Gentle Revolution: Childhood Origins of Soviet and East European Democratic Movements.” The Journal of Psychohistory 17(1990): 341-347.

94 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage Press, 1989, p. 390.

95 Gus Russo, Live By The Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK. Baltimore: Bancroft Press, 1998, p. 79.

96 Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. New York: Doubleday, p. 465.

97 Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010, p. 78.

98 James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.

99Ibid., p. 82.

100 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 172.

101 Ibid, p. 171; Suzanne Clark, Cold Warriors: Manliness on Trial in the Rhetoric of the West. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000, p. 56, Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. New York: HarperCollins, 2010, p. 137.

102 Gregg Cashman, What Causes War?, p. 95.

103 Nancy Gager Clinch, The Kennedy Neurosis: A Psychological Portrait of an American Dynasty. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, p. 199.

104 Aleksander Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, “One Hell of a Gamble”: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997, p. 245.

105 Dale C. Copeland, The Origins of Major War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000, pp. 198-202.

106 The New York Times, January 5, 2001, p. A17; Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 5.

107 Harris Wofford, Of Kennedys and Kings: Making Sense of the Sixties. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1980, p. 292.

108 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 8.

109 Ibid.

110 Blema Steinberg, Shame and Humiliation: Presidential Decision Making on Vietnam. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996, pp. 31, 32.

111 Charles Peters, Lyndon B. Johnson. New York: Times Books, 2010, p. 3.

112 Irwin Unger and Debi Unger, LBJ: A Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.

113 Charles Peters, Lyndon B. Johnson, p. 74.

114 Blema Steinberg, Shame and Humiliation, p. 99.

115 Michael Hutchison, The Anatomy of Sex and Power: An Investigation of Mind Body Politics. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1990, p. 44.

116 Charles Peters, Lyndon B. Johnson, p. 139.

117 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. New York: Perennial Classics, 2001, p. 476; Charles Peters, Lyndon B. Johnson, p. 95.

118 Myriam Miedzian, Boys Will Be Boys. New York: Doubleday, 1991, p. 21.

119 Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome, p. 133.

120 David R. Beisel, “The Vietnam War: A Beginning Psychohistory.” The Journal of Psychohistory 12(1985): 386; David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 336.

121 David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest. New York: Random House, 1972, p. 414.

122 Charles Peters, Lyndon B. Johnson, p. 119.

123 Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1995, p. 119.

124 Blema Steinberg, Shame and Humiliation, p. 135.

125 Norman Solomon, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005, p. 39.

126 Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1984, p. 171.

127 James Carroll, House of War, p. 355.

128 Jean Ispa, Child Care in Russia: In Transition. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey, 1994.

129 Lloyd deMause, “The Gentle Revolution: Childhood Origins of Soviet and East European Democratic Movements,” p. 345.

130 Jonathan Schell, The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2007.

131 Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Doubleday, 2007, p. 429.

132 Lawrence D. Freedman, “Frostbitten: Decoding the Cold War, 20 Years Later.“ Foreign Affairs. 89(2010): 144.

133 James Carroll, House of War, p. 421.

134 Lloyd deMause, Reagan’s America. New York: Creative Roots, 1984, p. 2; Joshua S. Goldstein, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 278.

135 Lloyd deMause, “Are You a Hero or a Wimp?” The Journal of Psychohistory 30(2003): 330-335.

136 Howard Zinn, People’s History of the United States, p. 595.

137 Donald E. Schmidt, The Folly of War: American Foreign Policy 1898-2005. New York: Algora Publishing, 2005, p. 317.

138 Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 150.

139 Ben Wattenberg, New York Post. January 17, 1991, p. 8.

140 Lloyd deMause, “Are You a Hero or a Wimp?” p. 331.

141 Ibid., p. 335.

142 Shannon D. Beebe and Mary Kaldor, The Ultimate Weapon Is No Weapon: Human Security and the New Rules of War and Peace.. New York: PublicAffairs, 2010, p. 58.

143 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 26.

144 Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam’s War Machine. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997, p. 67.

145 Morris Berman, Dark Ages America, p. 187.

146 William Pfaff, The Irony of Manifest Destiny, p. 92.

147 Lloyd deMause, “‘If I Blow Myself Up and Become a Martyr, I’ll Finally Be Loved.’” The Journal of Psychohistory 33(2006): 300.

148 Ibid., p. 341.

149 Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature. New York: New York University Press, 1997, p. 36; Nancy H. Kobrin, The Banality of Suicide Terrorism. Washington: Potomac Books, 2010, , p. xi; Lloyd deMause, “The Universality of Incest.” 158.

150 Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin, The Banality of Suicide Terrorism. Washington: Potomac Books, 2010, p. xi.

151 Lloyd deMause, “The Childhood Origins of Terrorism.” The Journal of Psychohistory 29(2002): 341, 342; Patricia Diane Raya, “Female Genital Mutilation and the Perpetuation of Multigenerational Trauma.” The Journal of Psychohistory 37(2010): 297-315.

152 Ibid., p. 343.

153 Lloyd deMause, “If I Blow Myself Up and Become a Martyr, I’ll Finally Be Loved,” pp. 300-307.

154 Walter Laqueur, No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Continuum, 2003, p. 86.

155 Lloyd deMause, “The Childhood Origins of Terrorism,” p. 346.

156 Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: Ecco, 2003, p. 221.

157 Joan Lachkar, “The Psychological Make-up of a Suicide Bomber.” The Journal of Psychohistory 29(2002): 363; Lloyd deMause, “If I Blow Myself Up and Become a Martyr, I’ll Finally Be Loved,” p. 302.

158 Jerrold M. Post, The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to al-Qaeda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 4; Tore Bjorgo, Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality and Ways Forward. London: Routledge, 2005, p. iii.

159 Bill Minutagio, First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999, p. 47.

160 D. Staub, “Texas Pastor James Robison on the Life-Changing Faith of George W. Bush.” Christianity Today, March 11, 2003; David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007, p. 131.

161 Sherwin B. Nuland, “Political Disorders: Does Executive Authority Corrupt the Mind?” Foreign Affairs 87: 148.

162 George W. Bush, MSNBC, 12/22/08 and 5/28/10.


164 WPBS-TV “Newshour.” PBS, September 10, 2003.

165 Jeffrey Record, Wanting War: Why the Bush Administration Invaded Iraq. Washington: Potomac Books, 2010, p. 4.

166 Carol Brightman, Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence. London: Verso, 2004, p. 30.

167 Matt Everett, “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11.” The Journal of Psychohistory 32(2005): 202-238; Matt Everett, “9/11: The Greatest Lie Ever Told.” The Journal of Psychohistory 38(2010):133-167.

168 Michael Haas, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Westport: Praeger, 2009.

169 Michael Scheuer, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 46.

170 Deborah Orin, “U.S. Warns Iraq: We’ll Nuke You.” New York Post, December 11, 2002.

171 Matt Everett, “Faked Provocations: Symbolic Traumas as a Pretext for War.” The Journal of Psychohistory 35(2008): 381.

172 Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Three Trillion Dollar War. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2008.

173 Geoffrey Wawro, Quicksand, p. 559.

174 J. Peter Scoblic, U.S. vs. THEM, pp. 180-181.

175 Stephen J. Ducat, The Wimp Factor. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004, p. 229.