|The Seven Phases of Going to War|
George Modelski’s considerable research into war patterns shows conclusively that wars most often occur after periods of innovation and prosperity, synchronized with the so-called Kondratieff cycles.1 Frank Klingberg and Jack Holmes show repeating patterns over the past two centuries of what they call “extrovert” (belligerent, reactionary) and “introvert” (peaceful, progressive) moods in American foreign policy imagery.2 Joshua Goldstein show “a clear association between long economic expansion periods and the severity of major intracore wars…Fatalities were approximately four times higher during long expansion periods than during stagnation periods.”3 Thompson and Zuk found that “wars are more likely to begin near the end of an expansion.”4 Obviously, economic and social progress throughout history have triggered the pathological emotional conditions that have periodically led to war—because of what I have termed “growth panic” fears.5 With each new generation, more evolved parenting with reduced child abuse (psychogenesis)6 in a minority of the population produces new historical personalities, new “psychoclasses,” who begin to create greater economic and social progress that involves greater challenges and more independence from the values and obedience patterns of their parents. This makes the majority of society—the earlier, more authoritarian psychoclasses—fear the nation has been guilty of hubris, of sinful freedom from parental values, and this fear of growth sends them down the path to sacrificial wars.
In my book The Emotional Life of Nations, I have described the psychodynamics of growth panic in psychoanalysis and in history—what Erich Fromm calls “the fear of freedom.”7 I show how psychoanalysts like Masterson and Socarides have described the origins of all fears of growth in child abuse and neglect. They describe in their patients how they reenact their early traumas when too much progress makes them feel “annihilation anxiety”—fears that they are being abandoned by the punitive parent embedded in their brains. “If we grow, we will never be what Mommy or Daddy wants us to be, and we will never get their love.”8 As Masterson interprets to his female patient: “The function of the mother in her head was to help her deal with the feelings of being alone; by fusing with the object, she defends against being alone.”9 Entire societies also react to innovative, progressive historical phases by defending against the loss of parental approval. They move toward war through seven phases, first splitting off both the Bad Motherland and their Bad Self and projecting them into “enemies,” who are then killed, sacrificed, because they have fused with an all-powerful Killer Motherland. As each phase is reached, the group switches further into a war trance. In remaining chapters I will examine historical societies from tribes to modern nations and show how all wars follow the same seven phases; each phase involves group-fantasies that can be analyzed and interrupted by peace advocates. I will also show that although mature democracies do not war against each other, states undergoing democratization are especially prone to start wars since they confront the most emotional growth—producing what Sagan terms “the paranoid position” of developing democracies.10
In this chapter, we will describe the emotional contents of the seven phases of going to war, which are:
PHASE ONE: FREEDOM
Fig. 5-1 Schoenen, Guten Morgen, Germania
Improvements in family interactions during the Freedom Phase become particularly powerful sources of fear to earlier, more reactionary psychoclasses. As men see their wives get new divorce and voting rights, as girls get more education and more access to jobs, the new freedoms blow the mind of the older generation of men, and reactionary attempts to turn back or limit women’s freedoms begin.
Looking at charts of economic growth reveals a clear picture of how closely major wars follow upon periods of prosperity.11 The powerful economic advances of the last half of the 19th century of over 5 percent, year after year—after centuries of economic growth of under 1 percent per annum—were the real causes of the huge carnage of the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century. Prosperity and liberal reforms before WWI made the reactionary psychoclasses wonder if “no more rank, titles or race [meant] all is mixed, confused and blurred [and] the end of the world seem nigh…[with] a decline of religiosity, a disintegration of the patriarchal family, and the decline of respect for authority.”12 Women at the end of the 19th century had new rights, and husbands began to fear their wives would soon become “oversexed wives who threatened her husband’s life with her insatiable erotic demands.”13 If women were to continue to get equal rights, men would soon become women. So wars are necessary, as Machiavelli claimed, to purge nations of “effeminato…the daily accretion of poisonous matter [caused by women’s] conspiracy to ‘poison’ manhood.”14 Only in war, men agreed, could males regain their endangered masculinity.
As early as the Freedom Phase, people began voicing their feeling that “materialism” (economic progress) should be opposed. A. J. P. Taylor notes “years before the war…men’s minds had become unconsciously weary of peace and security…they welcomed war as a relief from materialism.”15 Before WWI, “there was a feeling of approaching apocalypse…The world as it is now wants to die, wants to perish, and it will.” Only a sacrificial slaughter could cure Europe of the freedoms offered by cities: “infinite opportunities, but also rootlessness and loss of social ties…factory man is neurasthenic, bored, unable to endow any experience with value.”16 Being “bored” by change and challenges meant having your real-self feelings cut off by your dissociated punitive parent alter, whose authoritarian “culture” was opposed to innovation: “City life and Gesellschaft doom the common people to decay and death…the doom of culture itself,” i.e., individualism spells the doom of your parents’ authoritarian culture. All abused children assume it was their fault they were abused: “I must have deserved it; I must have been too selfish.” As Masterson puts it succinctly: “Self-activation leads to abandonment depression and death.”17
PHASE TWO: FEAR
Fig. 5-2 Brittania Roused
The attacking inner voice and the sense of despair of nations in their Fear Phase has nothing to do with the real condition of society. As we will see in the next chapter, Germany during the later Weimar period began feeling despair because “there was no respect for authority any more” and “everyone was arguing in the legislature,” so they voted more and more for Nazis, although this was actually a period of increasing economic prosperity and freedoms. Most theories of war posit “collective stress—such as economic crises”22 as triggering political fears and wars; only my psychohistorical theory connects shared fears to new freedoms and individuations.
The Killer Mother voice inside feeds into Killer Women group-fantasy images before all wars, in magazine covers, political cartoons and cinema.23 These fears of Killer Mothers are all essentially “flashbacks” to the central fears of early childhood: being devoured, starving to death, being chopped up, drowning, overpowered, etc., all the standard contents of early nightmares that were embedded in dissociated fearful alters. (In the extremely rare cases where the father is the major early caretaker it is a Killer Father alter.) These alters “carry” the memory of early abuse. They may be ascribed to other nations, who are imagined to be “encircling us” or “strangling us,” but the deadly encirclement is in fact the inner Killer Mother alter experienced as nations switch into their dissociated memories of the dangerous mother who is imagined by the infant to be about to “devour” him. (Some chimp mothers and some human tribal mothers actually do eat their babies.)24 That these fears are paranoid goes without saying, and books on war are filled with the paranoid group-fantasies that precede wars, from the “Great Fear” before the French Revolution to the “Saddam has WMD” fantasies of the U.S. before the Iraqi War. The group-fantasies have the same delusional contents as those of paranoid schizophrenics—as one describes them: “People are trying to kill me…I am especially bad…I am a piece of shit and I deserve to die…I can destroy cities with my mind and kill children…I must hurt myself…I think I’m dissolving…a monster keeps killing me…I must kill her…There are voices and commands…One must do what they say…”25 When the wars of the 20th century are described as enormous “head-long irrepressible rushes to death and destruction,”26 the motivations are clinically psychotic.
If the inner fears are particularly paranoid, the nation has apocalyptic fantasies that the world is about to end, destroyed for its sins by God. Again, the actual condition of the nation has no relationship to the apocalyptic fantasies. America was the strongest nation on earth with the highest personal income at any time in history when President Reagan was elected, but he saw himself as “under attack by an evil force that would extinguish the light we’ve been tending for 6,000 years” and chose as his Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger who said “the world is going to end as in the Book of Revelations…by an act of God…every day I think that time is running out.”27 The specifics of each of these apocalyptic group-fantasies reveal their origin in early Killer Mother fears, as in the current series of apocalyptic Left Behind novels (62 million in print) that show the monsters of the Apocalypse will have “faces like human faces, teeth like lions’ teeth, and hair like women’s hair.”28 By my on-going analysis of thousands of political cartoons and magazine covers, I predicted the coming of the Gulf War before it started by seeing an upsurge in dangerous women and sacrificed children images in the media.29
The neurobiology of switching into dissociated fearful alters is becoming clear from new studies of “alarm centers” in the brain. Particularly revealing is the work of Helen Mayberg on “area 25” of the medial prefrontal cortex, located just above the roof of the mouth, with rich connections to the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, which she saw in her brain scans as “hot,” hyperactive, during periods of depression and fear. In fact, she put electrodes into this area and calmed down the alarm condition, and found the depression and fearfulness disappeared!30 She ascribed the hyperactivity of area 25 to “like a gate left open…allowing negative emotions [from the amygdala] to overwhelm thinking and mood. Inserting the electrodes closed this gate and rapidly alleviated the depression…” It is likely that the Fear Phase of going to war is a result of the growing hyperactivity of what Mayberg terms the “alarm center” of the brain because of the reactivation of fearful memories of punishment and abandonment by the mother. Many clinical studies have confirmed that children of depressed mothers grow up more violent than other children.31 Going to war is a defense against and re-enactment of early “alarms,” early childhood traumas, early abandonments—especially those embedded in the first three years of life.32
Fig. 5-3 Marianne and Germania
Any rationalization for the fission makes sense to people entering into the fission trance. As one observer of the Serbian-Croatian civil war notes: “I’m trying to figure out why neighbors should start killing each other. So I say I can’t tell Serbs and Croats apart. ‘What makes you think you’re so different?’ The man I’m talking to takes a cigarette pack out of his khaki jacket. ‘See this. These are Serbian cigarettes. Over there they smoke Croatian cigarettes.’ “But they’re both cigarettes, right?’ ‘You foreigners don’t understand anything.’ He shrugs and begins cleaning his Zastovo machine pistol….The two planes of consciousness—the political and the personal—just can’t confront each other. So they float around in his head.”33 They often occur more on opposite sides of the brain, the left one more rational, the right one containing the dissociated fears that split people into in-groups and out-groups, so-called “imagined communities.”34 The in-group is a place—a tribe, state or nation—where you store the grandiose fantasies of childhood, a place where you can re-experience the traumas and dominations and defenses of your formative period. The out-group is imagined to contain projected fears that were embedded in childhood in violent perpetrator alters: out-groups are “beasts” who will “devour us,” they “encircle us,” they have a “need to dominate us,” and so on. Out-groups are usually called names that are the same as the names parents called their children when they were resented, when they were “bad.” Abused and neglected children have been found clinically to be especially liable to externalizing their problems.35 Those who received constant love as children and were allowed to individuate do not need in-group and out-group splitting.
Since all the “Bad Mommy” traits are now contained in the polluted “enemy,” the in-group is felt to be “purified” by the fission process, and nations suddenly feel “cleansed.” I have previously described in detail how nations conduct “Purity Crusades” as they plan to go to war, closing down brothels, regulating dance halls, prohibiting obscene literature, opposing feminism, etc.36 The persecutors are products of loveless families; those they choose to persecute are the more loving psychoclasses. Persecutors are usually reactionary politically and look for an authoritarian leader who can be a container for their cleansing group-fantasies, a delegate for their punitive inner alter, the Killer Mother, the dissociated perpetrator alter in the brain that Maccoby calls the “Sacred Executioner.”37 Terror management theorists have shown experimentally that “reminders of death led to increased preference for charismatic political candidates.”38 War leaders “revel in victory and gore [like] Theodore Roosevelt [who] never felt more alive than when killing something.”39 Studies of the language used by hard-line political leaders show that those who scored highest in interpersonal dominance more often advocated the use of military force.40 War leaders were almost always raised by dominating mothers who used shame regularly to control their children.41 The war leader is himself a narcissistic, authoritarian, grandiose personality without empathy, who while he tries to restore his failed masculinity allows the populace under him to enjoy what Masterson terms “closet narcissism,”42 so that the nation feels “ecstasy” as “chosen ones” who are so strong they cannot be defeated. Nations going to war usually delegate decisions to dictators; even democracies like Britain suspend elections during wars.43 This authoritarianism soon leads to what Dominic Johnson calls “delusional overconfidence” in planning which nation to attack.44 Most wars begin with a self-destructive manic overconfidence, like Germany stating that World War I would just be a “short, cleansing thunderstorm.”45 As war experts show in great detail, “Excessive military optimism is frequently associated with the outbreak of war…undertaken with each side believing that it would win [since] God is on our side.”46
Usually the “dirty enemy” who must be cleansed includes parts of their own Motherland—whether the Jews in Germany who were “poisoning our blood” or the foreigners “contaminating” Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge cleansing or the “traitors” within nations when “patriots” move toward violence. Both Hitler and Pol Pot were “obsessed with ridding corporate and individual bodies of impurities, contaminants, filth,”47 reenacting their parents’ disgust with them as “dirty babies” that needed cleansing. Even though the nation knows the cleansing will be self-destructive, the fission process results in enormous relief, since it shows that the enemy is real and not just imagined. Designating “the enemy” always shows evidence of revenge toward the mother. Women are regularly tortured and killed in wars despite their innocence, from the Rape of Nanking to the torture, rape and twisting of women’s nipples with pliers by Ethiopian soldiers.48 There is a surge of not only opiates but also of adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin, as the dangerous maternal alter is put “out there.” What Volkan calls chosen glories are mythologized as collective victories and chosen traumas are imagined to be former injustices and humiliations that need to be revenged.49 The coming war is experienced as a “dreamlike, serene” manic high. As young Winston Churchill observed, war was always “exhilarating” to the nation and its warriors, felt to be “ecstatic” in the same sense as the original meaning of the term—namely, a state of being outside the self,”50 absorbed in the greater whole, fused into the maternal body. Ehrenreich shows that warriors of all kinds overcome any empathy toward “enemies” by being “swept up into a kind of ‘altered state’… Almost any drug or intoxicant has served to facilitate the transformation of man into warrior”51 and transforming entire nations into warrior states.
The fission process produces violence whenever groups switch into their dominating and subservient alters, even when there is no rational justification for enmity. This is the finding of the famous experiment of Philip Zimbardo, who randomly assigned college-age men to roles as prisoners or guards in the basement of a university building. The guards quickly developed tyrannical and abusive strategies for controlling their prisoners, forgetting that it was an experiment. They obviously switched into their violent early alters, turned off their empathy mirror neurons in their insulas and anterior cingulates and acted out their childhood traumas, just as warriors and terrorists do.52 The same switching can be seen in the much-cited experiment of Stanley Milgram, where volunteers followed “university experimenters” who inflicted seemingly harmful damage upon victims when asked to do so. The only time the experimenters refused to obey was when the university arranged an acting out of a group rebellion, breaking the alter-switching fission process.53 The experiment didn’t prove “obedience” as is usually claimed; if they had asked them to reach into their pockets and give others money rather than shocks, they would not have “obeyed.” Inner alters are always harmful, never beneficent.
PHASE FOUR: FUSION
Fig. 5-4 Hitler and Germania
this fused state, claiming “Motherland in danger!”55 The nation fantasies it will lose its Motherland if it does not rescue her, even when there is no external enemy. Nations march off to war as heroes, “losing ourselves in ecstasy because we are conscious of a power outside us with which we can merge.”56 Warriors are the “favorites” of their Motherland, her “heroes,” as they always wished they could have been with their real mothers. Those who die in wars are said to “die peacefully. He who has a Motherland dies in comfort…in her, like a baby falling asleep.”57
War Leaders are exactly like tribal shamans who cure group despair by exorcising bad spirits through healing sacrifices. Leaders can be disobeyed whenever they do not interpret and carry out the group-fantasy of the internal fearful alter. They must make real the growing paranoia of the nation, saying “Let me help you by naming your persecutors…evil is out there, in the real world. And you thought it was all in your head!”58 The war leader is an expert in switching into his abusive parental alter, his war trance. Mussolini once told a visitor that “he is subject to periods of trance at which time he is inspired by influences outside his ordinary self.”59 The war trance has the same psychodynamics as the possession trance of tribal cultures; both are results of being taken over by dissociated inner perpetrator alters. Tribal warriors often eat the inner organs of their enemies; Cambodian fighters have been photographed smiling as they eat the livers of their enemies.60 Both are fused with the cruel nightmares implanted as inner alters in childhood. Because they killed as dissociated alters, psychiatrists can describe them as “normal…They could be you.”61
Only those who are fused with their inner violent perpetrator alters, “obeying the inner voice of the purified community,” are able to join in the worship of flags, parades and other group-fantasies.62 Volkan terms this fusion group-fantasy “blind trust.”63 Those fused with their Killer Motherlands are clinically paranoid, produce inner Terror campaigns in their in-group, and call all those who disagree with them “traitors.”64 War leaders are regularly abandoned by their parents as children; one study of British prime ministers discovered that over two-thirds of them had been orphaned in childhood, compared to about two percent of the general population.65 Fusion with the abandoning mother as a defense against the collapse of the self can be seen in the Hitchcock film “Psycho,” where Norman fuses with and dresses up like his Killer Mother and carries out terrorizing and killing people as if he were Her. Saying that Motherlands and war leaders are “loved” is quite inaccurate. People worship their Motherlands and war leaders, which reveals not love but unfulfilled infant needs. Fusion is needed as a defense against being abandoned (again). People “defend the honor of the Motherland” and “revenge insults to Her reputation” as defenses to avoid remembering their own rage against their rejecting, abandoning mothers.66 Going to war because you are fused with your Motherland is the opposite from defending your group out of empathy; it is a defensive need, a need to relive the dominations of your childhood. Warrior cultures value martyrdom—self-sacrifice, not self interest. To say that domination and power are the secrets of success in international relations is a delusion that began in families by abused children needing to restore their hope that they still have a Powerful Mother who will take care of them.67 And when Motherlands begin compulsive wars, war leaders regularly admit, like Churchill in 1914 (Churchill was regularly abandoned by his parents in infancy and later): “Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?” And, during the war, he admitted: “I love this war. I know it’s smashing & shattering lives of thousands every moment—& yet—I enjoy every second of it.”68 Tocqueville puts the need for violence when fused with your in-group bluntly: “We have such a passionate taste for war that there is no enterprise so reckless or dangerous to the state but it is thought glorious to die for it with arms in one’s hands.”69
Neurobiologically, the Fusion Phase involves the same attenuation of death anxieties as when religious people experience God’s presence, which is also preceded by the fear of being killed. Persinger shows that both are “temporal lobe transients,” similar to the seizures of temporal lobe epileptics, and they can be easily recognized by their brain patterns that include “a release of the brain’s own opiates causing a narcotic high…these opiates are found within the amygdala.”70 Both patriotic highs and God highs represent fusion events, “revitalization movements…solutions to the anxiety generated by novelty, uncertainty and complexity.”71 The “voice of God” and the “voice of the Motherland” that are experienced in revitalization movements both come, says Persinger, from the release of “images and protosensations long locked within the old contexts of the temporal lobe [amygdala] of the infant self to which he or she has not had access for decades.”72 The most obvious of these revitalization movements is, of course, the millennialism that breaks before so many wars, a world-ending group-fantasy promising fusion with the Deity as a reward for the cleansing of sin.73
Fig. 5-5 “A crippled idiot. Bound forever to his bed.”
PHASE FIVE: FRACTURE
In order for the good child self to be loved, the bad child must die. That is why there are so many early societies like Carthage where tens of thousands of jars have been found with charred bones of sacrificed children and inscriptions saying they had been killed by their parents to cleanse the world of their sinfulness.74 Once the Bad Self is fractured off and projected into an “enemy”—located either inside or outside the society—empathy is entirely lost because the punitive parental alter in the amygdala cuts off all contact with the mirror neurons in the insula and anterior cingulate.
The poster above illustrates this projection of the Bad Self dramatically. It shows a Nazi view of “A crippled idiot. Bound forever to his bed,” which, in the 1930s, rather than eliciting sympathy from other Germans instead was intended to incite disgust at helpless German children who contributed nothing to the Volk and who were in fact murdered by the thousands with approval of their parents. As we will see in the next chapter, the gassing of “useless eaters”—a phrase often used by German parents for their own children—actually preceded the gassing of Jews and others in the Holocaust.
Epithets that enemies are called invariably repeat epithets that originally were used by parents for their children. Usually it is obvious, since it is the intent of the war leader to act out the violent parental alters of the people, as when Wilson called Latin Americans “naughty children who are exercising all the privileges and rights of grown-ups and require a stiff hand, an authoritative hand.”75 Or enemies are shown to be just greedy babies, as when the Bush representative told Larry King “You can’t sit down and talk to North Koreans—they’ll want cookies, then more cookies, always more cookies.” Or when George W. Bush himself regularly repeats the injunction “You’ve got to hit them hard to teach them a lesson! They only respect force!”—a phrase that was used on him by his mother. Ehrenreich details admirably how nations regularly go to war against enemies who are children who must be “taught a lesson.”76 Often enemies are even called “dirty” or “they stink,” as though they are babies left by mothers in their excrement. When an American soldier kills a North Vietnamese soldier and “balances a large piece of shit on his head,” he says he laughed77—the real reason being because he had killed his shitty “Bad Baby Self.” Americans regularly refer to the need to “get the Bad Guys” as if enemies were playground bullies or “we’ll get those little bastards” as if they were illegitimate children. War itself is filled with references to children’s games, like “dominoes falling,” “the checkerboard of war” or “the iron dice about to be rolled.” The clinical term for all these returns to dissociated childhood alters is “flashbacks.” The enemy is always the helpless victim self, the “bad child,” and when Nazis or Tutsis smash babies’ heads against walls they are doing so fused with the Killer Mothers of their early nightmares. Killing babies is certainly not a contribution to the winning of wars, but it always occurs because it is your own “Bad Baby Self” who you blame for your losing your mother’s love, who she screamed at when furious with her life, “I wish I never had you!” Humiliation by the parent is always repeated toward the out-groups, so that humiliation and counter-humiliation become the central tasks of international affairs.78
The creation of the “Bad Self enemy” is purely a group-fantasy, and often is created out of whole cloth. “In the Soviet Union, so-called kulaks were killed without guilt, despite the fact that before the revolution “we were just neighbors…Now we are bedniaki, seredniaki, kulaks and we are supposed to have class war…One against the other, you understand?” The same thing happened in Cambodia where “anyone with an education [became] subhuman ‘new people.’”79 Finding an “enemy” to kill carries out the paranoid position begun when fusing with the Killer Motherland.
Unfortunately, the projection of the childhood Bad Self into an “enemy” who is either inside your own nation or is in a neighboring nation does not rid one of the problem. Since national growth and progress continue, the Motherland alter voice continues to hate the Bad Self alter, and even peaceful minorities and neighbors seem to be growing more and more threatening. Thus Germany started two World Wars with their more peaceful neighbors because they fantasized that Germany had to strike first, saying “the future belongs to Russia which grows and grows and becomes an even greater nightmare to us.”80 This is the essence of paranoia in international affairs, Germans agreeing that “If Germany does not rule the world, it will disappear from the map.”81 All major wars since antiquity have been imagined to be “preventive”—“We must kill them before they overpower us.” As France said when they attacked Austria during the French Revolution, “time only improves their position and makes ours deteriorate [so we must] make the stormcloud burst instead of letting it grow.”82
Because of the steady growth of the Bad Self projected into the enemy, it is a main task of a war leader to find a war-willing neighbor and invent a “Faked Provocation” for beginning the war in order to get their people to agree to eliminate them. Internal enemies are rather easy to find and invent threats from—even the most bizarre accusations are believed when the internal enemy is said to be an out-group, as when Jews were believed to be “lice that are poisoning German bloodstream” or when Tutsis were believed to be “cockroaches” killing Hutus. But the idea that nations regularly use faked provocations of other nations as war pretext incidents—as cassus belli—is less often admitted by international affairs experts.
PHASE SIX: FAKED PROVOCATION
Fig. 5-6 Sadaam with gagged boy
education, the American media kept picturing him as a child abuser and baby killer, with U.S.-faked incidents like one where babies were supposedly being removed by Iraqis from their incubators and murdered.83 Initially, President Bush told his representative to tell Saddam: “We have no opinion on…your border disagreement with Kuwait” in order to give him a “green light” to invade.84 The entire war was a set-up because the U.S. needed a war to feel masculine (Bush was being shown in cartoons as a “wimp” who wore women’s dresses), and when Saddam said he would pull his troops out of Kuwait himself, the U.S. ignored him, Bush saying to his diplomats simply: “We have to have a war.”85
U.S. faked provocations have occurred in some form in every war it has entered,86 so that—as one psychiatrist puts it—“our paranoia switch is tripped.”87 The Mexican-American War was started by President Polk announcing he was about to declare war on Mexico even if they did not attack the U.S., then sending 3,500 American soldiers into Mexican territory so they could be accused of shedding American blood.88 The American Civil War began after the south was tricked into firing on Ft. Sumter.89 The Spanish-American War began when an interior explosion of the U.S.S. Maine caused by coal dust was claimed by U.S. authorities and a belligerent media as reason for war.90 The U.S. got into World War I supposedly because the British ship the Lusitania was sunk with Americans on board when it purposely was sent “at a considerably reduced speed into an area where a German U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts withdrawn,”91 thus carrying out Theodore Roosevelt’s earlier wish that “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”92
Even World War II was started, according to the very well documented book by Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, after President Franklin Roosevelt had set up a secret team assigned the task of getting Japan to attack the U.S. As Secretary of War Stimson wrote, “The question was: how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot.” The answer was by such provocations as sending U.S. submarines into Japanese waters, embargoing trade with Japan so they would run out of oil, putting the U.S. fleet into Pearl Harbor undefended, and not telling the Pearl Harbor commander that Japanese planes were on their way because FDR’s team had broken the Japanese secret code.93
The Korean War came about because Truman needed a war with a communist nation, and encouraged the U.S.-backed South Koreans to conduct over 400 border battles and military incursions into the north. Then John Foster Dulles promised Korean President Syngman Rhee “if he was ready to attack the communist North, the U.S. would lend help, through the U.N. [if he] persuaded the world that the ROK was attacked first.”94 This eventually provoked North Korean military into South Korean territory. The provocations continued when Truman permitted General MacArthur to “go north” toward the Chinese border despite Chinese warnings that they would respond militarily, producing a new war with China, resulting in an additional two million deaths.95
The Cold War continued in the Cuban provocations of the Soviets by John F. Kennedy. After making all kinds of plans for faking an attack by Cuba on U.S. citizens, after arranging the Bay of Pigs invasion over the objections of his military advisers that it would fail, after authorizing various assassination attempts of Castro, JFK sent 40,000 American troops to the Bahamas to begin practicing invading Cuba, which led Khrushchev to say: “An attack on Cuba is being prepared. And the only way to save Cuba is to put missiles there.”96 JFK concluded that “If Khrushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it’s all over” and led a showdown with the Soviets that put American bombers armed with 1,300 nuclear bombs in the air ready to bomb Russia and start World War III.97 Americans were deep into their war trance too; although 60 percent of them thought Kennedy’s actions might lead to a nuclear WWIII—only 4 percent of them opposed the nuclear showdown.98
The Vietnam War was begun with a traditional faked provocation, when the U.S. send a destroyer into the Tonkin Gulf of Vietnam “primarily for provocation,”99 and then President Johnson lied and said it was attacked “in neutral waters,” when actually U.S. overhead patrol plans reported to him that there were no Vietnamese PT boats anywhere near the ship. LBJ thereby easily got his authorization from Congress to begin the war.100 And, of course, the Iraqi War was full of faked “evidence” on weapons of mass destruction and Saddam-Bin Laden contacts that were used to justify America’s attack on a sovereign nation. The invasion of Iraq will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter. Plus, there has recently been one extremely important provocation that the media has simply overlooked: Bush’s announcing in his National Security Strategy report that the U.S. would now for the first time allow themselves to make “first-strike” nuclear attacks against non-nuclear nations—a policy certain to cause many smaller nations to develop nuclear weapons in order to be able to show that they can strike back if attacked with a nuke.101 Nothing could be more provocative for future wars than announcing a “first-strike” nuclear policy. Bush has stated several times that this new pre-emptive nuclear war policy was needed “to rid the world of evil.”
PHASE SEVEN: FIGHT
Fig. 5-7 Sumerian War Goddess Innana
In tribal wars, culture heroes are openly shown as “good children who do what their mothers want them to do: renew Her.102 In modern state wars, the aim is the same. As Paoli explained, “We have laid ourselves over the body of the motherland [Britannia] in order to revive her…I hope that she will soon recover entirely her vigour and her health.” Plutarch recounts a typical Greek mother as she was burying her son saying she had “good luck [for] I bore him that he might die for Sparta.”103 And soldiers in every century write home to their mothers letters like this one: “Darling Mama, I had always prayed to show my love by doing something famous for you, to justify what you called me when I got back from France, ‘my hero son.’”104 To show that they go to war fused with their mothers, warriors even wear symbols of her in wars—her feathers on their helmets, goddess pictures on their shields, swastikas (vaginal symbols) on their uniforms—and regularly display flags (maternal dresses, placental symbols)105 in their battles. Heroes are never ones who reduce violence. Heroes kill—kill innocent others and kill themselves, setting off their inner time bombs embedded in childhood—and thereby become “a martyr beloved by God [Killer Mother].” Partridge observed the mood of war as “one of ecstasy…heroism, taking part in great events or of victory…the sense of self-loss…of merger into some greater whole.”106 Dopamine is released; fantasies of grandiosity soar; nations dance in the streets. Bloody slaughter is often experienced as joyful: “As he watched pieces of men’s bodies fly up into the air…he wept with joy…like getting screwed the first time.”107 Furthermore, as Chris Hedges’ book title puts it, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,108 since those who did not receive love in childhood can develop no inner self that gives them meaning, and so as adults must fuse with their Killer Motherlands to achieve meaning.
Warriors are made by switching civilians into their early alters in basic training so they repeat the confrontations and fears between their fearsome mother and her helpless child. As one NCO explains: “I try to make soldiers of them. I give them hell from morning to sunset. They begin to curse me…Then they begin to curse together; and become a truly cohesive group—a fighting unit.”109 Everything is done “to take down your pride, make you feel small,”110 and to re-experience the death fears of early childhood that are embedded in your alter. As one military academy put it: “This is the place where you will learn how to die.”111 It is not easy to fully switch into these deadly early alters. Many soldiers do not succeed in switching into being killing warriors, since they received enough love in childhood to avoid having real killing alters. In the infantry in WWII, “only about one-seventh of the soldiers were willing to use their weapons” to kill, although “by the Vietnam War, with further modifications to the training, around 80 percent of American soldiers were shooting to kill.”112 Warriors often recognize that they have switched into alternative personalities in wars. As one American soldier put it, “No man in battle is really sane. The mindset of a soldier on the battlefield is a highly disturbed mind and this is an epidemic of insanity which affects everybody.”113 Another one described how he killed in a dissociated state: “I enjoyed the killing of the Viet Cong [it was like] watching myself in a movie. One part of me was doing something while the other part watched from a distance, shocked by the things it saw, yet powerless to stop them from happening.”114 Soldiers in combat often switch out of their violent alters often in “lightning emotional changes [that cause them to] act like lions and then like scared hares within the passage of a few minutes.”115 Killing takes its toll physically: a study of U.S. soldiers found they report “a violent pounding of the heart, shaking or trembling all over…over a quarter said they had vomited, and 21 percent said they had lost control of their bowels.”116 Over a third of U.S. military returning from Iraq show evidence of clinical Post Traumatic Distress Syndrome. But war is deemed worth it. “It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble…gives us purpose, meaning, a reasons for living…gives a sense that we can rise above our smallness…”117 Literally, another self, an alternative “smallness” personality, fused with the Killer Motherland, loved at last.
The alternate self of the warrior draws upon the same neurobiological states of mind as pre-psychotic and autistic children access, both conditions resulting from early amygdalan, prefrontal cortex and insula damage.118 Both autistics and military groups demonstrate the failure of autonomy. This can be seen concretely in all the odd actions that the military demonstrates that are similar to autistics. Autistics walk about with arched backs and stiff legs and arms, and so do soldiers (called marching). Autistics flap their arms and hit their heads and so do soldiers (saluting).119 Autistics avoid eye contact and don’t recognize you as they pass you, and neither do marching soldiers.120 Autistics don’t talk (troops in formation), love repetitive exercise (endless marching), retreat into their autistic shells to ward off expected attack (military armor), and are “fascinated by mechanical moving parts” (military vehicles).121 Autistics and troops march about to drums (like the shaman’s drum made of the Cosmic Tree of Heaven that induces trance) and wear costumes with metal ornaments (like shaman’s costume).122 All of these rituals explain why the military are called “infantry”—they feel infantile, like infants fearing death. They put themselves into their infantile war trance alters.
Why do nations go to war? Not because wars achieve any utilitarian return. The more than a trillion dollars a year the world now spends on their military is totally sacrificial, self-destructive. Nations say they go to war for emotional reasons, like “war is the greatest purifier to the race or nation” that can be achieved.123 Self-destructive wars are “purifying” because they can drown out all those terrible inner alters embedded in childhood. Behind the defensive group-fantasy need for purification is the accusation of dirtiness and badness: Mommy calls me a “stinky baby,” leaves me in my feces and urine, hates me for “making a mess,” for “being a mess.” I am even now bad, filthy, but I can be purified by war. I can “die young, clean, pure, fresh.”124 I can die as a “martyr to my Motherland,” and then I will be loved by Mommy instead of being hated. Becoming a warrior means not needing to live in despair; warriors control death, “choosing who lives and who dies because they pull the trigger.”125 All my early nightmares of death that still are in my head can be faced in reality, “outside my head,” in war, and I can then be sent back to join Mommy—dead, in a casket wrapped in Her dress, Her “living flag”—and I will finally be loved by Her, buried in Her bosom, forever.
1 George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987.
2 Frank Klingberg, Cyclical Trends in American Foreign Policy Moods: The Unfolding of America’s World Role. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983; Jack E. Holmes, The Mood/Interest Theory of American Foreign Policy. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985; William R. Thompson, On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988, p. 94; Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Karnac, 2002, p. 160.
3 Terry Boswell, et al, “War in the Core of the World-System: Testing the Goldstein Thesis.” In Robert K. Schaeffer, Ed., War in the World-System. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989, p. 10.
4 Ibid., p. 13.
5 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 94-96.
6Ibid., pp. 242-254.
7 Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom. 2nd Ed. London: Routledge, 2001.
8 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 95.
9 James F. Masterson, The Emerging Self: A Developmental, Self, and Object Relations Approach to the Treatment of the Closet Narcissistic Disorder of the Self. New York: Bunner/Mazel, 1993, p. 92.
10 Eli Sagan, The Honey and the Hemlock: Democracy and Paranoia in Ancient Athens and Modern America. New York: BasicBooks, 1991, pp. 13-34.
11 Frank H. Denton and Warren Phillips, “Some Patterns in the History of Violence.” Conflict Resolution 12(1968): 193; William R. Thompson, On Global War.
12 Edward Ross Dickinson, The Politics of German Child Welfare from the Empire to the Federal Republic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 39.
13 Elaine Showalter, Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siecle. London: Penguin Books, 1991, p. 180.
14 Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Fortune Is a Woman: Gender and Politics in the Thought of Niccolo Machiavelli. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 25, 274.
15 Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914. Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1982, p. 181.
16 Ibid., p. 92.
17 James F. Masterson, The Emerging Self: A Developmental, Self, and Object Relations Approach to the Treatment of the Closet Narcissistic Disorder of the Self, p. 116.
18 Ibid., p. 101.
19 Ibid., p. 168.
20 Ibid., p. 90. For a description of how Freud’s theory of the fear of the father moved to a later psychoanalytic theory of the earlier fear of the mother, see The Psychoanalytic Stuyd of the Child. Vol. 62. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007. The key case study was that of “Little Hans,” whose rejecting, abandoning, battering mother threatened to have Hans’ penis cut off by a doctor, p. 24.
21 Ibid., p. 156.
22 Vamik Volkan, Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror. Charlottesville: Pitchstone Publishing, 2004, p. 37.
23 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 53-57; Hilary Neroni, The Violent Woman: Femininity, Narrative, and Violence in Contemporary American Cinema. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
24 Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. New York: Pantheon Books, 199, p. 110; Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 261.
25 Eln R. Saks, The Center Cannot Hold. New York: Hyperion, 2007, pp. 3, 12, 29, 61, 85, 98, 99, 119.
26 Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007, p. 6.
27 Ronnie Dugger, On Reagan. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1983, p. 405.
28 Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press, 2006, p. 186.
29 Lloyd deMause, “The Gulf War as a Mental Disorder.” The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 1-22. For “dangerous women group-fantasies,” see Chapter 4 of Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 53-57.
30 “Turning Off Depression.” Scientific American Mind, August/September 2006, pp. 26-31.
31 David F. Hay et al, “Pathways to Violence in the Children of Mothers Who Were Depressed Postpartum.” Developmental Psychology 39(2003): 1083-1094; Marian Radke-Yarrow, Children of Depressed Mothers: From Early Childhood to Maturity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
32 T. J. Gaensbauer, “Trauma in the Preverbal Period, Symptoms, Memories and Developmental Impact.” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 50: 122-149.
33 Michael Ignatieff, “Nationalism and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” In Ronald Beiner, Ed., Theorizing Nationalism. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 91.
34 David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007, p. 163.
35 Dorith Harari, et al, “Attachment, Disorganization, and Dissociation.” In eric Vermetten, Ed., Traumatic Dissociation: Neurobiology and Treatment. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2007, p. 36.
36 Lloyd deMause, “American Purity Crusades.” The Journal of Psychohistory 14 (1987): 346-347.
37 Hyam Maccoby, The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1982.
38 Bassett, Jonathan F. “Psychological Defenses Against Death Anxiety: Integrating Terror Management Theory and Firestone’s Separation Theory.” Death Studies 31(2007): 744.
39 George Wills, “Gory Teddy.” Saturday Review, June, 1981, p. 49.
40 John A. Vasquez, The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 206.
41 Doug Wead, The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation’s Leaders. New York: Atria Books, 2005, p. 17.
42 James F. Masterson, The Emerging Self: A Developmental, Self, and Object Relations Approach to the Treatment of the Closet Narcissistic Disorder of the Self.
43 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981, p. 27.
44 Dominic D. P. Johnson, Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004; also see “False Optimism” chapter of Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999, pp. 14-33.
45 Fritz Fischer, War of Illusions: German Policies From 1911 to 1914. London: Chatto and Windus, 1975, p. 462.
46 Dominic D. P. Johnson, Overconfidence and War, pp. 3, 23.
47 Bruce W. Wilshire, Get ‘em All! Kill ‘em!: Genocide, Terrorism, Righteous Communities. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005, p. xxiii.
48 “In Ethiopian Desert, Fear and Cries of Army Brutality.” The New York Times, June 18, 2007, p. 1.
49 Vamik Volkan, Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts. Pitchstone Publishing, 2006.
50 Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End. Second Rev. Ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005, p. 9.
51 Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War. New York; Henry Holt and Co., 1997, p. 11.
52 Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect; Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House, 2007.
53 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 108-109.
54 Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites, p. 16.
55 Daniel Pick, War Machine: The Rationalisation of Slaughter in the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993, p. 161.
56 Sue Mansfield, The Gestalts of War: An Inquiry Into Its Origins and Meanings as a Social Institution. New York: The Dial Press, 1982, p. 161.
57 Daniel Rancour-Laferriere, The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering. New York: New York University Press, 1995, p. 226.
58 Robert S. Robins and Jerrold M. Post, Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997, p. 98.
59 J. Kenneth Brody, The Avoidable War: Pierre Laval & the Politics of Reality 1935-1936. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 69.
60 David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War, p. 2.
61 Ibid., p. 4.
62 Anthony D. Smith, National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1991, p. 77.
63 Vamik Volkan, Blind Trust, p. 67.
64 Eli Sagan, Citizens & Cannibals: The French Revolution, The Struggle for Modernity, and the Origins of Ideological Terror. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 91.
65 Micha Popper, Hypnotic Leadership: Leaders, Followers, and the Loss of Self. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001, p. 26.
66 Barry O’Neill, Honor, Symbols, and War. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001, p. 89.
67 Arno Gruen, The Insanity of Normality: Toward Understanding Human Destructiveness. Berkeley, Calif.: Human Development Books, p. 6.
68 M. Pottle, Ed., Champion Redoubtable. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998, p. 25.
69 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1969, p. 194.
70 Michael A. Persinger, Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs. New York: Praeger, 1987, p. 31.
71 Ibid., p. 3.
72 Ibid., p. 39.
73 Catherine Wessinger, Ed., Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000.
74 Lloyd deMause, “The History of Child Assault.” The Journal of Psychohistory 18(1990): 16-18.
75 Ralph H. Gabriel, Main Currents in American History. New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1942, p. 47.
76 Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites, p. 138.
77 Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing: Face-to-Face Killing in Twentieth-Century Warfare. New York: Basic Books, 1999, p. 3.
78 Evelin Gerda Lindner, Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict. Westport, Ct: Praeger Security International, 2006.
79 Benjamin A. Valentino, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004, p. 19.
80 Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War, p. 214.
81 Ibid., p. 203.
82 Ibid., p. 76.
83 Richard Knightly, The First Casualty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2004, p. 487.
84 Lloyd deMause, “The Gulf War as a Mental Disorder.” The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991):13.
85 Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 150.
86 Robert McFarland, “Provoking War: An American Repetition Compulsion.” The Journal of Psychohistory 35(2007):25-30; Richard Sanders, “How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents (1848-1989).” <www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start-A-WarMay02.htm>
87 Martha Stout, The Paranoia Switch: How Terror Rewires Our Brains and Reshapes Our Behavior—and How We Can Reclaim Our Courage. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
88 Eric Alterman, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, p. 16.
89 Robert Hendrickson, Sumter, The First Day of the Civil War. Chelsea, Mich., Scarborough House, 1990.
90 Hyman G. Rickover, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. Washington: Dept. of the Navy, Naval History Division, 1976, pp. 94-106.
91 Richard Sanders, “How to Start a War,” p. 5.
92 Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997, p. 230.
93 Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York: The Free Press, 1999.
94 Channing Liem, The Korean War: An Unanswered Question. Pyongyang, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1993.
95 Dominic D. P. Johnson, Overconfidence and War, p. 33.
96 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 172.
97 Ibid., p. 173.
98 Harris Wofford, Of Kennedys and Kings: Making Sense of the Sixties. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1980, p. 292.
99 Eric Alterman, When Presidents Lie, p. 211.
100 John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War. Fourth Ed., New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985, pp. 100-101.
101 Al Gore, The Assault on Reason. New York: Penguin Books, 2007, p. 170.
102 Sue Mansfield, The Gestalts of War, p. 62.
103 Plutarch, Moralia Vol. 3. London: W. Heinemann, 1976, p. 25.
104 Victor Goertzel and Mildred George Goertzel, Cradles of Eminence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1962, p. 229.
105 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 79-80.
106 Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites, p. 14.
107 David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal, p. 214.
108 Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Public Affairs, 2002.
109 Gwynne Dyer, War: The Lethal Custom.. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2004, p. 32.
110 Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing, p. 68.
111 Emilio Willems, A Way of Life and Death. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1986, p. 78.
112 Gwynne Dyer, War: The Lethal Custom, pp. 58, 61.
113 Ibid., p. 103.
114 David Livingstone Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal, p. 159.
115 Gywnne Dyer, War: The Lethal Custom, p. 27.
116 Ibid., p. 21.
117 Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, pp. 3, 7.
118 Kevin Pephrey et al, “Neuroanatomical Subsrates of Social Cognition Dysfunction in Autism.” Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 10(2005): 259-271; David Dobbs, “A Revealing Reflection.” Scientific American Mind April/May 2006, p. 26.
119 Louis Cozolino, The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006, p. 213.
120 Stephen Briggs, “Observing When Infants Are at Potential Risk.” In Susan Reid, Ed., Developments in Infant Observation: The Tavistock Model. London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 213-216, 220.
121 Frances Tustin, Autistic Barriers in Neurotic Patients. London: Karnac Books, 1986, p. 68.
122 Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Arkana: Penguin Books, 2064, p. 149.
123 Michael C. C. Adams, The Great Adventure: Male Desire and the Coming of World War I. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, p. 84.
124 Ibid., 84.
125 Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing, p. 38.