KILLING EVIL

--part1_21.2f1206ab.2bf0455b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Does political killing in the form of war, genocide and terrorism
constitute a response to a "real danger" in the external world, or does it
grow out of an internal fantasy that is projected into the world?

In a previous post I suggested that acts of collective, societal murder (war,
genocide and terrorism) grow out of a sense of morality and are infused with
righteousness. Political destructiveness is fused with a sense of the good.
Political murder is undertaken when one believes that in order to maintain or
preserve one's nation (ideology or religion), members of another nation
(ideology or religion)--defined as bad or evil--must be destroyed.

Political murder and moral righteousness are two sides of the same coin.
One's nation is the absolute that justifies anything and everything.
Political violence constitutes mass hysteria that grows out of the effort to
kill evil in defense of the good. "Good" is defined as one's own nation. Evil
is that which is working to destroy one's nation.

John Dale poses a critical question regarding cognitive aspects of political
murder that arise out of a sense of the good:

"Is there a cognitive deficit at work here? If the emotional-moral sense of
right and wrong is not itself impaired or at fault for these types of crimes,
then what prevents the committer from correctly knowing that what he is doing
is horribly wrong? What mental circuitry or algorithm is missing that enables
people to commit horrible political crimes?"

I hypothesize that it is not so much a question of something that is
"missing;" rather political crimes can be committed insofar as they are
defined as something other than crimes. What is required is the capacity to
override or blot out one's "normal" moral sense. This occurs when all moral
norms are SUBORDINATED TO THE IDEA OF ONE'S NATION.

As an alternative to the idea of the nation as an "imagined community," one
may suggest another definition: A nation is a mental construction generating
a transvaluation of values such that killing, ordinary defined by societies
as bad, comes to be defined by society as good. A "nation" is "that for
which it is socially acceptable to die and kill."

Nazism frequently is represented as if an anomaly in civilization, a unique
and unfathomable phenomenon. The magnitude of Nazi destructiveness of course
is extraordinary and difficult to grasp. However, the LOGIC underlying the
behavior of the Nazis was not extraordinary at all.

The Jew was conceived by Hitler as the FORCE THAT WAS DESTROYING THE
GERMAN NATION. Hitler called the Jew the "demon of the disintegration of
peoples, symbol of the unceasing destruction of their life." Jews, Hitler
said, were a foe to which "we have done no harm, but who nevertheless sought
to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave." The mission of the
Nazi party was to "liberate Germany."

The ferocity of Hitler's struggle against Jews was based on the magnitude of
the danger that he perceived. The Jewish attack against nations and
civilization was leveled against the "very substance of peoples as peoples."
This attack was so embracing that it drew into the field of its action
"almost all the functions of life."

"It is only rarely," Hitler said, that the life of peoples "suffers from such
convulsions that the deepest foundations of the edifice of social order are
shaken." Now, however, nations were in the midst of a struggle that was
concerned with the question of the "maintenance or the annihilation of the
whole inherited human order of society and its civilizations."

In a famous speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler to his colleagues in 1943,
he stated that "We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do
it (exterminate the Jews), to kill this people who would kill us." Himmler
concluded his talk by asserting that the German leadership had "carried out
this most difficult task for the love of our people." Furthermore, though
killing on such a massive scale was arduous ("most of you here know what it
means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when
1,000 are lined up"), Himmler asserted that he and others in the course of
carrying out this obligation had "suffered no defect within us, in our soul,
or in our character."

There are several strategies one might pursue in analyzing political
murdering (war, genocide and terrorism). One could examine each historical
episode as if it were a discrete phenomenon in order to determine if the
class of persons that was attacked by the group was "truly evil," or if this
group was not actually evil, but only IMAGINED to be evil by those who
undertook to destroy or subdue that group.

Another strategy would be to assume that there is a fundamental PSYCHO-LOGIC
that generates political murder. If this were case, analytic efforts would
focus upon unpacking the structure of thought that leads one group to believe
that it is necessary to kill persons from another group.

What is the nature of the psycho-cultural process that allows persons to
overcome moral inhibitions in order to kill others? Political murder often
grows out of the belief that killing is necessary in order to RESCUE OR
PRESERVE A BELOVED NATION, IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION.

The fury or rage that generates societal acts of murder (war, genocide or
terrorism) occurs when certain members of a group BELIEVE THAT THEIR NATION,
IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION IS THREATENED WITH DESTRUCTION. These group leaders
claim that a particular class of persons (a diabolical, evil enemy) is
working to DESTROY OR DISSOLVE ONE'S SACRED BELIEFS.

I often ask educated non-historians to speculate on how many Jews there were
in Germany in 1933 out of a population of 66 million Germans. Typical guesses
range from 10% to 20%. The actual figure was 550,000 Jews in Germany, or .6%
(less than 1%) of the population. Most historians would say that Jews in
actuality did not constitute a threat to the German people (although those
that cling to the fantasy of rationality desperately seek to find a "real"
basis for Nazi claims about the Jews).

Nazism constitutes a paradigmatic case of nationalism. For Hitler, the
"German nation" was valued above all else. Jews constituted the "other
nation," the enemy whose continued existence represented a mortal threat to
the life of Germany. Hitler's mission or life's work was to attempt to rescue
Germany from death, to "save the nation." This took the form of waging war
against classes of persons who could cause the death of the nation. The Jew
constituted the quintessence of "evil"--that which needed to be "killed off"
if Germany was to "live on."

With regards,

Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.

--part1_21.2f1206ab.2bf0455b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>      Does political killing=20=
in the form of war, genocide and terrorism constitute a response to a "real=20=
danger" in the external world, or does it grow out of an internal fantasy th=
at is projected into the world? 
 
In a previous post I suggested that acts of collective, societal murder (war=
, genocide and terrorism) grow out of a sense of morality and are infused wi=
th righteousness.  Political destructiveness is fused with a sense of t=
he good. Political murder is undertaken when one believes that in order to m=
aintain or preserve one's nation (ideology or religion), members of another=20=
nation (ideology or religion)--defined as bad or evil--must be destroyed.<BR=
>
 
Political murder and moral righteousness are two sides of the same coin. One=
's nation is the absolute that justifies anything and everything.  Poli=
tical violence constitutes mass hysteria that grows out of the effort to kil=
l evil in defense of the good. "Good" is defined as one's own nation. Evil i=
s that which is working to destroy one's nation. 
 
John Dale poses a critical question regarding cognitive aspects of political=
murder that arise out of a sense of the good: 
 
"Is there a cognitive deficit at work here?  If the emotional-moral sen=
se of right and wrong is not itself impaired or at fault for these types of=20=
crimes, then what prevents the committer from correctly knowing that what he=
is doing is horribly wrong? What mental circuitry or algorithm is missing t=
hat enables people to commit horrible political crimes?" 
 
I hypothesize that it is not so much a question of something that is "missin=
g;" rather political crimes can be committed insofar as they are defined as=20=
something other than crimes. What is required is the capacity to override or=
blot out one's "normal" moral sense. This occurs when all moral norms are S=
UBORDINATED TO THE IDEA OF ONE'S NATION. 
 
As an alternative to the idea of the nation as an "imagined community," one=20=
may suggest another definition: A nation is a mental construction generating=
a transvaluation of values such that killing, ordinary defined by societies=
as bad, comes to be defined by society as good.  A "nation" is "that f=
or which it is socially acceptable to die and kill." 
 
Nazism frequently is represented as if an anomaly in civilization, a unique=20=
and unfathomable phenomenon. The magnitude of Nazi destructiveness of course=
is extraordinary and difficult to grasp. However, the LOGIC underlying the=20=
behavior of the Nazis was not extraordinary at all. 
 
      The Jew was conceived by Hitler as the FORCE=20=
THAT WAS DESTROYING THE GERMAN NATION. Hitler called the Jew the "demon of t=
he disintegration of peoples, symbol of the unceasing destruction of their l=
ife." Jews, Hitler said, were a foe to which "we have done no harm, but who=20=
nevertheless sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave.=
" The mission of the Nazi party was to "liberate Germany." 
 
The ferocity of Hitler's struggle against Jews was based on the magnitude of=
the danger that he perceived. The Jewish attack against nations and civiliz=
ation was leveled against the "very substance of peoples as peoples." This a=
ttack was so embracing that it drew into the field of its action "almost all=
the functions of life." 
 
"It is only rarely," Hitler said, that the life of peoples "suffers from suc=
h convulsions that the deepest foundations of the edifice of social order ar=
e shaken." Now, however, nations were in the midst of a struggle that was co=
ncerned with the question of the "maintenance or the annihilation of the who=
le inherited human order of society and its civilizations." 
 
In a famous speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler to his colleagues in 1943,=20=
he stated that "We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do=
it (exterminate the Jews), to kill this people who would kill us."  Hi=
mmler concluded his talk by asserting that the German leadership had "carrie=
d out this most difficult task for the love of our people." Furthermore, tho=
ugh killing on such a massive scale was arduous ("most of you here know what=
it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or whe=
n 1,000 are lined up"), Himmler asserted that he and others in the course of=
carrying out this obligation had "suffered no defect within us, in our soul=
, or in our character." 
 
There are several strategies one might pursue in analyzing political murderi=
ng (war, genocide and terrorism). One could examine each historical episode=20=
as if it were a discrete phenomenon in order to determine if the class of pe=
rsons that was attacked by the group was "truly evil," or if this group was=20=
not actually evil, but only IMAGINED to be evil by those who undertook to de=
stroy or subdue that group. 
 
Another strategy would be to assume that there is a fundamental PSYCHO-LOGIC=
that generates political murder. If this were case, analytic efforts would=20=
focus upon unpacking the structure of thought that leads one group to believ=
e that it is necessary to kill persons from another group. 
 
What is the nature of the psycho-cultural process that allows persons to ove=
rcome moral inhibitions in order to kill others? Political murder often grow=
s out of the belief that killing is necessary in order to RESCUE OR PRESERVE=
A BELOVED NATION, IDEOLOGY OR RELIGION. 
 
The fury or rage that generates societal acts of murder (war, genocide or te=
rrorism) occurs when certain members of a group BELIEVE THAT THEIR NATION, I=
DEOLOGY OR RELIGION IS THREATENED WITH DESTRUCTION. These group leaders clai=
m that a particular class of persons (a diabolical, evil enemy) is working t=
o DESTROY OR DISSOLVE ONE'S SACRED BELIEFS. 
 
I often ask educated non-historians to speculate on how many Jews there were=
in Germany in 1933 out of a population of 66 million Germans. Typical guess=
es range from 10% to 20%. The actual figure was 550,000 Jews in Germany, or=20=
.6% (less than 1%) of the population. Most historians would say that Jews in=
actuality did not constitute a threat to the German people (although those=20=
that cling to the fantasy of rationality desperately seek to find a "real" b=
asis for Nazi claims about the Jews). 
 
Nazism constitutes a paradigmatic case of nationalism. For Hitler, the "Germ=
an nation" was valued above all else. Jews constituted the "other nation," t=
he enemy whose continued existence represented a mortal threat to the life o=
f Germany. Hitler's mission or life's work was to attempt to rescue Germany=20=
from death, to "save the nation." This took the form of waging war against c=
lasses of persons who could cause the death of the nation. The Jew constitut=
ed the quintessence of "evil"--that which needed to be "killed off" if Germa=
ny was to "live on." 
 
With regards, 
 
Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D.</HTML>

--part1_21.2f1206ab.2bf0455b_boundary--