The Physchology of War

A Reason To Make War

The threat of war almost always develops from the desire of one individual to subjugate others to his will. The actual enactment of war almost always comes about because others see a profit in it, or they are threatened with a loss of profit if they do not make war. Politics, religion, and moral causes really have no bearing on the reason for war, but they do play a part as propaganda devices to convince a populace that they should support a war. While group action is necessary to accomplish the war, it is always one individual who gathers the focus of power and initiates the action. Even if the desire originates from a group or faction that desires dominance, that group has a single leader. Even when the apparent focal point is simply a stooge, the power behind him has a focus. The "like pole" exclusion principle allows only one actual leader, since more than one would cause the group to fission into two or more groups—to break up, in other words.

The Means To Make War

In addition to a focal point for dominance (read, leader), war requires human and material resources. Either of these alone, desire for dominance or resources, cannot bring about large-scale human conflict. You must have both to accomplish your end, like a spare tire and a jack.

If you have not the material resources, you have the very difficult logistics problem of bringing together large numbers of people and supplying them with the food, shelter, weapons, etc., to destroy another effectively. From the human resources end, if every human being is an individualist, you are going to have a hard time in convincing a large enough number of them that it is in their best interests to give you authority over their lives so that you can command them to die for you and your ambitions. In war, human resources translate as expendable human supplies. Resources are things (or people) which can be used. If you cannot use them, they cannot further your cause. Therefore, individualists tend not to be useful for making war (unless of course, they are the leaders), only the non-individualists, the sheep, the willing abettors, make good cannon fodder and instruments of a single will.

Leadership's Immunity

The condition of leadership's immunity is a condition of agreement and acceptance. A condition of agreement is simply a state of affairs brought about by either general agreement, or by agreement among those parties who have the majority of power to effect the matter. Acceptance is simply acquiescence to a condition by those who cannot or will not resist.

In the world of mankind, it has been a long-established agreement among the "leaders" that they are immune to the conventions of punishment which govern the "rest" of us. This applies to military officers, members of the law industry and the medical profession, and politicians, both petty and grand. This is not to say that these groups are immune to punishment in any form; it just means that, if they break ranks with the corporate purpose of their peers, their punishment is somewhat more benign than that which would fall on those who are "led".

For example, among those who suffer the ignominy of getting caught, punishment varies directly with stature and wealth. A bum who steals to eat gets a jail sentence, while a politician who misuses funds or sells public contracts for kickbacks doesn't get picked up on the popular ticket next year. For breaking and entering, the burglar gets a felony rap while the politician gets to retire. The citizen who kills his neighbor in a fit of rage gets a long prison term or the death sentence, while a cop who does the same to a citizen is removed from the police force or moved to another police force or, at worst, gets an abbreviated prison sentence.

This popular trend of minimum deterrent is the escape clause that allows such things as war. If a head of state deliberately kills thousands, he is either a hero or, at worst, verbally condemned and exiled in comfort. Where is Saddam Hussein today?

Exploiting Turf Loyalty Rationalization By The Masses

The foregoing statements may sound trite or sarcastic, and perhaps they are. They are also true. We espouse teamwork throughout our society. Teamwork in itself is not bad. We can accomplish things that we cannot accomplish as individuals such as war, but we can also accomplish good things which further the survival of the group. Teamwork is combining individual efforts to achieve a common purpose. The flaw in the teamwork philosophy is that the team usually elects a leader. Then everyone (except the leader) ceases to think, eschews responsibility and decision making, and invests themselves and their wills into the leader's desires/judgment/fate.

This is not necessary. You do not have to have a leader to have teamwork. You do hot have to have subordinate wills if the purpose is common to all members of the team. Our great sin is the glorification of leadership which has become, not guidance or instruction for achieving a result, but a subordination of wills for achieving a purpose and not necessarily a common purpose. If you elect me as your leader, you subordinate your will to mine. If I am your leader, I'm working toward my goals, not necessarily yours. And everywhere in our society, from industry to government, the person who is unwilling to subordinate his own mind is not a "team player", or is not a "patriot", and is condemned for his/her independence. In other words, according to the wolves, if you are not a sheep, you are either bad for Business, a disloyal American or both. Since the government is now fighting to protect the oil interests, if you don't agree, I guess you are both. In this way, pressure is put on the individual to conform. By these means, troublemakers are reduced and human resources collected.

It does not help that the majority of humanity would rather take a beating than ponder subtleties and nuances. While I'm certain that the psychologists have their own trade terms for this "disorder", the bulk of humanity ever seeks to reduce and simplify complex meanings, individualities, and manifold conditions to some level that requires no effort at thought. Preferably to single words of no more than two syllables. The reason for this is quite simple: It's hard to engender hate, or to rally for a cause, or to elicit any mob reactions, if you have to explain why such things as behavior, race, nationality, looks, infirmity, belief and attitude sets "them" apart from "us". It's so much easier if you can just say "Them guys nasty! Hate 'em!", and people are immediately willing to bare teeth and throw rocks without questioning why "them guys" are nasty.

What if, in reality, this seemingly species-wide predilection for violence is really a deep, dark hatred of a common enemy, which seeks release in other directions for seemingly no reason? Violent tendencies have been around since there were two people, and so has government, so perhaps people actually have an instinctive hatred for government, but can't do anything about it, so they join the government or any other majority faction in hating someone else just so they can be on a winning side and find an outlet for their subconscious resentment. What do you think of this? Want to try abolishing governments for awhile just to see? Probably no one wants to, huh? Nah!

Alternatives to War

There is another rationale that is forwarded by the leaders to confuse the masses, keep us in line, and further their own interests. This rationale is widely held as the reason for not employing the obvious, ultimate deterrent to war, the "poor man's cure" for war, as it were, which is simply to kill the individual who is the focus for dominance. Do it immediately, do it every time without fail, and a lot of the incentive goes out of making war. Make it a universal human reaction to those who declare war, and there will be an end to war. The purveyors, of "the rationale" though, would have you believe that if such a reaction were allowed, chaos would result, and civilization would fall into ruin. They expound the "principle" that the masses must respect and obey all laws, lawmakers and authority figures, no matter how elitist, self-serving, or downright criminal they might be, because this tradition of law and authority figures preserves humanity from complete barbarism.

This rationale is wrong! You can question rules, laws, and authority figures without totally dismantling law or government. A way to do this might be to require that every law, upon enactment, be given a trial period in each different population it would affect, and then, in order to remain in effect, have to pass the test of popular approval in each of these populations. The rationale does demonstrate a certain and absolute fact. You can teach a principle, be it right or wrong, and it will be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people, and even believed by a large fraction of that majority. How else do we account for the "fads" that sweep the nation, such as jogging with headphones, power lunches, shoulder pads in womens' sweaters, cholesterol counting, and other "behavior modification by sales pitch" happenings? Sony, business-lunch restaurants, the fashion industry, physicians, and health-food stores have made out like bandits and proliferated like locusts, haven't they?

Anti-Survival Traits and Dysfunctional Reasoning

In our society, our world, we reward dominant behavior. We encourage aggressive behavior. We specify it as a requisite trait for business, sports, love, and social success. What we forget, is that for aggressive behavior to be rewarded, it requires that a majority of society be less aggressive than the aggressor. In order for there to be a "taker", there have to be those that will accept the role of the "taken". As the like pole exclusion principle prevents two group leaders of equal dominance, so it limits the percentage of the population who can be takers and leaders.

True democracy does not allow the concept of "leaders". It does not need absolutely passive behavior, either. An individual can put forth an idea or suggest a course of action without seeking appointed authority to become the focal point or authority for all related ideas or courses of action forever. We can talk, express ideas and even hire someone to perform as a focal point without making that someone an authority. An authority makes laws, interprets laws, and delegates responsibility for same, and once we make anyone a focal point of authority, we abandon democracy and free will. We confer the power to change natural order and human harmony onto a single will. That single will, if given such power, will always operate against the best interests of the people. It is as true of a bacterium in a culture as of the human race. EQUALITY MEANS EQUALITY. Authority is the reduction of equality, the taking away of some rights from some people in order to confer greater rights upon others. While authority naturally results in action, it is not necessary for action.

I believe that the degree of the use of authority is inversely proportional to the success of man's development. Lack of it is a measure of mankind's climb up the ladder of civilization. Compare the growth, prosperity, and innovation experienced by the United States from its inception. in the late 1700's to the mid-1900's with any other country or equal period in the history of the world. The pioneers didn't have anything anyone else didn't, except large measures of individual freedom. From this, they made the advanced technology. They made the ideas become reality. They had incentive to create the new, the improved. Macroscopically, markets sought natural levels, including the market for innovation and progress as commodities, and the demand was high. The demand is still high, but the market is controlled by authority.

Authority is the anathema of innovation, prosperity, freedom, and the natural order of the ecology of mankind. The first organism crawling out of the sea was an innovation, not a focus of authority. Not an act of aggression, but an act of self-expression. The law of survival of the fittest rewards innovation and group action rather than physical strength and domination. Animals have only limited powers of innovation, and while group behavior is a learned trait that favors survival, (as with wolves), herd animals, which also operate in groups tend toward a focus of authority, and have not the repertoire of freedom of action that humans developed due to their greater innovative ability.

When you stand behind someone else, to avoid facing either a threat or a responsibility, you confer authority on that someone to act in your be half. If that someone accepts that authority or responsibility, because he has either greater courage or stupidity than you do, his future actions will tend to reflect his interests and belief system, not yours. When a group accepts his authority, the greater, portion of innovation allowed is his innovation, thus limiting the innovative potential of the group, and subsequently limiting the ability of the group to survive and prosper in competition with other more innovative groups.

The lessons of history are dear to anyone who will read them without prejudice. Maximize individual liberty and instill a learned bias toward the good of the group, and you maximize innovation and ultimate survival. Confer authority on a few who come to view the group as a resource for their own purposes, and you minimize innovation and ultimate survival.

Solutions

We need contract governments, with written job descriptions and limited terms. Government office holders and employees should only be able to administer the government, not decide its course. Congressmen or their equivalents should only be poll-takers who reflect the opinions and wishes of the majority of their constituents, and should not take it upon themselves to decide what is in the best interests of the people. There should be no two houses, no two parties, no parties at all. Judges should only be allowed to run court proceedings in accordance with a list of fair and expedient rules and mandatory sentences, not to set precedent or decide punishments Civil servants at all levels should never be granted special status above the people they serve. Not for any reason. They may be loved, prayed for, granted every expedient in the carrying out of their job function, but they must never be revered or looked upon as leaders or authority figures, or allowed to override the wishes of the majority. Freedom requires that authority and responsibility remain with the free.

War is the Culmination

War is the culmination of human authority. It grants the authority to go against the wishes of the group, even to destroy the group if it is the wish of the one in whom the authority is vested. It is the ultimate conferring of responsibility, the responsibility for life itself, not just of the individual, but of an entire group. In our times, this means a nation; a world, even a species. Individuals can kill, but they cannot make war. Groups of individuals who retain the individual responsibility for their actions, can make war, but it is likely to be very, very rare, and only when it is truly necessary for the survival of the group. Without "leaders" war between the peoples of his planet is highly unlikely.

Questions

Question: Can we practice intentional behavior modification on a national scale and develop a societal knee-jerk response throughout the world population in a short time?

Answer: Does Sony sell Walkmans, and do womens' clothing have shoulder pads? YES!

Question: Can we sell non-aggressive behavior and individualism in this fashion?

Answer: If it can be made profitable.

...Lee Fellows...

© Copyright 1992
Institute for domestic Tranquility