The bluntest statement of the sacrificial theory of warfare (that I have been presenting through the Library of Social Science Newsletter for the past eleven years)--appears in a paper by Agnieszka Monnet.

She writes that "Although nationalistic rhetoric tends to rely heavily on the notion of sacrifice, the idea that nations might actually “need” members to be willing to die for them can appear prima facie as a revolting claim."

Nothing could be seem more wrong, Monnet says, even sacrilegious than to propose that "the nation "might need members to die for it on a regular basis in order to sustain its sense of unity."

This hypothesis is deeply disturbing. If true...it's one of the most significant ideas since Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Yet where is the pushback against this idea? The response is one of massive denial, or silence. Carolyn Marvin writes about the "totem secret:" a profound desire to remain unaware of this mechanism. 

There were well over 200 million people killed in the Twentieth Century as a result of political violence undertaken by nation-states. Yet we don't know why. Asleep within the Matrix: unconscious: living within a dream.

It is possible to awaken from the nightmare of history?

Which do you choose: the blue pill or the red pill? Do you wish to remain asleep, or to awaken? 

Please write to me and convey your choice: rak@libraryofsocialscience.com

Best regards,

Richard Koenigsberg