C. Marvin: "We pretend soldiers are aggressive warriors so that we can kill them more easily."
Koenigsberg on totalitarianism & the denial of separateness (Tustin). "Nations need their people to die on a regular basis" (Monnet, on this "revolting claim)." Scott Atran abandoning evolutionary psychology. Lenin as the original mass-murder (yet loved by Zizek). Nazism as nationalism: "You are nothing, your nation is everything."
  1. In Nazi Germany, no one was allowed to be separate from the nation-state. Totalitarianism = absolute devotion and unity. The Jewish crime was separateness or separation from the dream or fantasy. When you separate from the body politic, you lose a part of your own body (Francis Tustin). The Jew was the "mother of separation:" negation of the fantasy that one's own body is fused with the mother's body; with the body politic.
     
  2. The Jew was imagined by Hitler to be a human being who did not believe in the value of sacrifice. The Jew symbolized recognition that sacrifice was useless or destructive. The Jew symbolized Hitler's own recognition that sacrifice was useless and destructive. He repressed or denied this realization. Killing Jews meant killing the truth: that there are no such thing as "immortal bodies." 
     
  3. Jews symbolized the negative or destructive experience of sacrifice, or attachment to the nation state. Hitler could not bear to separate from the nation: "That no one can, no one must say to me." Killing Jews was killing an idea: a highly symbolic form of violence. Nothing dumber than the evolutionary psychological idea of "biological aggression." Scott Atran is close to abandoning this idea forever.
     
  4. Monnet develops Marvin's theory that: “Nation-states need their members to die on a regular basis.” She observes that this is a "revolting claim." Marvin has "dropped out" entirely. Darwin's idea that human beings evolved out of lower forms of life was once experienced as a "revolting claim." Freud's idea of non-genital sexuality (oral and anal) were once conceived as "revolting claims." Is there value in pursuing the truth in a world of fakery and untruth? Will Monnet become one of the great ones? 
     
  5. Historical events become significant to the extent that many people die in relationship to the event. “History builds upon a foundation of cripples & corpses.” This is what it is all about: the dying and the killing. Chinese still worship Mao. The "great ones" are the ones that generate the most death. Hitler understood how way "history" worked. He wanted to be one of the great ones.
     
  6. Historians are so naive. They think that the creation of history is separate from the writing of history. By writing about them, historians support the work of men like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. They handle the "promotion;" providing publicity for mass-murders.
     
  7. Lenin was the first of the mass-murders of the 20th Century, everything descends from what he did. But some academics continue to support the fantasy of Marxism and communism, even the smartest and most adorable one, Zizek.
     
  8. Hitler's ideology is summed up as he explained to the German people: “You are nothing, your nation is everything.” This single sentence tells us most of what we need to know. Hitler wanted to turn everyone into nothing. Eternal attachment to the German nation was the only objective. Submission to the omnipotent mother. Loss of identity in the name of fusion with the omnipotent mother. TERROR in the face of the omnipotent mother. Attachment as psychopathology. Recent psychoanalytic theory as denial of the truth.
     
  9. Soldiers are martyrs: no different than suicide bombers, except in terms the number of men that are slaughtered or sacrificed. World War I was a gigantic ritual of terrorism: millions of men sacrificed to the nation-state. LEADERS ASKING YOUNG MEN TO RUN INTO MACHINE-GUN FIRE. General Hackett: YOU OFFER YOURSELF TO BE SLAIN: This is essence of being a soldier.
     
  10. Carolyn Marvin: "We persuade soldiers that they are aggressive warriors in order to kill them more easily." Think about this: how diabolic. Telling men they are "masculine warriors," that they are honorable and noble: so they will "die for the country." What a joke (Joanna Bourke and others) to imagine that the soldiers of the First World War were there because they enjoyed "killing." What nonsense. Does this mean they enjoyed igniting cannons from one mile away? 
     
  11. Rene Girard: "Things hidden from the foundation of the world." But he didn't know that the idea of the scapegoat was a denial of truth. The fundamental sacrificial victim is the soldier ("stick to your own kind, one of your own kind")