I recently received the note below from Ivan Strenski, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California. Ivan is recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities on the sociology of religion. My response to Ivan is directly below note, and below that is as an issue of the LSS Newsletter, "MASS-MURDER  AS THE BEDROCK OF HISTORY: I kill, therefore I am."

Dear Richard,  Perhaps we need to be posing a question about the US gov’s COVID policy within the framwork of the concept of sacrifice: the other day, an administration leader said taking precautions vs Covid was useless, since everyone was going to get it anyway. Viewed in the light of sacrifice is the administration admitting “sacrificing” the collective health Of the nation? And, if it is “giving up” these lives in sacrifice, Cui Bono (to whom is it a benefit)? For whom or what is it sacrificing our lives? For Many of us the cruel answer Is all too obvious. We’re being sacrificed on the altar of political and personal ambition. The gov’s giving us up for sacrificial slaughter. Ivan Strenski

______________________________________________________

My response: Yes, thank you Ivan, I think we can understand COVID in the US within the framework of the concept of sacrifice, “giving up,” sacrificing the collective health of Americans. But for whom or what is this sacrifice taking place? What is the nature of the altar upon which sacrifice is occurring? What is the nature of the political ambition?

We need to place what is occurring today within a broader historical framework. The paradox to consider is that the death of human beings within a nation is not necessarily considered a bad thing. Take a look at the Newsletter below (sent out a few months ago).

Who are among the most remembered men in history? Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. What are the primarily remembered for? The number of people that died under their watch. The ambition of a person who seeks to “make history” is "to be remembered.” Although the covid virus came as a surprise, the 186,000 Americans that have died so far may be conceived as sacrificial deaths.

I’ve written about dying for the country and you have as well: dying for a nation or a religion (sacrificial death) is often conceived as a good thing.

The key ambition for any leader who seeks to make history is to be remembered. And one of the primary ways a leader is remembered is by virtue of the number of human beings who have died under his watch.

Best regards,

Richard

Professor Strenski's paper, "Sacrifice, Gift and the Social Logic of Muslim ‘Human Bombers'," may be read on the Ideologies of War, Genocide & Terror website here.

MASS-MURDER AS THE BEDROCK OF HISTORY: “I kill, therefore I am.” Abstract: “History” records the acts of political leaders who have killed a lot of people. Historical significance is measured by counting skulls. Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao  (see photos below) are chronicled because they produced a monumental number of cripples and corpses.  Which historical figure produced the most corpses? Terrorist philosopher Ali Benhadj stated that if a faith is not watered or irrigated by blood it “does not grow.” A belief needs to be reinforced by “sacrifices, suicide operations and martyrdom.” Saddam Hussein called history a “record of sacrifices made in blood.” History is elevated to the status of belief when “sacred blood is shed in the most crucial situations.” According to Islamic revolutionary Abdullah Azzam, history “does not write its lines except with blood.” Glory does not build its lofty edifice “except with skulls.” Honor and respect are established on a foundation of “cripples and corpses.” “History” records the acts of political leaders who have killed a lot of people. Historical “significance” is measured by “counting skulls.” Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are chronicled because they produced a monumental number of cripples and corpses. As these leaders murdered millions of people, they may have reflected (winking to future historians), “I kill, therefore I am.”