_
Man's "bloody history" is not due to aggressive instincts. Most men are dragged into battle because they are too cowardly, foolish, and herdlike to resist.
Roy Halliday

RECENT EVENT IN THE UNITED STATES DEMONSTRATE THAT SPECIOUS OR FABRICATED IDEAS CAN TAKE HOLD WITHIN SOCIETIES. This may be the case within the academic world as well. One specious idea that has taken hold in certain academic disciplines is that "male aggression" is the source or cause of warfare.

Warfare is an institutional or institutionalized form of behavior. Wars do not occur based on the psychological needs or desires of individual human beings. Wars certainly do not occur to give young men the opportunity to express their "aggressive" instincts. It is usually the case, that complex ideological, political, economic or sociological factors lead to warfare.

Wars are not waged, Roy Halliday observes, because people are cruel or because men have an aggressive instinct. Wars are made possible because men are loyal, compliant, patriotic, and herdlike

Why has a theory that "male aggression" as the "cause of war" taken hold in some academic disciplines? This is requires an explanation. 

Richard Koenigsberg

_____________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT: Roy Halliday states that man's "bloody history" is not due to aggressive instincts. Most men are dragged into battle because they are too cowardly, foolish, and herdlike to resist. They are not impelled by blood lust. They are driven by fear of disobeying their rulers and by a misguided sense of duty. If soldiers were assertive, many of them wouldn't submit to the commands of dictators and generals. The men who do the actual fighting are about as naturally aggressive as sheep. They simply do what their leaders order them to do.

Roy Halliday: "Soldiers are slaves."

Some social theorists assert that we are naturally aggressive. They say that man is not only a hunter, but that he is instinctively and unalterably aggressive toward his own species. They conclude that it is futile to talk about ending warfare and other kinds of violent crimes. These theorists misinterpret human nature.

Man's bloody history is not due to aggressive instincts. Most men are dragged into battle because they are too cowardly, foolish, and herdlike to resist. They are not impelled by blood lust. They are driven by fear of disobeying their rulers and by a misguided sense of duty.

The leaders of the armies are, no doubt, aggressive types, but the great majority of the soldiers who do the killing and dying are not naturally aggressive. They simply follow orders blindly, stupidly, loyally, unselfishly, and, above all, fearfully.


If men were more self-assertive, they would not submit to the marching orders of their leaders. If the masses were aggressive, quick tempered, and anxious to defend their interests, they wouldn't submit to the will of any ruler.

They would insist on ruling themselves. The fact that mankind has been led into war after war does not support the theory that man is aggressive. It shows that man's social instincts are stronger than his ability to reason.

If soldiers were assertive enough and smart enough to think for themselves, many of them wouldn't submit to the commands of dictators and generals. War is made possible by misplaced loyalties and misdirected social instincts.

An army requires its soldiers to be obedient, to conform to military standards, to give up much of their individuality, and to be self-sacrificing. Except for its purpose, an army is a model of altruistic cooperation. If war depended on the aggressive instincts of the masses, there would be no wars.

The minority of men who are aggressive tend to become the leaders. Being aggressive, the leaders want to expand their control or, at least, defend what they already control. This causes conflicts between the ruling classes in different countries. They settle these conflicts by having their respective subordinates fight wars.

The men who do the actual fighting are about as naturally aggressive as sheep. They simply do what their leaders order them to do. If the leaders did not tell them whom to fight, they wouldn't fight anybody.

Wars are not waged because people are cruel or because men have an aggressive instinct. Wars are made possible because men are so loyal, compliant, patriotic, and herdlike that their government can easily dupe them into rallying around its battle flag whenever it wants them to.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Click here for information on how to the digital version of Nations Have the Right to Kill: Hitler, the Holocaust and War

CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ON PURCHASING THE PAPERBOUND:
https://www.amazon.com/Nations-Have-Right-Kill-Holocaust/dp/0915042231

CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ON PURCHASING THE HARDCOVER:
https://www.amazon.com/Nations-Have-Right-Kill-Holocaust/dp/091504224X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr

Nations Have the Right to Kill

PRAISE FOR NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL

“R
ichard Koenigsberg is an intrepid generator and disseminator of ideas regarding the psychodynamics of human violence and destructiveness, ideas that are startling all the more for being self-evident once they have been absorbed. Koenigsberg’s ideas cut trenchantly through conventional, rationalized notions about culture, the nation, and war, and enable us to see through the psychic machinations of human institutions in utterly new ways.”

—Ruth Stein, New York University, author of For Love of the Father

__________________________________________________________________________

“Two terrors from long ago haunt. First, the Holocaust: that cold-blooded massacre of millions. Second, the ability of political leaders during two World Wars to convince ordinary people that slaughtering their neighbors was patriotic. A half-century later, we continue to ask: how was this possible? Richard A. Koenigsberg offers provocative answers. Koenigsberg’s analysis ranges from gender identity, to the First World War, to Aztec warfare. No single answer will exorcize our terrors. But Koenigsberg’s bold and original approach, clearly and precisely presented, will help us, if not to expel them, at least, finally, to comprehend them.”

—Robert Whalen, Queens University of Charlotte, author of Bitter Wounds: German Victims of the Great War, 1914-1939

_____________________________________________________________________________|
“Despite the vast body of research devoted to the Holocaust, Nations Have the Right to Kill marks a seminal contribution to our understanding. Koenigsberg challenges the belief that Hitler was a uniquely inhuman monster, placing him squarely within the narrative of the nationalist ideology that claims dying for one’s country represents the apogee of love and devotion. The Holocaust thus became ‘a perverted, degraded version of dying for the country—sacrificial death at the hands of the nation-state stripped of words like honor, heroism and glory"’”

—Brian A. Victoria, Antioch University, author of Zen at War
________________________________________________________________________

“In Nations Have the Right to Kill, Richard Koenigsberg poses disturbing and often ignored questions: ‘How can humans sacrifice millions for an abstract concept of “nation?” Is destruction and self-destruction the actual purpose of war?’ The answers are both insightful and unsettling. The strength of Nations is the use of original artifacts to support claims. Koenigsberg always begins with data. He takes a rhetorical approach by grounding his arguments in a careful analysis of Nazi writings, speeches and recorded correspondence and conversations. The point that nations grant their leaders the right to kill is powerfully documented.”

—E. Sam Cox, University of Central Missouri
____________________________________________________________________________

“Richard Koenigsberg’s Nations Have the Right to Kill reminds us in clear and incisive prose that sacrifice and total war are inextricably linked. Drawing on a broad range of knowledge spanning the social sciences, Koenigsberg asks us to conceive of the Holocaust as the product of an ideology that demanded the sacrifice of both Germany’s male population and European Jewry.”

—Brian E. Crim, Lynchburg College
_______________________________________________________________________

“Koenigsberg’s thesis is that there is a ‘fundamental dynamic that leads nations to go to war,’ independent of political circumstances. This purpose or driving force is destruction and self-destruction: a mass human sacrifice that elevates the nation to a sacred place at the expense of its people. In war, Koenigsberg says, ‘human bodies sacrificed in the name of perpetuating a magical entity, the body politic.’ This is a thoughtful, sometimes startling, well-written book: important and challenging.”

—E. James Lieberman, M.D.
________________________________________________________________________

“This is psychological inquiry of great depth and tragic urgency. A deep humanity and ethical urgency informs this book which is full of original and provocative insights.”

—Walter A. Davis, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State Universityz

__________________________________________________________________________

“Richard Koenigsberg represents an entirely orthogonal and de novo vantage on war. His academic lens is Psychology, and he has penetrated to a still-obscured truth of war in Modernity: That it is in essence the sacrificial—and thus transcendental—celebratory vessel of all human sacred identity. His essay is in its way a call-to-arms: To see at last our own buy-in culturally to a boundlessly destructive essence within our own humanity.”

—Michael Vlahos, United States Naval War College, author of *Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change
______________________________________________________

“Filling a gap in the scholarly narrative, Nations Have the Right to Kill uses a comparative framework to offer an intriguing exploration of the philosophical connections between war and genocide. Focusing on the Nazi case, Koenigsberg concludes that both the sacrifice of German soldiers in glory on the battlefield, and the sacrifice of victims in the gas chambers, served essentially the same purpose: to feed the sacrificial bloodlust of the national deity.”

—Journal of Genocide Research Volume 12, Issue 1 (September 2010). Review by Megan D. Lee, University of South Carolina.

____________________________________________________________________

“Nations Have the Right to Kill offers a riveting examination of the ideology of political violence. Dr. Koenigsberg observes that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the 20th-century has been so continuous that it is taken as an immutable characteristic of history. To interrupt our historical attachment to war, we might begin by examining the mentality and ideology of those who perpetrate political violence. Through careful analysis of Hitler’s writings and speeches, Koenigsberg makes us aware of the ideology that was the source of both warfare and genocide. Dr. Koenigsberg’s is a message that anyone with an interest in changing the course of human history should internalize and reflect upon. Can human beings transcend war? If so, Nations Have the Right to Kill will be one of our most important guides. Its striking lucidity will be a catalyst for our collective evolution.”

—Lee Hall, JD