Obey and keep quiet....

the strip from Dilbert's site.

Arthur Silber:

“The wish for unquestioning, unresisting obedience is coming true in America, more and more each day.”

Yes, things seem to turn this way here too?? Everywhere in society and globally???

From new politics concerning school here to elsewhere in society…

A backlash really!! Neo-authoritarian, neoconservative ideas: obey and keep quiet!! Don’t question any state of affairs! And when and where shall children and young people learn democracy? And how?

Also see (for instance) what is written at psycho-history-list on “George W. Bush’s projection and dislocation of self”:

“As I assume many other psychohistorians have been doing, and in the light of this most recent act of fatality committed in Iraq with the ‘execution’ of Saddam Hussein, I have been fantasizing about the most likely psychological processes involved in GWB's persona.

It seems to me that GWB's concept of ‘life’ is a dependent relationship, i.e., we humans can NOT function (‘on this earth’) without God deciding things for us. GWB has often mentioned that he is a ‘born again Christian’ and that he ‘would not have been able’ to ‘overcome my troubles’ without ‘the Good Lord's intercession and guidance. (‘Good Lord’, as opposed to Bad Lord (‘Daddy’), I presume.)

As I absorbed the news of the execution of Saddam Hussein, I fantasized that GWB's concept of ‘democratizing Iraq’ was also a manifestation of his ‘dependent’ persona. i.e., The Iraqis could NOT democratize themselves ‘Unless I intercede’ (most likely in ‘God's name’) to ‘help’ the Iraqis in their struggle for democracy, just as ‘God’ had interceded in GWB's ‘life
struggle.’ It is my guess that GWB has either projected his life-struggle, or dislocated it, ‘onto’ the Iraqi people; the Katrina victims; the worldwide AIDS victims; etc.

GWB is a ‘record-holding’ Executioner-as-Governor. He ‘approved’ a record-number of executions in the State of Texas. It is still a State of Texas AND ‘nation-wide’ record. GWB recently announced to the national press that he was ‘absolutely certain’ that all of the 270-plus prisoners whom he had executed as Governor ‘were one hundred percent guilty.’ GWB is the self-proclaimed ‘Decider’ as well as the ‘well-established’ Executioner. Almost sounds like God, doesn't it?"

Talk about playing out ones unprocessed things!!?? And doing that in such a scale...

See this posting about "Leaders" and backward psycho-classes, why

"...the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead"

(but psycho historians are still very psychoanalysis influenced?? It feels so...).

These people in power need power, need to exercise power!? They need to avoid ever again feeling how power- and helpless they once were? Pushing this away as much as they possibly can. See what Bosch writes about the defence False Power... She means that people with this defence (the ones that usually are more prone to use this defence are men, but it's important to be aware women also can use it) are less prone to seek help i.e., to want to process these things... They act this out instead, with all the following consequences of this... See Pincus on "Hitler and Hatred" again:

“Every corner of the globe has torturers in some positions of authority: the police who beat and maimed a Haitian immigrant in New York City; the former testicle-crushing dictators of Central and South-America; Milosevic and his tyrannical rule in Serbia; Stalin; Saddam Hussein – the list goes on and on. From where does this hatred and violence come? Is it possible that the violence that is expressed politically, ethnically, racially, and religiously shares common determinants with the violence committed in an urban parking lot? [a case Pincus had referred to earlier where a pregnant woman that kidnapped when she came out from the supermarket with groceries, was raped and murdered brutally] I think it is likely that ostensible political and criminal violence spring from a similar source.

The most uncontrolled and far-reaching expression of hatred in the twentieth century has been that of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. I have always wondered what sort of person could perpetrate crimes against innocent men, women, and children in concentration camps; poison gas, burning, starvation, death marches, unrelenting forced labor, beating, sexual abuse, lethal medical “experiments”. Who could order such things? Who could carry out such orders, or even torture these victims autonomously?

Goldhagen, in his book "Hitler’s Willing Executioners", emphasizes the large numbers of ordinary Germans who actually participated in the Holocaust, by killing, torturing, and maiming Jews. He estimates that as many as 500,000 Germans were active perpetrators of murder. This is a large number, but in a country of sixty million why did some participate in the killing while the majority did not? [But why didn’t all these others intervene? What are the roots to that?] One possible answer might be that many of these killers could have been raised in hatred-filled and abusive households. Anti-Semitism may have been imbued with the mother’s milk, along with wife and child beating and other intrafamilial violence. I envision members of the death squads as young men who had been raised in lower-middle-class homes by brutish parents and whose fathers returned home from work drunk, beat their wives and children, fell into bed in stupor, and repeated this same sequence the next day. I would speculate that the murderers had themselves been abused, and their willingness to murder derived from this and the anti-Semitism of their environment. Societal approval of anti-Semitism and governmental approval of murder lifted the lid on the abuse-engendered impulse of the offenders. This theory has grown out of my research. It explains why the ordinary Germans who were not neurogically or mentally impaired carried out the urge to murder Jews under the Nazis. Many perpetrators, such as brutal concentration camp guards, could also have had neurologic or mental illnesses that augmented the viciousness of their behaviors once the societal lid that controls murder had been removed by the government so far as the Jews were concerned /.../

What if Trent had heard a political leader say 'Women are our misfortune!' just as Hitler said 'The Jews are our misfortune!' A public condemnation of women and homosexuals as the hereditary carriers of social pathology would have dignified Trent's suffering and provided a social outlet for his hatred.

What if a Hitler-like political leader said that women make men work and then they steal the wealth that men amass, that they create pornography, transmit infectious diseases, are weak, subhuman, and defective? Hitler said this of the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Such a message would probably have been as welcome to Trent as Hitler's was to many Germans.

What if Trent were released from prison and told that he had a glorious role to play in saving civilization and in creating a new and just society? That he, miserable Trent Scaggs, would be a leader in the elimination of women and homosexual? Imagine how Trent might behave if he were put in command of a camp in which these 'subhuman species' were concentrated, where he would be able to beat, rape, torture, maim, and murder as he wishes, his actions being condoned as ridding society and the world from the problems caused by females and homosexuals.

Is there some common element between the case of Trent Scaggs and the rise of the Nazis under Hitler? I have little data with which to answer that question, but the insight I have gained from my work with criminals suggests that Adolf Hitler and Trent Scaggs had a lot in common /.../

Like Trent Scaggs, who was paranoid and neurologically damaged, there is evidence that Hitler suffered from mental illness with paranoia. He had tremendous mood swings and was said to fly into rages and tirades on slight provocation. A contradiction, a criticism, or a doubt concerning the wisdom of something he had said or done, the anticipation of opposition, or a challenge only by implication might trigger an uncontrolled display of anger /.../

Is it not possible that there is a relationship between violence in the home and terrorism? Those in any society who support or participate in murder and terrorist acts have the 'respectability' of being violent for political or religious reasons, but the triad (child abuse, brain injury, and paranoia) does not know political, ethnic, or religious boundaries and could find its outlet in a 'worthy case'.

In a society that permits or encourages the stigmatization of a group or people, mental illness and or brain damage may not be necessary to produce homicidal violence. The violent impulses generated by abuse could be expressed by medically normal abused individuals in a sick society.

The unrestrained approval of violence in certain political parties and gangs may make such groups attractive to the abused. Although whether we have very little information about the family dynamics of the members of terrorist organizations. I believe that the history of physical and sexual abuse, and even mental illness, paranoia, and brain damage, is prevalent among them. If a society (defined as a country, political party, or a group) removed the demand that its members behave in a nonviolent manner toward its enemies, brain damage and mental illness would not be necessary to unleash the impulses to violence that were engendered by early abuse, if society says 'You are now free to rape, torture, and kill our enemies,' the abused may respond with enthusiasm. Not every American soldier in Vietnam committed atrocities, nor did every German in World War II, not every Arab in the PLO. What is the difference between the violent and nonviolent members of such societies? I would postulate that early childhood abuse distinguishes perpetrators from nonperpetrators.

In a sociological study of members of racist organizations in the United States, obtained at no little personal risk, Raphael Ezekiel pointed out a number of features in the backgrounds of members of hate groups that are reminiscent of the life of the very violent offenders I have evaluated. Most of Ezekiel's subjects had lost a parent by age seven, usually the father,. Stepfathers and the mother's boyfriends were typically described as cold, rough, and abusive. Connections with family outside the nuclear group were frail, and there was little parenting in depth through an extended family. Church and social agencies (other than police) played little or no modulating role in the families, and ties between sibling were minimal. Schooling was interrupted, with early truancy and dropouts prevalent.

Ezekiel write, 'A few members spoke spontaneously of paternal alcoholism and violence... I think that a lot was held back from me. [Some] members reported alcoholism...family violence, [and] serving time at detention centers, jails, or prisons. I am fairly sure...that there was a good deal more penal time than this. Several had been farmed out to foster homes during childhood. Alcoholism, violence, mental illness, paranoia, school failure, and medical/neurologic problems run through Ezekiel's entire account, suggestively reminiscent of the factors I have encountered in violent offenders.

The concept that violent impulses are engendered by the experiences of abuse and allowed expression in those abused individuals who also have endogenous neurologic and psychiatric vulnerability has very important implications for the reduction or prevention of violence. Effort directed at mitigating any one of the interacting factors that cause violence would be likely to have a major impact. The most effective action and possibly the easiest to accomplish, though, would be the prevention of child abuse through social and educational program. A major step in the primary prevention of violent crime can probably be achieved by a national effort to reduce or eliminate all use of corporal punishment by parents and teachers."

I have skimmed the new book about Stalin written by Simon Sebag Montefiore... Stalin seemed to have lacked feelings of compassion and empathy entirely!!

Therapists shut their eyes to this? As so many others...

Yes, as Miller writes, men and women with power are like Abraham sacrificing their sons (and daughters) on their parents altars!!!?? The more (most???) defended are the ones that takes the lead?? They need this power?? And they are so insensitive so it's like "pouring water on a duck's back"!!?? Thus they manage "everything"?? So thick-skinned!? They are sleeping calmly at night?? (but in long-term? What are the consequences for them?? Maybe on a more personal level!?)

Just some quiet thoughts...

And see what this female politicians writes about the (many times) different conditions for men and women in power-positions... In the article "Where are the feminists when it is blowing?" (in Swedish). Men are protected (except for in cases like this (in Swedish): how differently even male politicians are treated!! And ones again about our current arrogant foreign-minister Carl Bildt (English text) - ugh for him!!!! *) He doesn't behave like a grown up man really!!?? Not in my eyes! Behaves like a child in the sand-pit, with a tired laugh! :-)), but women not... She is right, so it has been here in Sweden,with all scandals around politicians!!?? Why is that??*) on the site linked it stood about "State-building for Peace"! My strong feeling: What bullshit!!! He is only thinking of himself!!! This is only rhetorical!!! No real substance in, because does he know what genuine empathy is about?? I don't think he does, that's my feeling...

PS. About the markets power, and angry reactions on that *) (a blogpost written by a young Chilean living in Sweden in Swedish)... How human tragedy, trouble, distress is exploited and used. It has been an earthquake in Chile, 7, 7 on the Richter-scale, which is used to earn money, the prices on the most important necessities of life (on for instance water, bread, batteries) has risen!! People are handed out to forces which don't see a human being as a human being but as a customer. Respect for life what is that? And what is compassion, empathy - genuine such!!? What sort of lives do these people live (exploiting people, the nature etc.)? Empty and lonely lives?? Once again: the Swedish journalist Helle Klein wrote about today's loneliness in society at Christmas 2006 (Christmas is horror to many!!?? I can well understand this!! Then hypocrisy plays its... Hypocrisy triumphs). By the way, Bosch (and Jenson) writes about feelings of loneliness... But these feelings (many are actually childhood feelings) are used!!?? And misused!? Played on!? Playing on people's unfilled childhood needs...

Further: see another chronicle by Klein, about consumerisms and giving culture a space/place (also only in Swedish) when one is making societal plans... Building new shopping-centra as in this case...
*)

"Marknadsanpassade priser?

ChileSkapad av Vladde 2007-11-15 21:01

Stor jordbävning har drabbat de norra delarna av Chile, 7,7 på richterskalan. Folk var oroliga för efterskalv. Inga rapporter om detta har dock än kommit.

Naturkatastrofer är bland det hemskaste man kan råka ut för. Ingen kan förbereda sig emot dem. Man kan ha en plan för att, då krisen är ett faktum, agera på ett sätt som minskar de mänskliga tragedierna.

I Chile, marknadsliberalernas paradis, sker saker som inte längre förvånar mig. När allt marknadsanpassas så är en sådan här katastrof BRA för marknaden. Det finns pengar att tjäna på det! Jag ska förklara varför.

Jordbävningar har en förmåga att förstöra infrastruktur. Vägar, hus, elektricitet, vatten, allt det brukar slåss ut. Så även denna gång.

I en av de mest drabbade områden säger de fattiga människorna att varorna, så som vatten, bröd och batterier fått högre priser än vad som är normalt (www.cooperativa.cl)

Sålunda kostar vattnet nu nästan det dubbla, även priset på bröd steg kraftigt. Batterier, som är nödvändiga i en sådan här situation och olika ljus som behövs steg så klart också i pris.

Marknadens krafter? Här har vi en stor efterfrågan, människor i nöd som är i behov av basala förnödenheter för att klara sin vardag, efter en naturkatastrof de inget kunnat göra för att avhålla sig ifrån. De är utlämnade åt dessa krafter. Krafter som inte ser en människa som människa utan som kund. En potentiell köpare.

Det finns ingen moral i dessa människors hjärnor. Hur kan man använda sig av naturkatatastrofer för att tjäna än mer pengar?

I sådana här situationer kan jag inte göra annat än att äcklas av människor som profiterar på de drabbades och fattigas bekostnad. Ingen moral. Marknadens krafter så som de bara visar sig i marknadsliberalernas paradis, Chile.

Skapad av Ida D. 2007-11-17 22:46

Ilse-Marie, håller med.

Mänskliga rättigheter är inget krav eller förhandling utan självklarhet.

Dagens värld är otroligt egoistisk, man tappade bort mänsklig omtanke, empati, respekt mot människans liv och rättigheter. Man dödar för olja, man plundrar, utnyttjar. Brasilien t.ex. har återbetalt sina stats skulder för länge sen, men man blev utpressad att betala ränta som kunde man aldrig hinna med utan att sälja sina naturresurser. Skamligt..!

Dom stora och starka har blivit naturresursernas vampyrer som vill bara konsumera tills man kör ihjäl jordklotet..! Nu behöver dom två jordklot för att kunna klara av sina jä * la behov!

Skapad av ilse-marie 2007-11-17 08:11

Det är verkligen fruktänsvärt hur en stor del av mänskligheten fungerar. Maximal vinst tycks vara det enda som gäller. Det påminner om Nestlés chef som menade att "vatten inte var en mänsklig rättighet". Allt vatten skulle enligt honom privatiseras. I mångt och mycket är det väl redan så. Vår värld är enbart till för de som har kapital - resten ska utnyttjas så att vinsterna för de få utvalda ständigt ökas på. Jag kan bara hålla med- jag äcklas!
Allt detta visar också att Naomi Kleins teori om "chockdoktrinen" är en obehaglig sanning - som dessutom praktiseras om och om igen."

More about the brain…

Just some morning-thoughts I just had to get out, need to pour out. I am still wondering a lot about phenomena occurring in society, the world, in forums, in debates etc. Ideas that are opportune today, and why they are. Because I think many of them are horrible… And not least the way of passing these ideas further. Triggered this morning when I once again skimmed what Miller has written on "Child mistreatment, Child abuse - What is it?" and the role Enlightened Witnesses can play.

Bosch writes at page 46 in her book:

“LeDoux’s research illustrate that certain information is repressed in a place not accessible to our conscious mind, and influences our behavior without our conscious awareness of it.

A part of our brain that plays a major part in this process is the amygdala, an important part of our brain when it comes to strong fearful emotions. The amygdala is the part of the brain that stores the memories of strong, fear-producing experiences, without needing to be connected to or communicating with the neo-cortex, that part of the brain involved in conscious and more rational processing. The amygdala, therefore, is capable of storing emotional experiences of which we have never been fully conscious, resulting in Repression and the resulting divided consciousness.”

The reactions are immediate, and without consciousness involved, on triggers. We aren’t even aware what’s happening. Even if we (which try not to harm others consciously) have the best will in the world!! But we can ALL work on this and the knowledge is there for us all!! So this is never an excuse to harming others...

I have been thinking about how we have been raised… More or less authoritarian and totalitarian, which means learned to obey without questioning the treatment we endured, punished without even being informed about the crimes we have committed. Was the child so evil so she/he didn’t even deserve to know, born evil/with the devil?? Or worth to be treated without respect and without losing her/his dignity and human worthiness?

What can this result in later in life? If we don’t have the luck to encounter a helping witness of some kind? Or if the regime at home is so authoritarian and totalitarian?

So now, if and when people in power-positions, for example politicians (and later leaders for whole nations) use this way of speaking and behaving; very authoritarian, condemning (against certain groups), maybe even totalitarian (questioning, explanations information, cooperation isn’t allowed or hardly exists) this is applauded by these who were raised by very authoritarian people?? And if the society and leaders and politicians etc. gives the permission to use this style of behavior the more harmed praise these ideas??

And what we see as “rational” people and decisions, are they? Always? Or sometimes not at all? Even if they seem to be to many of us? And the ones expressing themselves with a lot of emotions are less reliable?

Less sound leaders what can they create? Who do they talk to, which now gets rights to play their unconscious sides out? Sides they aren’t aware of and denies? Denies more the more harmed they are and the less they are inclined to work with them? Or acknowledge their problems?

Who needs power and gets it? Why do they need it?

One use to say that power corrupts… And, I don’t know, maybe one has to be very strong and self-aware and sound/healthy to resist what comes with power? Which is no excuse at all for any power-abuse of maybe any kind?

How does one more effectively handle this as individual, when one joins debates in forums, blogs etc.? And does one handle it in the public debate if one goes into it or when one analyzes what people say in media, what media pass forward?

The less you have suppressed/repressed the better you can handle it I guess? Now I am thinking out loudly… I am searching for something… The clearer you see and perceive things and the world and phenomena… And can handle it more constructively!?

I think I will write more about this and more about the amygdala and the brain later!! :-)

See earlier blogpost about the brain. And what people in power-positions also use is playing on guilt-feelings some people have a lot of!?? Or some acknowledge more than others. To make them feel ashamed and quiet and "turning" their heads to the ground... And this method isn't only used unconsciously but also consciously I would say... And horribly many approves of this and why is that? See the recent blogposts about guilt and manipulation-brainwashing: "Guilt - part one" and "Guilt - part two".

Contempt for weakness, and needs for revenge on someone (a scapegoat/s because we are still so afraid of our early parents, so we can't react on them even now as adult and not power- or helpless as the small child we once was, but have to act these feelings of anger etc. out somewhere. The fear is still so enormous, stored in parts like the amygdala), and do it as violently as possible , even if it's "only" about emotional/psychological violence/abuse?? And in the wake also coarser physical and sexual violence occurs... And the amount of this also increases! (all rage we couldn't show or even feel then has to get some outlet, and usually we let all these feelings out on weaker. But this will never cure or heal us, only cover things up even more and make us even more distanced to our/the truth).

See the American neurologist J.H. Pincus on for example the criminal (serial killer) Trent Scaggs, and the other blogposts on his research about his findings on what creates the worse criminals and what upbringing "only" creates bigotry (trångsynthet)... All with authoritarian parents/caregivers, but more or less violently...

English word of today "the wake" which in the case above means "kölvattnet".

"Hitler and Hatred" in English...

In his book "Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?" ISBN 0-393-32323-4 in the chapter "Hitler and Hatred" på sidorna 178-179 och 187-193 the American neurologist Jonathan J. Pincus writes; see also ”Frenzy” by Thomas Gruner, which is a sort of review of this book, and also see earlier blog post about what Pincus has written (violence, mistreatment and abuse of another nature, not the most violent, can lead to bigotry):

“Every corner of the globe has torturers in some positions of authority: the police who beat and maimed a Haitian immigrant in New York City; the former testicle-crushing dictators of Central and South-America; Milosevic and his tyrannical rule in Serbia; Stalin; Saddam Hussein – the list goes on and on. From where does this hatred and violence come? Is it possible that the violence that is expressed politically, ethnically, racially, and religiously shares common determinants with the violence committed in an urban parking lot? [a case Pincus had referred to earlier where a pregnant woman that kidnapped when she came out from the supermarket with groceries, was raped and murdered brutally] I think it is likely that ostensible political and criminal violence spring from a similar source.

The most uncontrolled and far-reaching expression of hatred in the twentieth century has been that of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. I have always wondered what sort of person could perpetrate crimes against innocent men, women, and children in concentration camps; poison gas, burning, starvation, death marches, unrelenting forced labor, beating, sexual abuse, lethal medical “experiments”. Who could order such things? Who could carry out such orders, or even torture these victims autonomously?

Goldhagen, in his book "Hitler’s Willing Executioners", emphasizes the large numbers of ordinary Germans who actually participated in the Holocaust, by killing, torturing, and maiming Jews. He estimates that as many as 500,000 Germans were active perpetrators of murder. This is a large number, but in a country of sixty million why did some participate in the killing while the majority did not? [But why didn’t all these others intervene? What are the roots to that?] One possible answer might be that many of these killers could have been raised in hatred-filled and abusive households. Anti-Semitism may have been imbued with the mother’s milk, along with wife and child beating and other intrafamilial violence. I envision members of the death squads as young men who had been raised in lower-middle-class homes by brutish parents and whose fathers returned home from work drunk, beat their wives and children, fell into bed in stupor, and repeated this same sequence the next day. I would speculate that the murderers had themselves been abused, and their willingness to murder derived from this and the anti-Semitism of their environment. Societal approval of anti-Semitism and governmental approval of murder lifted the lid on the abuse-engendered impulse of the offenders. This theory has grown out of my research. It explains why the ordinary Germans who were not neurogically or mentally impaired carried out the urge to murder Jews under the Nazis. Many perpetrators, such as brutal concentration camp guards, could also have had neurologic or mental illnesses that augmented the viciousness of their behaviors once the societal lid that controls murder had been removed by the government so far as the Jews were concerned /.../

What if Trent had heard a political leader sat 'Women are our misfortune!' just as Hitler said 'The Jews are our misfortune!' A public condemnation of women and homosexuals as the hereditary carriers of social pathology would have dignified Trent's suffering and provided a social outlet for his hatred.

What if a Hitler-like political leader said that women make men work and then they steal the wealth that men amass, that they create pornography, transmit infectious diseases, are weak, subhuman, and defective? Hitler said this of the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Such a message would probably have been as welcome to Trent as Hitler's was to many Germans.

What if Trent were released from prison and told that he had a glorious role to play in saving civilization and in creating a new and just society? That he, miserable Trent Scaggs, would be a leader in the elimination of women and homosexual? Imagine how Trent might behave if he were put in command of a camp in which these 'subhuman species' were concentrated, where he would be able to beat, rape, torture, maim, and murder as he wishes, his actions being condoned as ridding society and the world from the problems caused by females and homosexuals.

Is there some common element between the case of Trent Scaggs and the rise of the Nazis under Hitler? I have little data with which to answer that question, but the insight I have gained from my work with criminals suggests that Adolf Hitler and Trent Scaggs had a lot in common /.../

Like Trent Scaggs, who was paranoid and neurologically damaged, there is evidence that Hitler suffered from mental illness with paranoia. He had tremendous mood swings and was said to fly into rages and tirades on slight provocation. A contradiction, a criticism, or a doubt concerning the wisdom of something he had said or done, the anticipation of opposition, or a challenge only by implication might trigger an uncontrolled display of anger /.../

Is it not possible that there is a relationship between violence in the home and terrorism? Those in any society who support or participate in murder and terrorist acts have the 'respectability' of being violent for political or religious reasons, but the triad (child abuse, brain injury, and paranoia) does not know political, ethnic, or religious boundaries and could find its outlet in a 'worthy case'.

In a society that permits or encourages the stigmatization of a group or people, mental illness and or brain damage may not be necessary to produce homicidal violence. The violent impulses generated by abuse could be expressed by medically normals abused individuals in a sick society.

The unrestrained approval of violence in certain political parties and gangs may make such groups attractive to the abused. Although whether we have very little information about the family dynamics of the members of terrorist organizations. I believe that the history of physical and sexual abuse, and even mental illness, paranoia, and brain damage, is prevalent among them. If a society (defined as a country, political party, or a group) removed the demand that its members behave in a nonviolent manner toward its enemies, brain damage and mental illness would not be necessary to unleash the impulses to violence that were engendered by early abuse, if society says 'You are now free to rape, torture, and kill our enemies,' the abused may respond with enthusiasm. Not every American soldier in Vietnam committed atrocities, nor did every German in World War II, not every Arab in the PLO. What is the difference between the violent and nonviolent members of such societies? I would postulate that early childhood abuse distinguishes perpetrators from nonperpetrators.

In a sociological study of members of racist organizations in the United States, obtained at no little personal risk, Raphael Ezekiel pointed out a number of features in the backgrounds of members of hate groups that are reminiscent of the life of the very violent offenders I have evaluated. Most of Ezekiel's subjects had lost a parent by age seven, usually the father,. Stepfathers and the mother's boyfriends were typically described as cold, rough, and abusive. Connections with family outside the nuclear group were frail, and there was little parenting in depth through an extended family. Church and social agencies (other than police) played little or no modulating role in the families, and ties between sibling were minimal. Schooling was interrupted, with early truancy and dropouts prevalent.

Ezekiel write, 'A few members spoke spontaneously of paternal alcoholism and violence... I think that a lot was held back from me. [Some] members reported alcoholism...family violence, [and] serving time at detention centers, jails, or prisons. I am fairly sure...that there was a good deal more penal time than this. Several had been farmed out to foster homes during childhood. Alcoholism, violence, mental illness, paranoia, school failure, and medical/neurologic problems run through Ezekiel's entire account, suggestively reminiscent of the factors I have encountered in violent offenders.

The concept that violent impulses are engendered by the experiences of abuse and allowed expression in those abused individuals who also have endogenous neurologic and psychiatric vulnerability has very important implications for the reduction or prevention of violence. Effort directed at mitigating any one of the interacting factors that cause violence would be likely to have a major impact. The most effective action and possibly the easiest to accomplish, though, would be the prevention of child abuse through social and educational program. A major step in the primary prevention of violent crime can probably be achieved by a national effort to reduce or eliminate all use of corporal punishment by parents and teachers."

"Hitler and Hatred" på svenska...

I sin bok "Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?" ISBN 0-393-32323-4 i kapitlet "Hitler and Hatred" på sidorna 178-179 och 187-193 skriver den amerikanske neurologen Jonathan J. Pincus, se också ”Frenzy” av Thomas Gruner, som är en slags recension, sammanfattning eller redogörelse för Pincus bok och se också tidigare blogg om vad Pincus har skrivit (misshandel och kränkningar av annan natur kan leda till/leder till bigotteri eller trångsynthet):

"Varje hörn av globen har torterare i någon slags auktoritetsposition: polisen som slog och lemlästade en haitisk immigrant i New York City; de tidigare testikelkrossande diktatorerna i Central- och Sydamerika; Milosevic och hans tyrraniska styre i Serbien; Stalin; Saddam Hussein - listan fortsätter och fortsätter. Var kommer detta hat och våld ifrån? Är det möjligt att våldet som uttrycks politiskt, etniskt, rasmässigt och religiöst delar gemensamma determinanter [bestämmanden, dvs. har samma ursprung som bestämmer handlingarna?] med våldet som begicks på en parkeringsplats i staden [en händelse som Pincus tidigare beskrivit med en höggravid kvinna i USA som blev kidnappad när hon kom ut med två tunga kassar från affären, våldtogs och mördades utan någon som helst anledning]? Jag tror att det är sannolikt att skenbart politiskt och kriminellt våld är sprunget ur liknande källa.

Det mest okontrollerade och långtgående uttrycket för hat under 1900-talet har varit det av Nazityskland och Förintelsen visade. Jag har alltid undrat vad för sorts människa som skulle kunna utföra brott mot oskyldiga män, kvinnor och barn i koncentrationslägren: giftgas, bränning, svält, dödsmarscher, hänsynslöst/obevekligt tvångsarbete (?), stryk, sexuella övergrepp, dödliga medicinska 'experiment'.

Goldhagen poängterar det stora antalet vanliga/ordinära tyskar som faktiskt deltog i Förintelsen genom att mörda, tortera och lemlästa judar i sin bok 'Hitler's Willing Executioners'. Han uppskattar att så många som 500 000 tyskar var aktiva förövare eller mördare. Detta är ett enormt antal, men i ett land med 60 miljoner: varför deltog en del i dödandet medan majoriteten inte gjorde det? [men varför ingrep inte denna tysta majoritet?? Vad var orsaken till det?] Ett möjligt svar kan vara att många av dessa mördare kunde ha växt upp i hatfyllda och misshandlande hushåll. Modersmjölken kan ha varit genomdränkt av antisemitism, tillsammans med hustru- och barnmisshandel och annat intrafamiljärt våld. Jag kan se framför mig medlemmar av dödsskvadronerna som unga män som har växt upp i nedre medelklasshem med brutala föräldrar och vars fäder kom hem från arbetet druckna, misshandlade sin fru och sina barn, föll isäng i omtöcknat tillstånd ach upprepade samma sekvens nästa dag. Jag spekulerar i att mördarna själva hade blivit misshandlade och att deras villlighet att mörda härleder sig från detta och antisemitismen i deras omgivning.

Samhälleligt bifall/godkännande för antisemitism och regeringens godkännande att mörda lyfte locket på den misshandelsframkallade impulsen hos brottslingarna. Denna teori har växt fram ur min forskning. denna förklarar varför vanliga/ordinära tyskar som inte var neurologiskt eller mentalt skadade kunde utföra eggelsen att mörda judar under nazisterna. Många förövare, som brutala vakter i koncentrationslägren, kan också ha haft neurologiska och mentala sjukdomar som ökade grymheten i deras beteende så snart det samhälleliga locket som kontrollerar mördande hade tagits bort av regeringen i alla fall vad gäller judar."

Pincus beskriver i detta kapitel en av alla de seriemördare han undersökt och pratat med, Trent Scaggs, och det han gått igenom är helt fruktansvärt. Han skriver så här:

"Men om Trent hade fått höra en politisk ledare säga 'Kvinnor är vår olycka!' precis som Hitler sa 'Judarna är vår olycka!'. Ett offentligt fördömande av kvinnor och homosexuella som de ärftliga bärarna av socal patologi kunde ha upphöjt Trents lidande och försett honom med ett socialt avlopp för sitt hat.

Tänk om en Hitlerliknande politisk ledare hade sagt att kvinnor får män att arbeta och sedan stjäl de rikedomen som män samlar åt sig själva, att de skapar pornografi, överför infektionssjukdomar, är svaga, ickemänskliga och sinnesslöa/bristfälliga? Hitler sa detta om judarna, zigenarna och de homosexuella. Ett sådant budskap skulle troligen ha varit lika välkommet för Trent som Hitlers var för många tyskar [Trent blev slagen brutalt och sexuellt missbrukad från han var väldigt liten och hamnade till slut hos en moster eller faster vars man fortsatte denna behandling av Trent samtidigt som han talade om för pojken hur dåliga och hemska kvinnor var och inte minst hans moster Amanda. Och Trent blev oerhört hatisk mot kvinnor].

Tänk om Trent hade blivit frigiven från fängelset och tillsagd att han hade en ärorik roll att spela i räddandet av civilisationen och i skapandet av ett nytt och rättvist samhälle? Att han, stackars Trent Scaggs, skulle bli en ledare i eliminerandet av kvinnor och homosexuella [Trent själv var homosexuell]? Föreställ dig hur Trent kunde ha betett sig om han blev satt som befäl för ett läger i vilket dessa 'underordnade varelser' samlats, där han skulle kunna slå, våldta, tortera, lemlästa och mörda som han önskade, där hans agerande skulle vara förlåtet som befriande samhället och världen från de problem som orsakats av kvinnor och homosexuella.

Finns det något gemensamt element/drag mellan fallet Trent Scaggs och uppstigandet av nazister under Hitler? Jag har litet data med vilket denna fråga kan besvaras, men insikterna som jag har samlat från mitt arbete med kriminella antyder att Adolf Hitler och Trent Scaggs har mycket gemensamt."

Hitlers humör svängde enormt och han kunde bryta ut i raseri och tirader vid minsta provokation. En motsägelse, kritik, ett tvivel rörande sanningen eller visdomen i något han sagt eller gjort... Fram till Hitler var 11 år bestod hans betyg av idel stora A, men därefter hände något. Det står också en hel del om Hitlers uppväxt i Pincus bok...

"Är det inte möjligt att det finns ett släktskap mellan våld i hemmet och terrorism? De i samhället som stöder eller deltar i mord och terroristaktioner har 'aktningsvärdheten' att de är våldsamma av politiska eller religiösa anledningar, men tretalet (barnsmisshandel, hjärnskada [p.g.a. barnmisshandel?] och förföljelsemani [också p.g.a. barnmisshandel?])känner inga politiska, etniska eller religiösa gränser och kan hitta uotlopp i en 'värdig' sak.

I ett samhälle som tillåter eller uppmuntrar stigmatiserandet av en grupp människor [!!!], behöver inte mental sjukdom och/eller hjärnskada vara nödvändiga för att producera mordiskt våld. Den våldsamma impulsen genererad genom barnmisshandel kan bli uttryckt av medicinskt normala [dvs. utan hjärnskador eller mental sjukdom, men som är] misshandlade individer i ett sjukt samhälle.

Det obegränsade bifallet till våld i vissa politiska partier och gäng kan göra dessa grupper attraktiva för den misshandlade. Även om vi har litet information om familjedynamiken hos medlemmar av terroristorganisationer tror jag att historien med fysiskt och sexuellt våld och även mental sjukdom, förföljelsemani och hjärnskada är vanligt hos många av dem. Om ett samhälle (definierat som ett land, politiskt parti eller grupp) tog bort kravet att dess medlemmar skulle bete sig på ett ickevåldsamt sätt mot sina fiender, skulle hjärnskada och mental sjukdom inte vara nödvändigt för att släppa loss impulserna till våld som blev skapade av tidig misshandel. Om samhället säger 'Du är nu fri att våldta, tortera och döda dina fiender' skulle den misshandlade svara med entusiasm.

Varje amerikansk soldat i Vietnam begick inte avskyvärdheter, inte heller varje tysk i andra världskriget, inte varje arab i PLO.

Vad är skillnaden mellan den våldsamma och den ickevåldsamma medlemmen i sådana samhällen? Jag skulle vilja slå fast/postulera att tidig barndomsmisshandel skiljer förövare från ickeförövare.

I en sociologisk studie erhållen inte utan liten personlig risk på medlemmar av rasistorganisationer i USA, pekar Raphael Ezekiel ut ett antal drag i bakgrunden hos medlemmar av hatgrupper som påminner om livet hos de ytterst våldsamma lagbrytare som jag har undersökt. De flesta av Ezekiels subjekt hade förlorat en förälder vid sju års ålder, vanligtvis fadern. Styvfäder och mödrarnas pojkvänner blev typiskt beskrivna som kalla, råa/våldsamma och misshandlande. Förbindelser med familj utanför kärngruppen var skör och det fanns litet föräldraskap på djupet genom en utvidgad familj. Kyrka och sociala instanser (andra än polisen) hade liten eller ingen modulerande roll i familjerna och banden mellan syskon var minimal. Skolgången var avbruten och skolk liksom frånvaro var vanligt förekommande.

Ezekiel skrev 'Ett fåtal medlemmar talade spontant om faderlig alkoholism och våld... Jag tror att en massa hölls tillbaka från mig. [En del] medlemmar rapporterade alkoholism... familjevåld [och] tid tillbringad på häkten (?), fängelser. jag är ganska säker... att det fanns en god portion ytterligare strafftid än detta. Åtskilliga hade blivit bortacckorderade till fosterhem under barndomen. 'Alkoholism, våld, mental sjukdom, paranoia, skolmisslyckanden och medicinska/neurologiska problem genomsyrade Ezekiels hela redogörelse, tankeväckande erinrande om de faktorer som jag har mött hos våldsamma brottslingar.

Konceptet att våldsamma impulser är skapade av upplevelser av misshandel och tillåtna uttryck hos dessa misshandlade individer, som också har endogena neurologiska och psykiatriska sårbarheter [p.g.a. misshandel?] innebär väldigt viktiga implikationer (slutsatser/innebörder) för reduktionen och förebyggande av våld. Ansträngningar riktade mot mildrande av vilken som helst av dessa interagerande faktorer som orsakar våld skulle troligen ha stor betydelse. Den mest effektiva handlingen och troligen den lättaste att åstadkomma, dock, vore förebyggande av barnmisshandel genom sociala program och utbildningsprogram. Ett stort huvudsteg i de första förebyggande åtgärderna av våldsbrott kan troligen åstadkommas genom nationella ansträngningar att reducera eller eliminera all användning av kroppsbestraffningar av föräldrar och lärare."

Tillägg 21 juni: Josefin Brinks blogginlägg ”Ensamma galningar är sällan ensamma” är ett inlägg på detta tema.