The Violent Majority: a veritable Sign of the Times

Every once in a while a small story will emerge in the mainstream press that seems to epitomize the true horrors of war and encapsulate the type of person that would willingly volunteer to participate in such an endeavor.

Now, I'm not talking about the obvious outrageous scandals such as the sadistic torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, but smaller less significant events like the odd comment from a soldier in a an interview that betrays their narrow-minded bigotry and disdain for anyone who is "different" from them.

Well, a few days ago, two news stories appeared in my inbox, both exemplary of the kind of attitude that seems inherent in the modern soldier and their patriotic supporters and indicative of the essence or internal orientation of such a person.

The first article comes form the San Francisco Chronicle...

Marine general counseled for saying "it's fun to shoot some people"

Thursday, February 3, 2005

(02-03) 12:20 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- The commandant of the Marine Corps said Thursday he has counseled a senior subordinate for saying publicly, "It's fun to shoot some people."

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who has commanded Marines in both Afghanistan and Iraq, made the comments Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis is the commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.

According to an audio recording of Mattis' remarks, he said, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."

He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Thursday, Gen. Mike Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, "I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully."

"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," Hagee said. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."

Hagee also praised Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

He said the commitment of Marines "helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation's security. This is not something we relish, yet we accept it as a reality in our profession of arms."

He said he was confident Mattis would continue to serve.

Now, what kind of sick and twisted individual actually takes pleasure in taking the life of another? Can we ascribe such inhuman and seemingly psychopathic behaviour to the effects of nationalistic mind-programming alone? Or perhaps there is something else that separates this soldier from another, one who may also be brainwashed by patriotic propaganda and the humiliation of basic training, but still feels a sense of remorse when forced by external circumstances to take the life of another. These questions are most important and deserve a closer examination, and are ones which I will come back to later on in this essay.

The second story that caught my eye appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald...


School halts Adopt-a-Sniper fund-raiser

February 4, 2005 - 2:10PM
Reuters

A U.S. university in Wisconsin has blocked an attempt by Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt-a-Sniper" that raises money for US sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The students were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide".

"Clearly the rhetoric of that organisation raised some questions and we had some strong objections as a Jesuit university," Marquette University school spokeswoman Brigid O'Brien said on Thursday.

The students, representing a group called College Republicans, originally got permission to set up a table at the student union to raise money for US troops in Iraq.

But they chose to promote a group called Adopt-a-Sniper, which says on its website it supports snipers deployed by the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group says it "helps real snipers get the real gear they need to help keep us safe."

The brainchild of a Texas police SWAT officer Adopt a Sniper (www.adoptasniper.org) has raised thousands of dollars in cash and gear to supplement the kit of sharp shooters in US combat platoons.

Among products sold on the site is a $US15 coin with the imprinted phrase "Assistance From A Distance".

Here we are not dealing the combat soldier directly but those jingoistic supporters who take so much pride in their killers-by-proxy, that they are motivated to raise funds in order to sustain their hero's cowardly acts of murder with catchy slogans from half a world away.

What do these two articles have in common? They both involve individuals who appear to enjoy it when others are killed. The Germans have a word for this obvious emotional disconnect; they call it schadenfreud, or taking pleasure in another's suffering. What seems to a major telling sign of this phenomenon is the apparant inability of the offending person to feel empathy for their victims, one of the main characteristics of the psychopath.

Now, keep these ideas in mind while reading the next article; one that was published in The Spokesman Review last year...

'It's a sniper's dream'

Marine sharpshooters use stealth, high-powered rifles in Fallujah

Tony Perry
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, April 17, 2004

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Taking a short breather Friday, the 21-year-old Marine corporal explained what it is like to practice his lethal skill in the battle for this city.

"It's a sniper's dream," he said in polite, matter-of-fact tones. "You can go anywhere and there are so many ways to fire at the enemy without him knowing where you are."

Sniping -- killing an enemy from long distance with a single shot -- has become a significant tactic for Marines in this "Sunni Triangle" city as three battalions skirmish daily with armed insurgents who can find cover among the buildings, walls and trees.

Marine sniper teams are spread in and around the city, working night and day, using powerful scopes, thermal imaging equipment and specially modified bolt-action rifles that allow them to identify and target armed insurgents from 800 yards or more.

Sniping experts -- there are several here with the Marines -- say there might not have been such a "target-rich" battlefield for such shooters since the World War II battle for Stalingrad, during which German and Russian snipers dueled for months.

As a military tactic, sniping is centuries old; the first snipers used bows and arrows. Leonardo da Vinci is said to have been a sniper against the Holy Roman Empire.

Weapons change, but the goal of the sniper remains the same: harass and intimidate the enemy, make him afraid to venture into the open, deny him the chance to rest and regroup.

The Marines believe their snipers have killed hundreds of insurgents, although that figure alone does not accurately portray the significance of sniping. A sign on the wall of sniper school at Camp Pendleton, Calif., displays a Chinese proverb: "Kill One Man, Terrorize a Thousand." "Sometimes a guy will go down, and I'll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of his buddies," said the Marine corporal. "Then I'll use a second shot."

In negotiations aimed at ending the standoff in the city, the insurgents have demanded that the Marines pull back their snipers.

A shaky truce exists between the Marines who surround the city and the fighters within the circle. But the cease-fire allows the Marines to carry out defensive operations within the city, which among other things they define as allowing fire on insurgents who display weapons, break the curfew or move their forces toward U.S. troops.

While official policy discourages Marines from keeping a personal count of people they have killed, the custom continues. In nearly two weeks of conflict here, the corporal from a Midwestern city has emerged as the top sniper, with 24 confirmed kills. By comparison, the top Marine Corps sniper in Vietnam killed 103 people in 16 months.

"As a sniper your goal is to completely demoralize the enemy," said the corporal, who played football and ran track in high school and dreams of becoming a high school coach. "I couldn't have asked to be in a better place. I just got lucky: to be here at the right time and with the right training."

The military has asked that sniper names not be published. Insurgents were said to have placed a bounty for the killing of any Marine sniper. A Web site, linked to the insurgents, attempts to provide information on snipers and their family members. During Vietnam, the Viet Cong also put a bounty on snipers.

Marine snipers, whose motto is "one shot, one kill," fire from rooftops in crowded urban areas of Fallujah, as well as exploring the city by foot. It sometimes takes hours to set up a shot, as the sniper hides in the distance, waiting for the opportune moment.

Marine officers credit the snipers, all of whom are enlisted men, with saving Marine lives by suppressing enemy fire and allowing their comrades greater freedom of movement.

"The snipers clear the streets for us," said Capt. Douglas Zembiec. "The snipers are true heroes."

Sniper teams have come under fire and suffered casualties. Marine intelligence suggests that the insurgents -- using Russian- and Chinese-made rifles and optics -- have their own sniper teams, but there have been no reports of Marines killed by sniper fire.

Unlike other infantry troops, the sniper has a greater confidence that his shot is not as likely to hit a civilian or a "friendly."

The corporal hopes to get back home by late fall in time to take his girlfriend to a college football game and go deer hunting with his father.

"When I go hunting for whitetail, it's for food and sport," he said. "Here, when I go hunting, it's personal, very personal."

Again we see not only a callous disregard for human life, even if it is from a so-called "enemy", but also a certain joy experienced by the sniper as they pick off their targets one by one, and proudy add more notches to their ever-growing kill count. There is something despicably creepy about people like the ones described above, who seem to exist on this earth for no other purpose than to serve themselves.

Now compare the articles above to the following story that describes an wholly different war-time experience for the soldiers in question. In these accounts, published in the Christian Science Monitor, we see the great toll that the killing of other human beings take on certain soldiers, and the devastating aftermath of guilt and remorse that follows when one is coerced or persuaded to act in a way that contradicts their inner nature.

Is anyone ever truly prepared to kill?

By Jane Lampman
Christian Science Monitor
Sept 29, 2004

One dark night in Iraq in February 1991, a U.S. Army tank unit opened fire on two trucks that barreled unexpectedly into its position along the Euphrates river. One was carrying fuel and burst into flames, and as men scattered from the burning trucks, the American soldiers shot them.

"To this day, I don't know if they were civilians or military - it was over in an instant," says Desert Storm veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles. But it wasn't over for him.

"For the first years after the Gulf War it was tough," says the decorated soldier. He had difficulty sleeping, and when he did, the nightmares came. "I was very angry and got drunk all the time; I considered suicide for awhile."

Like many young Americans sent off to war, he was highly skilled as a soldier but not adequately prepared for the realities of combat, particularly the experience of killing.

Much is rightly made of the dedication and sacrifice of those willing to lay down their lives for their country. But what is rarely spoken of, within the military or American society at large, is what it means to kill - to overcome the ingrained resistance most human beings feel to slaying one of their own kind, and the haunting sense of guilt that may accompany such an action. There is a terrible price to be paid by those who go to war, their families, and their communities, say some experts, by ignoring such realities.

"We never in our military manuals address the fact that they go forward to kill," says Lt. Col. David Grossman, a former Army Ranger. "When the reality hits them, it has a profound effect. We have to put mechanisms in place to help them deal with that.

"Every society has a blind spot, an area into which it has great difficulty looking," Colonel Grossman says. "Today that blind spot is killing."

It may seem strange that a central fact of war for millenniums should become an urgent concern now. But some close to the scene say modified warfare training that makes it easier to kill - and a US cultural response that tends to ignore how killing affects soldiers - have taken an unprecedented emotional and psychological toll. A lengthy conflict in Iraq, they worry, could increase that toll dramatically.

Society has a moral obligation, some argue, to better prepare those sent to war, to provide assistance in combat, and to help in the transition home.

"We have a profound responsibility because we send these people into combat on our behalf, to kill for us," says Shannon French, who teaches ethics at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Postwar tragedy may have been averted, says Mr. Sheehan-Miles, if help had been available to his tank unit. "Within my own tank company, half of the married soldiers were divorced within a year after the Gulf War; one shot another over a girl," he says. "They didn't know how to get help, and the Army essentially did nothing."

Psychological injuries of war can't be tied solely to killing alone - seeing close comrades die and other horrors of war are also factors. But mental-health professionals and chaplains who've worked closely with veterans see killing as a significant contributor, along with other demoralizing elements of combat that soldiers experience or see as "a betrayal of what's right," says Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Jonathan Shay.

The devastating impact of war on soldiers was visible after World Wars I and II and the Korean War as well. But particularly evident today is the ongoing toll of the Vietnam War, whose vets are overrepresented in the homeless and prison populations. One-third are said to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In July, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 16 percent of veterans of the war in Iraq suffer from depression or PTSD, and that fewer than 40 percent have sought help.

Along with several studies, the efforts of two men are stirring thinking within the US military: Grossman, who wrote "On Killing: the Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society," and Dr. Shay, who has worked with vets for 20 years at the VA Outpatient Clinic in Boston. Shay has written two books ("Achilles in Vietnam" and "Odysseus in America") that provide in-depth analyses of how combat can affect individual character and the homecoming to civilian society.

The military has hired both to help improve training and recommend changes to military culture.

A natural resistance to killing

The military's responsibility to respond is great, Grossman says, because of the way combat has been transformed since World War II. Interviews by a US Army historian during that war showed that only 15 to 20 percent of infantrymen in the European and Pacific theaters chose to fire at the enemy when they were under fire. Resistance to killing was strong.

Whether because of religious and moral teachings or what he terms "a powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species," soldiers' apparent willingness to die rather than kill stunned military officials.

To overcome that resistance, the military revamped its training to program soldiers, through psychological conditioning, to make shooting reflexive. The techniques were applied with "tremendous success," Grossman says, raising the firing rate to 55 percent in the Korean conflict and 95 percent in Vietnam. But little thought, he adds, went to the aftereffects of overriding the soldiers' natural inclinations.

Shay also flags concerns about combat leadership, citing instances when soldiers have been treated unfairly, lacked necessary equipment, been asked to do things they considered wrong, or seen questionable behavior rewarded. These are all experiences he includes under the heading of "the betrayal of what is right." People don't have to be injured by their wartime experience, he adds, but that requires "assuring them cohesion in their units; expert and ethical leadership; and highly realistic training for what they have to do."

The first responsibility of leadership and the public, many say, is not to put the country's sons and daughters at risk unless going to war is essential.

If it is, then they need help sorting through the issues. Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, a retired Navy chaplain, calls for "spiritual force protection."

"We have a responsibility to understand the dangers war poses to the humanity of our people and do all we can to protect them, to develop 'moral muscle,' " he says.

In "The Code of the Warrior," his course at the Naval Academy, Dr. French focuses on moral distinctions - the historical legacy of the warrior and rules of war, and how to be alert to crossing the boundaries, as occurred at Abu Ghraib prison.

"It has been very well documented that there is a close connection between severe combat stress and the sense of having crossed moral lines," she says.

While the military academies offer officers some ethical training, the rank and file learn mostly from their commanders. Recent training Grossman has provided to Marine battalions heading to Iraq included distinguishing between killing and murder.

"Many have 'Thou shalt not kill' in the back of their minds, and think they've broken a profoundly moral law," he says. Grossman helps them see that the Judeo-Christian ethos generally accepts the idea that killing can be justified at times, and he emphasizes the importance of close adherence to the rules of engagement.

But there are gray areas, particularly in urban conflict, where it is not always clear whether to shoot, says Paul Rieckhoff of the Army National Guard, who led a platoon through combat patrols, raids, and ambushes in Baghdad until February of this year.

During one operation, "a female truck driver dropped us off and was guarding the truck when a kid about 10 years old came around the corner and started shooting at her," he says. "What does she do - shoot him or get shot?"

Vital to the health of soldiers is what happens after each combat experience. It's essential to have "after-action reviews," many say, in which units sort through experiences that were disturbing to them. These may include killing, or seeing their comrades or innocent civilians killed. "The worst thing is to not think about it. You can't not think about something for a lifetime," Grossman says.

At the end of the 1989 US invasion of Panama, Army chaplain R. Ryder Stevens, now retired, and another chaplain sought out soldiers individually. "One guy talked, but kept his M-16 between us and kept taking it apart, cleaning it, and putting it together again," says Colonel Stevens. "Finally he blurted out, 'I murdered a woman and her baby the other day and I'm going to burn in hell!' " He had followed the rules of engagement and shot at a car that didn't stop fully at a checkpoint. After he was assured that God's love was big enough to forgive him, "he fell into my arms crying," Stevens recounts.

In Iraq, there may be one chaplain for every 1,500 soldiers, Rieckhoff says. Those who need help must be encouraged to seek it. But the system is failing, many insist. Seeking help carries a stigma, and procedures for getting help lack privacy. [...]

So, here is where we come to the very root of the problem, what appears to be two totally different responses to a terrible but similar situation that can perhaps be explained by the possibility of two distinctly different types of people. This idea may be unorthodox, however it is not new and is elucidated by comments made in regards to this last story that was published on the October 1, 2004 edition of the Signs of the Times alternative news site.

Comment: Having faced the reality of life on this planet over the past few years, we have come to a tentative hypothesis that in a very general way, there may well be two very different "types" of human beings sharing said planet.

The theory goes like this:

The first group of humans, as evidenced in the story above, naturally experience a great deal of remorse and psychological problems when ordered by their government to kill another human being. It seems that, for these people, despite relentless indoctrination and brainwashing at the hands of the military, they still can't cope with the after effects of taking another life. They cannot help but feel EMPATHY for their victims, and realize deep down that by committing such crimes is akin to a "sin against the soul". Their internal conflict arises from what they are told is true; that Arabs are the enemy and must be wiped out at all costs, and what they feel inside is true; that Arabs are human beings too and are really no different from you or I.

On the other side of the coin are people who not only seem to enjoy killing other people, but seem to derive some sick and twisted sense of power from holding another's life in their hands. These people appear to lack any empathy or compassion for their victims and seem to become more ruthless and energized as their "kill count" rises.

For this second "type" of human, killing is merely a mechanical task like any other, and far from requiring counseling, they are usually the ones who rapidly rise up through the ranks to become commanders, generals and presidents. According to the theory, our social system is structured in such a way that such unconscionable behaviour is rewarded and, in the end, we find our societies being run by the "worst of the worst" - aka psychopaths and madmen - albeit very able and sometimes even "charming"examples.

Perhaps such a theory can answer some of the questions that have troubled "free thinkers" throughout the ages - questions which truly need answers if we are to ever wake up and understand just "what this whole show is all about, before it's out".


Now, if this theory of two outwardly similar but genetically distinct races is true, then it clearly explains the two very different responses to war, among many other human behavioural phenomenon that have puzzled scientists and psychologists throughout history.

In the tradition of Esoteric Christianity as presented by Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and later Mouravieff, the human race is seemingly composed of two different groups of people. Both groups do share the similar characteristics of the three lower centres; moving, emotional and intellectual, which allows them to function and survive on the terrestrial plane, and on the surface makes them impossible to tell apart from one another. However, according to Mouravieff, the first group identified as pre-adamic humanity lacks the three higher centres which are the key to esoteric evolution. The second class of human beings, and that which separates them from the first, do have these three centres, but for most remain only in the "potential" stage, and must be developed by the persistent honing of consciousness and will in order to develop further.

Without going into the details and mechanics of such evolution, which would be well beyond the original scope of this article, for our purposes it is important to understand how these two groups can coexist on the planet at the same time, and what might be the experience of each in regards to our subject.

The pre-adamic human, being devoid of the possibility of esoteric evolution would likely feel right at home here on the earthly plane, for this is their domain, so to speak, where they and others like them thrive, prosper and due to their probable self-serving orientation, ultimately rise to the top echelons of society. For them, their is nothing else but the material world, to be exploited and used at their will and for their own personal gain.

For the adamic human, one with the latent higher centres, might be more likely to feel out of sorts with the world in general, and feel as if there must be something more to life than mere worldly success and possessions. This group retains, even if in potential or as a distant memory, a direct link to something higher or perhaps more spiritual for lack of a better term. They often feel themselves at odds with the pre-adamic humans and their entropic and seeming self-serving behaviour.

It is those with a connection to their higher centres that would likely feel a sense of disgust or remorse when forced to take the life of another, whereas those without such a connection probably wouldn't think anything of it, and some may even take pleasure in the killing and suffering of others.

This last group can be considered as kind of an exaggeration or extreme abberation of the pre-adamic type. The materialist oriented human that not only lacks the higher centres, but seems to revel in their brutal, mechanical, unconscious, and animalistic nature (no insults to animals intended). What might be defined by the DSM-IV as clearly being psychopathic. It is these human beings that appear to be the most successful in this material world. Whose ruthless self-serving nature and obvious lack of compassion acts as a evolutionary adaptive strategy. Those most willing to sacrfice others in their rise to power, whose predator-like nature seizes personal power at the expense of others, and who seemingly suffer no remorse, guilt or compliance with social laws and norms are likely to be the ones who end up as the rulers and leaders of our world.

No wonder the adamic-types are at an immediate disadvantage in this power hungry world, and whose empathy towards others, the link to their higher centres, that very characteristic that makes them more than human, are always preyed upon by those who are not hindered by such feelings. Gives a whole new meaning to that well worn phrase... "nice guys finish last", for indeed in this world at least, it seems they do.

Of course there are no hard and fast rules, and being only a hypothesis must be tested and validated by long and careful observation by the perceiver. There are likely to be exceptions to this theory and those who may appear to be of one orientation are perhaps struggling with finding that connection they may or may not have. The universe is an open ended system, and the purpose of this essay is not to classify or identify one group from another with any certainty, but only notice and recognize patterns to see if they fit.

Taking a clue from the traditions mentioned above, it is imperative that each person test this hypothesis for themselves to see if any accuracy can be acertained in their own lives and relationships.

Now, according the the above Esoteric Christian sources, it appears as though the population of the planet is roughly divided equally between the two races of humans, those with the higher centres and those without, which seems to contradict the title of this essay which suggests that those materialist oriented humans far outnumber those more spiritually oriented. While their numbers may be more or less equal, it does seem that those with the higher centres who allow themselves to be controlled, manipulated or preyed upon by those of the pyschopathic variety, as well as those with higher centres who immerse themselves in the trappings of earthly materialism in denial of their higher nature, do add to the great number of pre-adamic humans, so that in the end they make up what I have named for the purpose of this essay, the violent majority.

Also, as our earth spins towards greater and greater level of chaos, including all manner of climate and earth changes, perpetual war and the looming apocalyptic finale that Dubya and his fundamentalist followers so ardently desire in the Middle East, their numbers appear to be growing. And so, it will be left up to us, a small minority of like-minded, truth-seeking individuals who see the real "terror of the situation", and are fed up with the domination of this world by soulless psychopaths, and whose only option remains is to continue speaking the truth to the lie, and perhaps by doing so, reach other similar humans who are also looking for a way to escape from this nightmare we call the human condition.

These and other disturbing stories that detail the true horrors of our reality can be found updated daily at the very best alternative news site on the internet today (in my opinon, of course); the Signs of the Times.

For those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear...

Relic