Tags
911, Angela Merkel, B Lode, Bali Bombing, Cycle of violence, Harold, Immigrant crime, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Metin Başoğlu, Olave, Trauma
Harold, in comments, has introduced an insightful commentary with regard violence and associated trauma but in the context of a national government inflicting such violence and trauma, via its own policies, on its own people.
Harold says:
Here is part of an article by a psychiatry researcher (Metin Başoğlu) that actually makes some good points:
Acts of violence do not occur in a vacuum. The mass violence that characterises the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 9/11, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay and international terrorism can all be understood in terms of strong psychological motivators that inevitably create and sustain cycles of violence.
My colleagues and I carried out a study of 1358 Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Serbs in countries of the former Yugoslavia, who had experienced a wide range of war events, including combat, torture, forced displacement, refugee status and bombardment. We examined the cognitive and emotional effects of these events, and this study sheds some light on the processes that drive people from peaceful coexistence in a multi-ethnic society into an orgy of killing, torture and other atrocities (Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 294, p 580).
Almost 80 per cent of participants reported a lack of sense of redress for the trauma they had experienced. When we asked them how they felt about this, 98 per cent expressed a strong sense of injustice and more than 80 per cent reported distress, demoralisation, anger, loss of meaning in life, loss of faith in people, helplessness or pessimism. More than 3 in 5 reported a desire for vengeance, stating that if they had the chance, they would punish those they held responsible with their own hands.
People who felt the strongest desire for vengeance were those whose loved ones had endured captivity, torture, rape or violent death. That was followed by those who had personally become refugees or endured forced displacement, captivity and torture, or exposure to gunfire or shelling. These findings clearly show that war violence has powerful effects that could explain, at least in part, the motivation for further acts of violence.
This fits with experimental work showing that both humans and animals respond with anger and aggression to threats to their physical and psychological well-being and that retaliatory aggression attenuates the feelings of helplessness that arise from trauma. For an intuitive understanding of those feelings, simply imagine your home suddenly being raided by invading forces and your loved ones being humiliated, imprisoned, tortured, raped or killed.
Many other acts create feelings of outrage and helplessness, and the accompanying desire for vengeful action. Among them are economic policies that contribute to poverty in the name of national interests, high-technology weapons being dropped from the sky in the name of national security, invasions in the name of democracy, and humiliation, imprisonment, torture and killing in the name of the war on terror.
Weapons dropped from the sky in the name of national security create a desire for vengeful action
In a globalised world where images of war and human rights abuses are instantly transmitted to people’s living rooms, the vicarious effects of trauma also need attention. Evidence suggests that even witnessing such events second-hand leads to similar cognitive and emotional responses.The effects of trauma don’t just lead to tit-for-tat violence. They can radicalise ordinary civilians and can even lead to their engagement in suicide terrorism. It is important to understand that such action does not originate from religious beliefs per se; religion merely facilitates such acts by providing a meaning for self-sacrifice, such as martyrdom.
Understanding is further undermined by psychological strategies which not only aggravate vengeful feelings in the victims but also lead to curtailment of civil liberties and human rights in democratic societies in the name of national security. For example, characterising adversaries as fanatics, religious extremists or terrorists hell-bent on destroying western values maximises public fear and prevents an understanding of the psychology behind acts of terror, thereby bolstering public support for war. Euphemisms such as “collateral damage” and “aggressive interrogation techniques” serve to hide the horrors of war and human rights abuses from the public eye.
Halting mass violence, including terrorism, requires a political will to address the problem at its roots. That requires western nations to revise their foreign policies in ways that do not generate and sustain cycles of violence. Unfortunately, such political will appears unlikely at this stage of human history.
A solution might be reachable to some extent by raising public awareness of these issues and bringing pressure to bear upon governments. People also need to see how their consent to wars is manufactured through disinformation.
This is both a moral issue and one that concerns the safety of millions. Escalating cycles of mass violence might well lead to nuclear terrorism at some stage. It is often said that the first casualty of war is the truth. The antidote to this virulent problem is a better understanding of the truth of what wars and other forms of mass violence are really about.
Harold then explicates his intention in quoting the above:
“Almost 80 per cent of participants reported a lack of sense of redress for the trauma they had experienced. When we asked them how they felt about this, 98 per cent expressed a strong sense of injustice…”
Think whites exposed to immigrant crime.
“People who felt the strongest desire for vengeance were those whose loved ones had endured captivity, torture, rape or violent death. That was followed by those who had personally become refugees or endured forced displacement…”
Like whites who have been forced to move to escape immigrant crime (or black crime in the case if the US).
“Many other acts create feelings of outrage and helplessness, and the accompanying desire for vengeful action. Among them are economic policies that contribute to poverty in the name of national interests…”
Like importing cheap labour perhaps.
“…invasions in the name of democracy…”
Or invasions in the name of diversity.
“…and humiliation, imprisonment, torture and killing in the name of the war on terror.”
Or fining and imprisonment in the name of fighting racism.
“Understanding is further undermined by psychological strategies which not only aggravate vengeful feelings in the victims but also lead to curtailment of civil liberties and human rights in democratic societies in the name of national security…”
Or in the name of community cohesion.
etc.
All these examples are admittedly less severe than situations the original article is referring to. Nevertheless they are psychologically similar and we should expect similar psychological responses albeit to a lesser degree.
…
To respond to the specific excerpt to which you [Olave/B Lode in comments] responded.
“For example, characterising adversaries as fanatics, religious extremists or terrorists hell-bent on destroying western values maximises public fear and prevents an understanding of the psychology behind acts of terror, thereby bolstering public support for war.”
Characterising immigration adversaries as racist far-right extremists hell-bent on destroying liberal values maximises public fear and prevents an understanding of the psychology behind immigration restrictionism thereby bolstering public support for hate-speech laws and similar [perhaps you can think of something better here].
Take another media release by the NSW Police Force today as an example of what Harold is saying:
Attempted carjacking – Old Guildford
Tuesday, 08 Mar 2011 05:16amPolice from the Fairfield Local Area Command are investigating the circumstances surrounding an attempted carjacking yesterday.
About 5.30pm (Monday 7 March) a 51-year-old man got into his 2010 model Mercedes C Class, that was parked in a carpark on Orchardleigh Street.
The man got into his vehicle, closed the door and was about to start the engine when the drivers door swung open.
A man, described as Middle Eastern/Mediterranean in appearance, about 180cm tall with a muscular build and wearing a dark scarf around his face with a dark beanie, hooded jumper and track pants, threatened to shoot him.
The man was pointing a pistol at the victim while demanding his keys. The victim refused to hand over the keys and the man ran from the scene empty handed.
Police attended a short time later and seized the vehicle for forensic examination.
Investigations are continuing, and detectives from the Fairfield Local Area Command would like to speak with anyone who may have information…
What are we, that is the majority Whites who live in NSW, to make of this crime and any other crime where the perpetrators are not of our kind? Should we respond, as Angela Merkel does with regard immigrant crime, and state:
“Whether German perpetrators beat up a subway train driver in Frankfurt or foreign perpetrators beat up an old man in the Munich subway makes not the slightest difference to me…” ?
Is such an equanimous response truly possible? More specifically and importantly, given Harold’s argument, can we respond to the crime with equivalence? Taking Merkel up on her statement let’s ask “Whether your father goes berserk one day on a train and violently rapes, then mercilessly beats and finally, in a stabbing frenzy, slaughters your mother” or “Whether a foreigner, that your laws admitted into your nation, goes berserk one day on a train and violently rapes, then mercilessly beats and finally, in a stabbing frenzy, slaughters your mother”, does this make “not the slightest difference” to you? Not the slightest difference?
Of course, in that context, Merkel’s assertion is complete rubbish. In fact, if she did see “not the slightest difference” we could reasonably conclude that Merkel is not human. Of course the final outcome with regard her mother’s physical injuries are the same, they are equal, but would the psychological result be the same, on her mother as well as her daughter? Would Merkel go about seeking redress in exactly the same manner? Would Merkel’s own internal questions like “How could this have happened” or “Why did this happen?” be the same? Of course they wouldn’t. Because even though the physical results are the same the psychological impact is not the same. The circumstances aren’t the same. In one instance her own father, which we’ll say like most people would, she loves and cherishes has committed an horrendous crime upon her mother which she equally loves and cherishes. In the other situation a complete stranger has committed the atrocity and, even though the matter is still horrific it is not as horrific when her father has committed the crime. Worse still, Merkel herself in the latter scenario must bear some responsibility for the crime since it was she herself, through her own policies, that admitted this foreigner into the company of her own mother. Thus Merkel’s actions are attributable to the cause of the crime.
There are many similar examples one could describe. Like your own child being mauled by a stray dog as opposed to your own child being mauled by a dog you brought home. Or your child being raped by a complete stranger and your child being the victim of incest. In each matter the physical outcome is the same but responsibility is not, nor are the psychological impacts the same. There is no equivalence in how one seeks redress of the crimes nor how one should go about ameliorating the circumstances of such crimes happening in future, to other people.
It is patently absurd to state that such things “makes not the slightest difference to me” or, in Harold’s example US! Of course they make a difference. A monumental difference. Yet daily we are excoriated for our reactions to immigrant crime, or foreign crime like that of 911 or Bali Bombing or…whatever.
Communities in Australia, and all over the White West, are being traumatised by government policies that insert traumatised people among them. But one thing you’ll note as I have, is that the communities that are exposed to immigrant crime are the least able financially, communally or spiritually to oppose what is being inflicted upon them (like those in the Fairfield community, read the link for a further example of community trauma). Worse, these people are rubbished by politicians and the MSM for their natural, rational and reasonable reactions to such crimes as being unnatural, irrational and unreasonable. In short, they themselves are accused as being “racists!” And by racist the accusers don’t mean someone like myself who acknowledges race as real and being simply the extension of family but rather, as a violent and extreme “hater”. So the crimes being inflicted upon these communities are not only initiated by their own family, their own race, but as well compounded by their family who then accuse the victims as being hateful and the cause, in and of themselves, for the crimes that have been inflicted upon themselves.
The net result of all this crime and massive non-discriminatory immigration will not be less violence, but more violence. The cycle of trauma is increased and exacerbated, not ameliorated, by the relentless invasion and psychological humiliation of our people.