Why War? Why Terror? Why ISIS?

What is it about war and terror that so many young men and women find so alluring? Could it be this?

 Above: prehistoric cave painting of a large animal hunt

This short except posted by DelanceyPlace.com from from Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence by Karen Armstrong may help explain some of the lure that ISIS has:

…"Millennia of fighting large aggressive animals meant that [prehistoric] hunting parties became tightly bonded teams that were the seeds of our modern armies, ready to risk everything for the common good and to protect their fellows in moments of danger. And there was one more conflicting emotion to be reconciled: they probably loved the excitement and intensity of the hunt. ...

"The [brain's] limbic system comes into play. The prospect of killing may stir our empathy, but in the very acts of hunting, raiding, and battling, this same seat of emotions is awash in serotonin, the neurotransnitter responsible for the sensation of ecstasy that we associate with some forms of spiritual experience. So it happened that these violent pursuits came to be perceived as sacred activities, however bizarre that may seem to our understanding of religion. People, especially men, experienced a strong bond with their fellow warriors, a heady feeling of altruism at putting their lives at risk for others and of being more fully alive. This response to violence persists in our nature. The New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges has aptly described war as 'a force that gives us meaning':

War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought. All bow before the supreme effort. We are one. Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuing suffering as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seek not only happiness but meaning. And tragically war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning.

"It may be too that as they give free rein to the aggressive impulses from the deepest region of their brains, warriors feel in tune with the most elemental and inexorable dynamics of existence, those of life and death. Put another way, war is a means of surrender to reptilian ruthlessness, one of the strongest of human drives, without being troubled by the self-critical nudges of the neocortex.

"The warrior, therefore, experiences in battle the transcendence that others find in ritual, sometimes to pathological effect. Psychiatrists who treat war veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have noted that in the destruction of other people, soldiers can experience a self-affirmation that is almost erotic. Yet afterward, as they struggle to disentangle their emotions of pity and ruthlessness, PTSD sufferers may find themselves unable to function as coherent human beings. One Vietnam veteran described a photograph of himself holding two severed heads by the hair; the war, he said, was 'hell,' a place where 'crazy was natural' and everything 'out of control,' but, he concluded:

The worst thing I can say about myself is that while I was there I was so alive. I loved it the way you can like an adrenaline high, the way you can love your friends, your tight buddies. So unreal and the realest thing that ever happened .... And maybe the worst thing for me now is living in peacetime without a possibility of that high again. I hate what that high was about but I loved that high.

"'Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent,' Hedges explains. 'Trivia dominates our conversation and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us a resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble.' One of the many, intertwined motives driving men to the battlefield has been the tedium and pointlessness of ordinary domestic existence. The same hunger for intensity would compel others to become monks and ascetics."…

Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence by Karen Armstrong.

Comments

[Martin Samuels]

Karen Armstrong is a well known opponent of all organized religion. In her quest to justify her abandonment of her own Catholic faith she has misrepresented modern Jewish History, even going so far as to deny that Eliezer Ben Yehuda was buried in Israel which is odd since his grave site is known. Moreover She is seriously anti Zionist. Hard to explain why she doesn't exhibit the same hostility to Muslims. But that appears to be a prevalent problem in those circles You can, of course use her as a source. Her scholarship is of questionable value, but she is, at least a reliable enemy of traditional Judaism which makes her a good bed fellow for you. I think you need to face the fact that something is happening to you.

[Allan]

“but in the very acts of hunting, raiding, and battling, this same seat of emotions is awash in serotonin, the neurotransmitter responsible for the sensation of ecstasy that we associate with some forms of spiritual experience.”

Which is why it is essential for society to provide safe outlets for these emotions for young unmarried me. These are available in the West. There is sports - which is essentially simulated war . There is entertainment – simulated violence in movies and video games. There is politics – rooting for your candidates and parties rather than for a general and his armies. And of course there is access to premarital sex as well as the right to view pornography.

These are all missing in Islam – by design – and the result is predictable – ISIS (and similar groups). A dangerous powder keg of millions of bored and sexually frustrated young men whose only source of “approved” excitement and “adrenaline rush” is war (“jihad”), violence and terrorism – especially against the West and Israel (whose free open lifestyle they subconsciously ENVY). Then their religion promises them a heaven full of beautiful virgins - to compensate for their current life of forced celibacy. With enough brainwashing many are even willing to carry out a suicide mission to win this prize.

[Allan]

correction - that should be "young unmarried men" lol!

[raf]

Speculative, collective psychoanalysis with no more scientific validity than the individual variety -- even with the addition of the latest neurological buzzwords. Has the author accompanied men "hunting, battling, and raiding" and found a way to measure the serotonin she claims is flooding the brain's limbic system at that time?

[Jeff]

"Has the author accompanied men "hunting, battling, and raiding" and found a way to measure the serotonin she claims is flooding the brain's limbic system at that time?"

How do you know she doesn't footnote it in the book?

[raf]

Because I checked. And because measuring serotonin levels in the brain requires a PET scan.

[anchell]

"Put another way, war is a means of surrender to reptilian ruthlessness, one of the strongest of human drives, without being troubled by the self-critical nudges of the neocortex."

So then, as with all things indulgent, war is humanity's primal expression of the penultimate existential angst and our self destructive pact with evil.

It is our repeated acceptance of the serpent's offering where in time and again we fall prey to it's darkness and other-worldliness. And the resultant boot to our gut out of the comforts and protection of Eden.

And while we may disassociate ourselves from our actions by compartmentally pointing to the actions of others, it is really our own calling for which we are responding.

Without a doubt, it is telling then, that humanity is infinitely drawn to the inexorable taste, and stench, and sight of life's thickened red liquid as it freely flows unhindered and breached.

More so, if it is spewed along side the splattering of rotted corpses so as to both shock and enliven the spirit within.

In essence the act of war in all its forms produces the same euphoric, adrenalin driven rush as the personal, sexually intimate orgasm or, even more so, the creationist raison d'etré primordial big bang.

War reminds us that there is a commonality between science, religion and spirituality. It proposes that within each of us, in our most dire moments, all that we believed or knew coalesces into the observable truth of our own affirmation.

Here existential truth are uncovered from the fringes, and at a price that is irreconcilable to the conscionable.But for the greater picture which suggests that each learning gained by humanity, elevates us closer to a dutiful and benevolent existence in the know of the Creator.

As it stands, war is both our calling and the answer to our quest to challenge our existential limits without reliance on the Creator.

War directly, informs us that we must be mindful of our spirit's existential longing and perturbances. It is the knock at that primordial door connecting life to death, known to unknown and good to evil. And it's reprisal challenges every force by which life can be defined.

[jake]

Anchell and Alan thank you for the very thoughtful replies.

[raf]

A few groups, like the Plains Indians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fought wars for sport and thrills, but they were the exception. As a rule, wars throughout history were fought for serious purposes -- for land, power, religious or political dominance, and freedom -- which could not be attained peacefully. The classic example is the American Civil War.

[raf]

P.S. I omitted rapidly increased wealth as one of the serious purposes.

[adam]

It is a good quick way to be a hero. That is for us. To live for 70 years and have a good reputation that is tough. To get killed and be a martyr that is easy. And it isn't just Muslims. For people who have little to live for and it is a good quick way to be a hero.

[Josh]

@ Martin, Karen is an opponent of irrational make believe nonsense. Now if your judaism falls into that brand then you might attack the product itself rather than the critique. But thats not how haredim roll eh?

@ raf. Sounds like you are just pissed off that other people sell more books than you. Especially people who have less grandiose academic credentials. bitching at others' success aint gonna get you any of your own.

[anchell]

@Allan . . . your rants about Islam is excessive and totally one sided. I have had several clients who are Muslims and some who are in partnership with Jews, in both business and of a personal nature. Best friends even.

But for what I have seen through some skewed media types, I've not yet witnessed the prone to violence Muslim archetype to which you so easily assume the worst.

Yes, I do live in Canada, away from much of the madness that seems routine elsewhere. Yet, there are many people here who are Muslims and are no where close to the devalued individuals you so readily describe.

And while I did not intend to be totally contrarian, the outlets you have listed are in a few cases quite questionable.

You seem to have become a party to manufacturing violence. Which is ultimately a desensitizing tool whose purpose is to rid us of our conscionable approach to life. Gratuitous violence reinforces the false belief that we can be once removed from our victims without worry of repercussions.

And finally, if you have seen pornography then you know very well that it is darkness and, it too will often very easily lead to violence.

[anchell]

@jake . . . blessings, and thank you!

[Allan]

@Anchell - I have had several clients who are Muslims and some who are in partnership with Jews, in both business and of a personal nature. Best friends even.

I agree that most Muslims are generally friendly peaceful people who go about their own business like the rest of us. However, even the most moderate are sworn enemies of the State of Israel and will never accept the right of Jews to even live in "Palestine" let alone have a sovereign state in the Middle East.

In any of Israel’s battles for survival - they are rooting for our enemies - never for the Jews. Don't be fooled, and don't take my word for it. Ask any Muslim questions such as the following to see Islam in its true light.

“Do you accept the State of Israel to exist as the Jewish homeland?”
“What do you think of Zionism?”
“Do you believe the Holocaust happened?”
“Who should have sovereignty over Jerusalem?”
“Do you believe women are the equals of men in every way?”
“What should happen to a Muslim who want to leave his religion?”

“if you have seen pornography then you know very well that it is darkness .”

I know no such thing. Actually most scenes are very well lit! Pornography is phenomenally popular all over the world and I consider it harmless entertainment.

I respect your right to dislike it. However I have never seen a credible study that shows any link whatsoever to increases in violence.

[raf]

Josh: Where have I complained or even implied a complaint about someone else's book sales? As for Karen Armstrong, I've already noted here that she's a fine scholar. But she also has a tendency to inject her sometimes unfounded personal opinions into discussions about religion, and that's what she does here with respect to warfare.

[Josh]

Come on Roman, you are having a mewling little swipe at her here and its not the first time you've done that with other people's work. (And I'm doing much the same to you with my book comment of course!)

Now youre obviously entitled to take whatever view of her propositions you choose but it seems like an assertion that is certainly plausible and I've not seen you proffer a better alternative.

Your point about measuring serotonin levels is just being mischievous, you obv are aware that platelet or lumbar puncture tests are available but thats utterly beside the point: no tests of any sort are going to be carried out in a battle scenario, are they?

[anchell]

@Allan . . .if we cannot get a consensus agreement across the board from Jews about any of the questions you have listed, how then can you conclude that Muslims or Christians, or Japanese, The French or any particular population of people will provide that homogenous response you are so certain Muslims will provide.

For the most part western attitudes toward women are mostly progressive. But do you remember the civil rights march in the US during the late 60's? It was bolstered by many who found themselves on the fringe. This included women who wanted greater freedom to reproductive rights as it pertained to their bodies. A major step towards birth control and family planning.

I've mentioned this because many of the advances, including women's rights and freedoms, we can now thump our chests about are relatively recent progressions. And they have come about as a product of specific socio-economic and imperialistic necessities.

In Canada for example, some women gained the right to vote during the 1920's. But many others could not do so until circa 1960's.

Patriarchal societies on a whole are slow to recognize the full and entitled rights of women. It is not by any means a Muslim problem, though they may be amongst the slowest or last to procure change.

Now, as for pornography. When I say that it is darkness, it should be understood that more than often it is the result of a great deal of exploitation and pain. The list of infringements are endless. And women are generally the victims, true victims of this kind of entertainment.

Why do you need a study when you can see for yourself what has transpired to make that film. Just take a moment to search the faces and the eyes of the participants. If it's a matter that concerns you then you will know of what I am speaking.

[raf]

Josh: As a rule I don't "swipe", not because I'm so pious, but because it accomplishes nothing of value. I try to address the work, not the worker.
I find her theory wholly implausible, but the real point is that in a scholarly work, plausibility is not enough. One needs to adduce sound evidence, and that is lacking here. Moreover, I have, in fact, suggested an obvious alternative theory that generally explains warfare, namely, that it is often the only way to attain certain important ends.
As far as I know, the only way to accurately measure serotonin levels in the brain -- as opposed to elsewhere in the body -- is through imaging studies, specifically PET and functional MRI. And obviously this cannot be done while men are "hunting, battling, and raiding."

[raf]

P.S. Incidentally, impulsive aggression is associated with lower, not higher, serotonin levels.

[Josh]

Her work isnot pure academia, its mass appeal stuff. I would observe that ypur point addresses those sho send the cannon fodder to their deaths, hers addresses why some cannon fodder willingly assume that role.

Ps, you do sometimes come across as swiping even if its not intended. It stands out on here given the usual level of what passes for debate on here is simply swearing at those who hold differing viewpoints.

[raf]

Men who volunteer to fight for a cause they believe to be more important than their own personal survival are not cannon fodder. If that is indeed such a cause, they are heroes. Such causes include national survival and national freedom.

[Josh]

Factually they are cannon fodder. Doesnt matter whether they joined for the jollies or king and country.

On the hero point. Look at IS, would you call the imbeciles joining that heroes? Many, if not most, barely understand the religion they think they are fighting for. But then one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that.

[raf]

"Cannon fodder" is a pejorative phrase connoting contempt. It is not a factual description.
As noted, volunteers are heroes only if the cause is truly greater than their personal survival, not if they are deluded. ISIS fighters are fighting neither for national survival nor national freedom. On the contrary, they are fighting to destroy national identity, to enslave others, and to slaughter those who refuse to be enslaved. They delude themselves into believing that this is the will of Allah.

[skepticfrum]

@raf.."They delude themselves into believing that this is the will of..."

So do most if not all religions. Example: killing a guy for merely collecting stick on the Shabbath sounds familiar?

[raf]

Yes, it does seem irrational and cruel. The rabbis of the Talmud thought so too, which is why -- although they carefully analyzed the various acts for which Scripture mandates capital punishment -- they made it virtually impossible to sentence anyone to judicial execution.
In eighteenth century England, on the other hand, there were over 160 capital crimes, including minor things like petty theft, for which some people actually were executed.

[Josh]

Raf. You are projecting your bias in your first sentence and then going on to denigrate those who are deluded. Irony much?

To the believer the will of god, allah or the tooth fairy is greater than anything. Then there is the difference in perspective depending on your side. Was the German soldier in WW1 less of a hero than the Englishman across the line or both just fodder to the senseless slaughter of millions of young men. Thats cannon fodder. If there is contempt I reserve it for those who sent these people to their deaths.

Your later point about the flip flopping of judaism is a nice example. People believe this is worth giving up their lives for. Are they heroes? Or is getting killed in the name of the fantasies of a bunch of old men a hideous waste?

[raf]

Josh: Where is the bias in my first sentence? Do you disagree that "cannon fodder" is a pejorative phrase expressing a value judgment and not a statement of fact?
The generals of WWI who sent men "over the top" into the teeth of murderous machine-gun fire did indeed treat them like cannon fodder. But new weapons and new tactics made this treatment largely obsolete by WWII.
It's easy to sit back a century later and pronounce insouciantly, with the wisdom of hindsight, that it was all "senseless slaughter". But millions of young men volunteered in 1914-1915 to fight in what they believed was a just, or at least a necessary, war.
Judaism did not flip -flop -- another pejorative expression, which implies a quick reversal. It evolved over the course of centuries.
I said nothing about wars motivated by religion. But since you mention them, what you call old men's fantasies are to believers supreme truths worth fighting and, if necessary, dying for. Is there anything you believe to be worth fighting for?

[raf]

P.S. After WWI, as a rule, only authoritarian governments -- such as the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and North Vietnam -- treated their soldiers like cannon fodder.

[anchell]

@ raf . . . "After WWI, as a rule, only authoritarian governments -- such as the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and North Vietnam -- treated their soldiers like cannon fodder."

. . .interesting claim you make as to the onerous use of soldiers as cannon fodder. And so I am curious as to whether the term cannon fodder is factually limited to how authoritarian governments utilize their soldiers.

For example, the Vietnam War of circa 1955 - 1975 involving the US and North Vietnam. The battle field was North Vietnam and the US had soldiers on the ground fighting for and securing logistic territories. The Vietnamese or Viet Cong held most all those territories previously.

For the US, many of the tactical advances would require hand to hand combat in unfamiliar territories. Often against sniper fire and various other unconventional methods.

Even with the most skilled and tactically perfect planning there had to be an expectation of US casualties. The realization that men (soldiers) would be lost, by necessity, had to be in the calculations.

Surely this expectation of a projected loss of manpower must fall under the most narrow definition of "cannon fodder," or is there legitimate grounds to disagree.

[raf]

I believe that"cannon fodder" usually refers to large, closely packed military formations thrown en masse against fixed defensive positions manned by well-trained, well-armed soldiers. Or it may be used more loosely to refer to any group of combatants who, for any reason, will almost certainly suffer a greatly disproportionate number of casualties in a given engagement.

[anchell]

given that the former is as outdated as the British wearing red coats during colonial war times, is it conceivable then that the latter, combatants reference, is more Josh's point in his German vs. English soldiers analogy.

More specifically he seems to have suggested that War by it's nature, will amass a tremendous number of lost lives. And if we all hold to the belief that human life is incommensurable, then is it conceivable that such a loss be perceived as "senseless".

[raf]

I think Josh is capable of explaining himself without assistance.
Both sides in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 revived WWI tactics, when cannon fodder attacks were used. The term actually seems to have originated after the colonial period, in the early nineteenth century.
War by it nature causes casualties, but not necessarily "a tremendous number". Less than 150 American soldiers died in the First Gulf War.