All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
44:27
1855 The Origins of War in Child Abuse: Chapter 11 - Global Wars

Full book: http://www.fdrurl.com/owca

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMoss Read by Stefan Molyneux of Free Domain Radio To read the earlier chapters of this book, please go to fdrurl.com forward slash owca Chapter 11 Global Wars to Restore U.S. Masculinity Rough,
tough, we're the stuff.
We want to fight and we can't get enough.
Theodore Roosevelt The spectacular economic and political progress of much of the world in the 20th century was an achievement of the improvement in child-rearing modes of the families that reduced child abuse as more caring mothers began to give their children love and respect, plus were also able to reduce the jealousy of their spouses so fathers could be closer to their children.
Yet because most 20th century families still abused their children, the improvement in industrialization during the century produced periodic growth panics, Fromm calls them escapes from freedom, during which adults re-experienced their parental abuse, and men went on more and more destructive wars to restore their masculinity and, quote, get respect from other nations.
Plus, of course, the technological improvements soon led to a tremendous increase in the ability to kill others during wars, so that wars in the 20th century killed over 180 million people, mostly civilians, culminating in the current global annihilation possibilities of nuclear nations.
How Historians Idealized Child Rearing in the Past Traditionally, historians have idealized child-rearing in 20th century families in the West.
None have provided evidence to disprove my over 80 scholarly articles and 9 books written during the past 40 years on the history of child abuse, much less the over 600 articles and books by fellow psycho-historians confirming my work.
In my article on writing childhood history, I cite the usual, quote, disproof of DeMoss type of argument.
Quote, Linda Pollack's book Forgotten Childhood is uniformly hailed as disproving Damas.
It is claimed that children in past centuries were happy, free from worry, and certainly not oppressed or regimented.
Pollock says all the primary sources used by child historians to date must be ignored, and only a few parents' diaries can be relied upon.
Thus, in order for abuse of child to be considered present for her, it would have to have been written down by the perpetrator.
Every absence of evidence for mistreatment was counted as positive evidence of love, and proof that no punishment was ever administered.
Where the parents simply did not mention in their diary how they treated the child, this counted as proof that there was no abuse.
The notion that one could abuse one's child without writing it down in one's diary is considered impossible.
Since Pollock only found a tiny minority of admissions in parental diaries of child abuse, she could claim this proof that only a small minority of parents actually abused their children.
About the same percentage, as she said, were abused today.
So she says, quote, no change at all in four centuries.
Other historians simply denied that whipping and sexual use of children had any ill effects, since that would be, quote, imposing our current values on other societies, a forbidden act.
As Philippe Barise put it when relating cases where children were regularly beaten and used sexually by their parents and other caretakers, quote, Since the practice of playing with children's privy parts fought into part of a widespread tradition, it had no meaning for him.
It became purely gratuitous and lasted sexual significance.
While it is easy to imagine what a modern psychoanalyst would say about parents and children masturbating each other, the psychoanalyst would be wrong.
All that was involved was a game.
Or they cite approvingly Kinsey's statement that,"...it is difficult to understand why a child should be disturbed at having its genitals touched." Still other historians declared that a lack of evidence for paternal love in their sources proves how loving they were.
Alan Valentine, examining 600 years of letters from fathers to sons without finding a single one that gave any evidence of warmth or empathy, only cruelty, proclaimed the historian's argumentum ex silentio as follows, quote, A doubtless and infinite number of fathers have written to their sons letters that would have been warm and lift our hearts, if we could only find them.
The happiest fathers leave no history, and it is the men who are not at their best with their children who are likely to write the heart-rending letters that survive.
Since hardly any college course on the history of childhood ever mentions my work, students instead depend upon such popular works as Philippe Revin's The Protestant Temperament, which states without evidence that American parents were, quote,"...notable for the intensity of their affection and love, and adored their children." Or they cite historians who claim that American laws,
quote,"...making it a capital offense for youths to curse their fathers were not harsh." Or they counter the possibility that the usual lengthy abandonment of children to wet nurses and nannies and to other families as servants could affect them, citing Lawrence Stone in The Family, Sex and Marriage, that there was no progress in the historical treatment of children since, quote, most children in history have not been loved or hated or both by their parents, they have been neglected or ignored by them.
Progressive slash reactionary political split As the 20th century produced more women's rights, and mothers were more able to love and care for their children, the children's more secure attachments allowed them more empathy and independence as adults, making them political progressives, who began to produce a more egalitarian democratic society.
Their socializing mode parents thought of themselves as training them or molding their minds, which were like wax, awaiting the dictates of the parent.
Most families were those where the parents' commands were arbitrary, all freedom was lost, like in totalitarian governments that depend upon the changing dictates of the leader.
Those parents who were in the previous modes of child-rearing, the majority, lacked empathetic mirror neurons and continued to see their children as full of evil, utterly corrupted birth, needing conquering, and having to be beaten to enforce instant and unquestioning obedience.
These insecurely attached, badly abused children grew up to become reactionaries, who needed more authoritarian leaders, who were more misogynist, paranoid, and less empathetic toward others.
British conservatives were found to have larger amygdala and fear centers.
Reactionaries regularly oppose the freedoms asked for by the progressives and constantly project their bad selves and their punishing parents upon other states, favoring military action rather than peaceful negotiations to solve international problems.
The 40% of US families who today are apocalyptic fundamentalists believe that in their lifetime, quote,"...the earth will be purged in the fires of God's anger." Men routinely vote for reactionary leaders and causes more than women do.
According to U.S. polarization experts, quote, this is why the Republicans are known as the daddy party, fathers are more authoritarian, and the Democrats as the mommy party, mothers are more caring.
Reactionaries believe parents and nations, quote, must be strict because kids are born bad, who need to be punished, painfully.
The most important changes in child-rearing in the West were the reduction of abandonment and infanticide, so that parents, rather than wet nurses, mainly brought up the child, despite the census figures showing less than 10% of Parisian mothers nursing their own infants in 1900, and a dramatic drop in infanticide after contraceptives began to be used, so that the number of unwanted children born per family decreased.
Not that abandonment of children by parents was thought abusive.
Even advanced middle-class British parents saw their children for only a few minutes a day as they gave their infants over to nannies for care, and then soon, quote, speedily sent their boys off to boarding schools which offered plentiful battering to toughen them.
None questioned, for example, the wisdom of sending 80,000 British children to Canada without their parents in the 19th century to work as servants, plus the half of all persons who came to the American South who were indentured children.
Most parents still agreed that when children were around six years old, quote, it is good to remove children from the sight of their father and mother and to give them to friends as servants so that they do not become quarrelsome.
Child abuse continues during the 20th century.
By 1990, US and British parents still hit their young children over 90% of the time, mostly by disrespect and spanking, with about a third being hit with instruments.
But the US and UK, even today, are near last among developed democracies in stopping the hitting of their children.
Beginning in 1979 with Sweden, there have been over 30 nations who have recently passed laws making hitting children, even by parents, illegal, reducing corporal punishment of their children to very low figures, especially in the European Union, which explains the current low EU dependence upon military solutions to their problems and the effective EU policy of non-proliferations of weapons of mass destruction.
Most US and UK parents admitted they regularly hit their one-year-old infants, quote, because they can't talk and had to be disciplined.
The British have finally ended school beatings, though the US still has legal school paddlings in 21 states, making the US, quote, next to last place in children's well-being among 21 of the world's most affluent and developed nations, according to UNICEF. In addition, the U.S. is the only nation not to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, all of which helping us understand why the U.S. spends half the world's military budget.
By the beginning of the 20th century, more Western parents had their children sleep in separate beds, so they grew up not being part of their parents' sexual intercourse.
Most family historians underestimate the amount of actual sexual abuse of children during the century, since they depend upon, quote, responses to written questionnaires or brief telephone calls, whereas more accurate figures of about 60% of girls and 45% of boys are the more accurate results of recent U.S. 8-hour interviews.
The days have passed when British sex abusers declared that, quote, they had to have intercourse with little children because that was the only way they could be cured of venereal disease, and when mothers, quote, commonly rented out rooms to borders and forced their daughters to sleep with them.
Most of the hundred million sexual slaves today are in the East, or imported to the West from the East, and few doctors today advocate, as did previously, that fathers should have sexual intercourse with their three-year-old girls, quote, in order to familiarize them with carnal matters.
Since the average age of molested children was only seven years old, most perpetrators lived under the same roof, as their victims, and boys were more often molested by females than by males.
It is obvious that mothers and other women in the family have been molesting their little children far more often than admitted.
Most books and articles analyzing the reasons nations have gone to war in the past century are termed realist because they begin with the belief that wars are for utilitarian purposes, to get something.
They may admit that wars are anything but rational, but explain the causes of wars by saying they occur when hardliners dominate their leadership, never asking why only periodically do these hardliners come to power, promising that they will not discuss individual factors of human nature and consider the minds of nations starting wars as, quote, black boxes.
But no modern war has been shown to have been started because of greed.
And none have, in fact, been profitable for nations starting them if the full cost of maintaining the military and loss of productive life are considered.
Even maintaining the British Empire was actually an economic loss.
Wars are pathological moral crusades against, quote, evil.
Revenge group fantasies designed to get respect for oneself and make up for the disrespect and abuse of their early years.
Both parental child abuse and genocidal wars have claimed that they were done to teach them a lesson.
The entire world during the 20th century was dominated by totalitarian dictatorships whose goal was the destruction of the bad self.
Every trauma inflicted upon children in the past century's bloody wars and ethnic cleansings was passed on to new generations as bombs in the brain that were repeated as adult violence.
U.S. wars alone this past century have caused the death of 650,000 American soldiers and tens of millions of, quote, enemies, plus now costing over a trillion dollars a year, more than the rest of the world combined spends on their military, as the U.S. global military empire replaced the retreating British empire.
Wars are mainly the result of reactionaries engaging the nation in destructive, provocative conflict spirals, falsely believing that, quote, other nations will back down from the pursuit of their interests when faced with threats.
That saber-rattling will deter aggression.
Nor are wars begun mainly in periods of economic distress, as is often claimed.
Goldstein's study of economic cycles in war found a strong and consistent correlation between the severity of war and economic upswings.
Although developed democracies do not go to war with each other, they nevertheless go to war against non-democratic nations even more often than other nations, since they must act out the emotional distance between their progressives and reactionary classes, with the progressives advocating the diplomacy and trust that the reactionaries fear.
I devoted a chapter of my last book to giving the four emotional group fantasy stages, innovative, depressed, manic, and war, that accompany the four war cycles, with economic depressions occurring in between major wars, and I have provided charts showing these follow exactly Klingberg's mood cycles in US foreign policy.
Depressions, therefore, are periodically experienced when nations feel they are too successful, growing too fast, and then engage in hyper-risky behavior, like the unregulated borrowing that the world engaged in during the past two decades.
Like gambling addicts, they were not being greedy, but were self-destructive, causing grandiose internal sacrifices, costing many billions of dollars each time they occur, even though each time the risks taken are excused as, this time is different.
Growth panic is cause of World War I. The more loving families at the end of the 19th century produced so much economic and social progress that the majority, the reactionary psychoclast, feared the new freedoms would cause their worlds to collapse.
Modern women in particular demanded new rights to education and employment and even suffrage.
Even Germany demonstrated progress, going from half the production of steel of Britain to over twice their production, with marvelous progress marking almost every branch of German industry.
Why then did Germany, the strongest and most efficient military state in Europe, feel that it was about to be attacked by its neighbors, so that it had to start a preventive war to avoid disappearing?
To begin with, Germans feared women would take over men, and oversexed wives would threaten her husband's life with her insatiable erotic demands.
Females were depicted in art and cinema as vampires devouring helpless men.
Quote, On the eve of the twentieth century, the image of the new woman was widespread.
University educated and sexually independent, she engendered intense hostility and fear, as she seemed to challenge male supremacy and turn the world upside down.
Purity Crusades were everywhere directed against women, against prostitution, against alcohol, against bicycle seats that might cause women's moral downfall, and even against women driving cars because they could be turned into houses of prostitution on wheels.
The reduction of the work week was opposed, since it was likely to cause women to turn to dancing, carousing, and murder.
Women's rights were associated with social decay, and men were told, you must remain masculine, warlike, for the deterioration of military strength in a nation marks its decline.
Although Germans could have easily reached accommodation with the Russians, they felt so much anxiety about their economic and military growth that they dismissed peacefulness as displaying feminine weakness, equivalent to self-crastration, and told the Kaiser he had to, quote, prove his masculinity, be tough, unyielding, and arrogantly belligerent.
As Germans began fusing with their killer Mütterland, scathing editorials warned against Germany being seen as a race of women.
So it needed to go to war to avoid becoming a race of women.
Any efforts to keep peace, quote, must be energetically combated.
A people that has ceased to regard virility as its chief aim is lost.
Other Germans warned that, if Germany does not rule the world, it will disappear from the map.
Germany will be a world power.
Or nothing. Even the U.S. felt the need to ward off its growth panic by joining in World War I, as did the journalist who wrote that President Wilson's initial hesitation to join the European war was denounced by Theodore Roosevelt as emasculating American manhood.
Since Roosevelt was badly beaten as a child and forced by his father to combat his childhood asthma by climbing mountains and smoking cigars, his speeches were filled with words like flaccid, potent, soft, hard, virile, manly, telling friends, quote, I should welcome almost any war, for I think that this country needs one.
That joining in such a meaningless war came from irrational internal emotional sources was noticed to some.
As one U.S. congressman said in 1917, something stronger than you and I can realize or resist seems to be picking us up bodily and literally forcing us to vote for this declaration of war.
Wilson himself had what his biographer called a need to dominate, and said that joining World War I was dictated to him by the hand of God.
As nations fused with their killer motherlands, they Felt that they were like infants enveloped by their mothers, saying of the war, We are no longer alone.
Soldiers wrote home that their, quote, Regiments are our mothers, and that sacrificing oneself is a joy, the greatest joy.
The war was the most destructive in history, with over 9 million killed, and another 15 million horribly wounded, as British officers ordered their troops, quote, to advance in long rows into machine-gun fire at a walk that was suicidal, but that was the plan.
Suicide slaughter was the rule in World War I, with battles called mincing machines, and soldiers declaring, quote, we want joyfully to bleed.
Intellectuals all over Europe cheered World War I as a cleansing fire, a purifying experience, the greatest agency by which human progress is effected.
World War I was the first war to abandon entirely the distinction between soldiers and civilians.
As von Moltke proclaimed,"...without war the world would wallow in materialism." British intellectuals were equally delighted, saying,"...the war is the most valuable experience of our lives, and the war years will stand out in the memories of those who fought as the happiest years of their lives." Even Winston Churchill, who was grossly abandoned by his parents as a child, declared during World War I, quote, I love this war.
I can't help it.
I enjoy every second of it.
Psychotherapists today have found suicidal patients always have inner dissociated parental voices telling them they must kill themselves.
Many Germans during World War I saw the suicidal goal of the war.
As one German general staff member wrote in his diary in 1916, Germany is like a person staggering along in abyss, wishing for nothing more fervently than to throw himself into it.
If your killer motherland tells you that she will only respect you if you commit suicide, you march joyfully into the machine-gun fire.
The 26 global wars of the 20th century, killing over 250 million people, were all started by nations saying their motherlands would only give them love and respect if they died for her.
The US develops a suicidal weapon of world annihilation.
Although President Harry Truman's military advisors, including Eisenhower, told him that, quote, Japan was already defeated and that dropping the nuclear bomb was completely unnecessary, he felt so pleased that he was able to murder over 300,000 civilians with one bomb, that he jubilantly announced the Hiroshima bombing was, quote, the greatest thing in history, and that it would impress the Russians.
During the next half century, the US would spend $5.8 trillion on suicidal nuclear weapons, accumulating over 30,000 deliverable bombs, equivalent in power to more than a million Hiroshima's, with the world's arsenal soon surpassing 100,000 weapons, hundreds of times enough to eliminate all human life on Earth.
Over 85% of Americans approved of Truman's dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, and various polls in the coming years continued to reveal the majority of Americans favored using atomic warheads against communists, as military hawks like MacArthur and Kissinger regularly advocated.
After rejecting a Soviet proposal to ban the production or use of atomic weapons, Truman directed South Korea to provoke North Korea and later China into a war with the U.S., despite the opinion of the Joint Chiefs that, quote, Korea was of little strategic interest to America.
After killing two million troops and civilians, including 54,000 young Americans, President Eisenhower contemplated using atomic warheads on a sufficiently large scale to bring the conflict to an end.
Truman considered dropping atomic bombs on China, as his military had suggested, but eventually admitted, I could not bring myself to order the slaughter of 25 million non-combatants.
For the next four decades, the popular Truman Doctrine, quote, kept the American people in a perpetual state of fear by confronting the USSR and provoking Russians to develop their own nuclear forces so they could be conveniently blamed for all the troubles of the world.
Reactionaries proclaimed, coexistence with communism neither desirable nor possible nor honorable, and all negotiation was appeasement because a nuclear war was winnable.
Not until Mikhail Gorbachev became the head of the Soviet Republic did they change from a nation ruled by a leader brought up, with the usual tight swaddling, hardening, ice-water baths, severe whippings and sexual abuse, to one headed by someone, quote, whose parents treated him with respect.
Kennedy risks world annihilation over Cuba.
Eventually, Nikita Khrushchev, quote, wanted the Soviet Union to be admired rather than feared and hoped for a thaw in the Cold War, removing Soviet troops from Austria.
Nevertheless, despite the ability of the U.S. to destroy all human life on Earth with its nuclear missiles, John F. Kennedy got elected to the presidency on a mythical missile-gap claim, and then gave the go-ahead to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba over the objections of his military.
Then, saying he had to make us appear tough, he began what was termed Operation Mongoose that included inciting insurrection and sabotage in Cuba.
One of the first plans the military suggested to him was Operation Northwards, quote, calling for innocent people to be shot on American streets and people framed for the bombings, all blamed on Castro.
The CIA warned Kennedy that attempts to remove Castro might cause the Soviets to establish a medium-range missile base in Cuba.
Khrushchev responded by putting Soviet missiles into Cuba.
The origin of Kennedy's need to prove his masculinity was his early child abuse.
His mother had battered him as a child with coat hangers and belts.
His father smashed his children's heads against walls so that his resulting fears of impotence made him fill the White House during evenings with sexual partners to demonstrate how hyper-masculine he was.
After the U.S. discovered that Soviet missiles had been placed in Cuba, Kennedy deemed this a threat to his hyper-masculine hawkish pose, despite the opinion of his Secretary of Defense, who saw, quote, no major threats to U.S. security from the missiles, since Soviet missiles were already in the area on their submarines.
The Cuban missiles were just an excuse for Kennedy to demonstrate his manhood.
As Wofford puts it, quote, Kennedy admitted that there may be 200 million Americans dead if he precipitated a nuclear war,
but nevertheless, when it looked like the Soviets might not agree to keep secret his promise to remove the U.S.-Turkish missiles, which might make him lose face, Kennedy sent American planes carrying 1,300 nuclear bombs into the air on Sunday.
With orders to begin bombing Russia the next day, if Khrushchev didn't immediately say he would keep the secret, Few Americans opposed Kennedy's actions, even though they said they would likely lead to a nuclear war.
Only Khrushchev's agreeing to remove his missiles without making Kennedy seem chicken avoided a nuclear World War III. Kennedy soon needed a new war to consolidate his defensive masculinity pose, increased the U.S. military, spending the largest amount in any peacetime, and then committed 16,300 U.S. troops to Vietnam.
When he went to Dallas, where there were many highly publicized death threats to kill him, he still needed more toughness and told his wife, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it.
His Secret Service aides told him he better put up the bulletproof plastic top on his limousine, so he specifically told them not to do so, committing suicide to demonstrate his hyper-masculinity.
Johnson creates the Vietnam War to restore U.S. masculinity.
Lyndon Johnson had an alcoholic father who whipped him with a razor strap, and an abandoning, over-controlling, disrespectful mother who sometimes, quote, walked around the house pretending I was dead.
His mother was described as tough, stern, unyielding, obstinate, domineering.
He kept running away from home because he felt smothered, oscillating between grandiosity and gloom, and always questioning his worth.
Like Kennedy, he had to have many sexual affairs to prove his masculinity.
He created the Vietnam War only to show he was a man, since he claimed, those who opposed the war were women, they have to squat to piss.
Although Ho Chi Minh would have negotiated with the U.S. and made peace, Johnson needed to restore his manhood with a bloody war that would kill millions.
Unzipping his fly and pulling out his penis and asking reporters, Has Ho Chi Minh gone anything to match that?
His biographer revealed, He demanded his subordinates join him for nude swimming in the White House pool because he was enormously proud of his large penis, which he called Jumbo, and delighted in humiliating his less well-endowed associates.
The incident that began the war was a completely faked provocation, a supposed attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin that Johnson later admitted was just some stupid sailor shooting at flying fish.
As David Halperstam later wrote, quote, Manhood was very much in the minds of the architects of the Vietnam War.
They wanted to show who had bigger balls.
Johnson himself told his biographer he started the war to prove he wasn't an unmanly man.
Since over 90% of American parents were still hitting their children, they were pro-war, and Johnson's popularity after the Gulf of Tonkin soared overnight from 42% to 72%.
The US could now castrate a new enemy to restore its manhood.
As Johnson put it, I didn't just screw Ho Chi Minh, I cut his pecker off.
In 1965, he ordered U.S. bombers to hit North Vietnam with rolling thunder, and to demonstrate that he was firm, soon sent in over 200,000 more U.S. troops to fight what was to be America's longest war, killing millions of, quote, enemies for the sake of U.S., quote, masculinity.
Although prior to Vietnam, nearly 80% of U.S. riflemen neglected, declined, or admitted to fire at an exposed enemy, Johnson and his military team invented a new desensitivity training program for U.S. soldiers sent to Vietnam, so the non-firing rate fell to only 5%, killing millions of innocent civilians and children, enabling a new generation to chant, Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?
Richard Nixon continued, the war expanding it to Cambodia so the U.S. wouldn't be thought, a pitiful, helpless giant, which led to the killing of another two million people after having been elected by promising to withdraw from Vietnam.
Having been kicked a lot by his father, he became famous for his saying, you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.
Saying that the U.S. must not continue feeling like a pitiful, helpless giant, Nixon told Kissinger he was contemplating dropping a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam.
I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ's sakes.
Nixon was extraordinarily popular for his mass killings.
He was re-elected by the largest popular majority ever recorded.
As he bragged to Senator Alan Cranston, quote, I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.
Now that's U.S. power.
The end of Soviet communism requires new U.S. global enemy, terrorism.
The advance in the Soviet Union from abandonment of children in street gangs and round-the-clock boarding schools to actual family care of children began to take place in the 1970s, resulting in a switch in parenting from the traditional hardening child-rearing, like that experienced by Joseph Stalin, who was kicked and tried to be killed, to that of Gorbachev, who was treated with respect and was remembered as being very joyful as a child.
The result was a more advanced psychoclass, electing Gorbachev in 1985 as General Secretary of the Communist Party, who immediately declared his goal was the abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2000 and the democratic Soviet Union at peace with the West.
This posed a terrible problem for the U.S. As George H.W. Bush became president, Gorbachev stood at the podium of the U.N. and offered a unilateral cut of 500,000 troops in the Soviet military and promised that he would never start a hot war against the U.S. Bush declared the U.S. had won the Cold War, but in America more weapons were still being developed, built, and deployed.
For use against whom?
To protect America?
From what? Despite Reagan's rise in military spending to $1.6 trillion, he had declared the U.S. was weak and disintegrating and had to show their firmness of manhood.
H.W. Bush soon invented a new U.S. global enemy—terrorism.
When cartoonists pictured him in a dress with a woman's purse, Bush's aide, quote, told people that a short, successful war would be pure political gold for the president.
So when Iraq was upset that Kuwait had stolen some of its oil, Bush had a State Department representative announce, we do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, inviting the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.
Bush began calling Saddam worse than Hitler, and started the US-UN war against Iraq, and so was now shown in cartoons as a hero, not a wimp.
The mood of the US changed overnight from depression to grandiosity.
We've felt bad for months.
Suddenly we feel like we have a purpose.
Saddam's promise to remove his troops from Kuwait peacefully was rejected by Bush, who stated, We have to have a war.
As the New Republic put it, Saddam Hussein did the world a favor by invading Kuwait.
As the New York Post headlined, Thanks, Saddam.
We needed that. Bush's popularity rating rose to 91%.
Cartoonists showed his woman's purse to be in the closet.
The stock market soared.
Bush said he was now upbeat about America.
It's like when a mother tells you every day how much she loves you.
The invasion of Iraq was like poking at a snake to make it strike, and would increase the chances that America will be attacked by terrorists.
Most of the Iraqi terrorists were former Iraqi army personnel, which Bush ordered demilitarized so they could become a proper US enemy.
As Kenneth Timmerman put it, Saddam Hussein was our creation, our monster.
We built him up and then tried to take him down.
Even though the U.S. had for years been sending Saddam billions of dollars in military equipment, including uranium and plutonium, the new task of smashing into family homes and slaughtering over a million innocent Iraqi women and children in the Gulf War and the years of sanctions that followed it The Origins of Terrorism in Child Abuse The childhood of terrorists is as abusive as that of medieval martyrs described earlier.
A recent survey of 652 Palestinian undergraduates asking if they recalled sexual abuse showed 18.6% said they had been used sexually by a family member, 36.2% by a relative, and 45.6% by a stranger.
Islamic boys are routinely sexually abused, usually anally, with mothers often caressing their penises, families usually using their young boys sexually, since females are considered unclean, and with teenage boy gangs routinely preying sexually upon younger boys.
Murray documents that, quote, a boy cannot learn the Quran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him and an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master.
In addition, guests are often entertained and sexually serviced by dancing boys.
Human Rights International reports Islamic warlords, quote, routinely sexually molest young boys and film the orgies.
Girls' genitals are considered so poisonous that, quote, when she is five or so, the women grab her, pin her down, and chop off her clitoris, and often her labia with a razor blade, and the area is sewed up to prevent intercourse.
In many Islamic areas, 90% of the women surveyed say they have genitally mutilated all of their daughters.
It is not surprising that mutilated and battered females make abusive mothers who re-inflict their own miseries upon their children, swaddling, neglecting, beating, whipping, kicking, biting, and stabbing them regularly, according to visitors.
Mothers often train their sons to be terrorists, teaching them how to be martyrs and how to enter a trance state that feels like they were floating, dissociated, and about to be loved by Allah, their killer mother.
Terrorists say, quote, If I blow myself up and become a martyr, I'll finally be loved.
They're taught they will go to paradise, where they will have permanent erections.
Mother's report. I was very happy my son blew himself up.
I thanked Allah he was still close to me.
Their standing in the village goes up when their sons become a human bomb.
Everyone treats me with more respect now.
I will send all seven sons to be martyred.
Although being made into a human time bomb is considered by mental health experts like Joan Lachar and Nancy Cobran as severely disturbed borderline psychopathic personalities, the majority of writers on terrorism consider them normal, not mentally disturbed, since they do not recognize dissociated personalities.
9-11 and the Global War on Terrorism Barbara Bush, George W. Bush's mother, was devoted to corporal punishment and would slap around little George all the time, becoming known as the Enforcer, the one who instills fear.
George grew up alcoholic, often going into a fundamentalist religious altar trance state and hearing his mother's fearful voice as a God voice, speaking to him and giving him orders, saying in 2000, I believe God wants me to run for president.
And in 2003...
God told me to strike at Al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.
Bush and his neoconservative staff had been following their altar-god voices long before 9-11, Bush saying, I'm driven with a mission from God.
God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.
Since, as president, he carried the nuclear football with him 24 hours a day and was authorized to launch a world-annihilating nuclear war at any moment, his belief that the U.S. could be revitalized by war and that the United States has grown because of wars fed his hyper-masculine grandiosity defenses and made him tell his biographer he was Thinking about invading Iraq in 1999, one of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.
When the 9-11 terrorists' attack happened, he agreed with Donald Rumsfeld's opinion that they were a blessing in disguise, since Bush's job approval rating immediately soared to 90%.
Bring him on, said Bush, since global terrorists would replace global communism as an enemy, transforming Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for Islamist terrorism.
As Dick Cheney admitted in 2002, when America's great enemy suddenly disappeared, many wondered what global threat we would face.
All of that changed five months ago.
The threat is known, and our role is clear now.
Ignoring the many unexplained contradictions surrounding the 9-11 attacks, Bush started wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.
Michael Haas has written a splendid book carefully documenting 269 war crimes engaged in by the U.S. in engaging in preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Each time the CIA located bin Laden, Bush told them not to attack him so the U.S. could have a proper enemy.
The CIA was established as the President's private army.
The U.S. felt their grandiose manic omnipotence once again, and the New York Post headlined, U.S. warns Iraq, we'll nuke you.
Bush published a new national security strategy that said terrorism, quote, opened vast new opportunities for global command.
U.S. military expenditures rose to more than the rest of the world combined, the Iraq war costing over $3 trillion, killing 2 million people and producing over 4 million refugees, plus creating tens of thousands of new terrorist enemies.
In Iraq, the U.S. allowed over a million tons of guns and explosives to be given to the terrorists.
Bush announced that the U.S. military could now establish a global supremacy and a worldwide nuclear global first-strike arsenal that he said must be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world.
The neocon American enterprise celebrated the global restoration of U.S. manhood with a special issue entitled Real Men.
They're Back. Thank you so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection