Evilness and violence...

a witch going to Blåkulla at Maundy Thursday or Walpurgies Eve to dance with the devil.

Jonathan Pincus writes at page 191-192 in the chapter "Hitler and Hatred" in his book "Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?":

“Is it not possible that there is a relationship between violence in the home and terrorism? Those in any society who support or participate in murder and terrorist acts have the ‘respectability’ of being violent for political or religious reasons [or for loyalty with a cult and its ideas], but the triad (child abuse, brain injury, and paranoia) does not know political, ethnic or religious boundaries and could find its outlet in a ‘worthy’ cause [violence justified for the sake of the cause or idea! Which they have to defend? And even a ‘good cause’ justifies violence in an abused person’s eyes, as when it comes to recovery and Miller, and also in therapy and help-groups, where you think abuse is justified for the sake of the cause??? Forcing a person back to the right path with violence and abuse is justified and/or legitimized in the abused person’s eyes? But, still not all react in that way!??].

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

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

And as Anja wrote in her posting “I beg to differ” (my translation from Swedish):

“The problem with the notion that ‘the society sanctions evilness’ is that this frees the perpetrators from (any) responsibility and gives the responsibility to the people who didn’t act [and the victims can become blamed: Your own fault!? You deservd it! You made me this angry! etc.]. A classical manoeuvre. The one that has acted wrongly can with a thesis like this in his (her) back always ask

‘Why didn’t anyone hinder me from committing those inhuman crimes?’”