The Disarmament Syndrome

Since the earliest of times in sociological studies, it has been known that the mob, a number of people as a group, under a group-consciousness, lack any form of intelligence, of rationality, of reason. Persons imitate the mob practically criticless (66). No matter that the person is of excellent qualities, he loses all that once he participates in group-behaviour. Mowrer told how Hegel was a bad teacher but he became popular because:

... in his philosophy of History, he advanced the agreeable thesis that humanity had finally come to manhood in the German race.

The evils of sectarianism, nationalism, religious consciousness, etc., we really need no LeBon, De Tocqueville, Hitler, or Goebbels to show us (for proximity see (67) ). We can easily see it in our own environment. A group too, cannot have a conscience, a responsibility, or even an egoism, an 'I, to have'. Groups, having no ego's, cannot have what is fundamental for each and every living individual, every cell even in our body, a well-being, in other words, an egoism. The result therefore is this total lack of intelligence because this latter is a phenomenon of ideation, and strictly bound to an ego (68). All our advertisements are based upon this knowledge, that the group (of consumers to be) has no intelligence, is easily affected by six-year-old logic. It is why they (advertisers, show-men, etc.) have utter contempt for their public. They control it, and what you con- trol you have contempt for, hence contempt for that mob of headless chicken. The rioting mob is worse, because, as hypnodynamici know, the members are in trance. It is therefore, that a decent person, who would ordinarily never thought of wrecking somebody else's car, can easily be induced to do so, through the simple act (by a clever, trained, agitator) of someone trying to do it, seemingly in vain. Imitation, after all, is the only principle of ideation, of acting in-, and understanding-, of reality. The agitator only has to do 'as if' he is trying to upturn a car, the mob then, takes over immediately and your car is wrecked. All this is simple basic sociology (mass-ideation) fully known to Herodotus and Tacitus alike yet seemingly unknown to contemporary science, 2500 years after Herodotus. Said Mowrer, that nothing is more dangerous than the void left by a loss of religion. (But in ideation theory, we know that it is a different matter when we are liberated i.e. free from superstitious beliefs.) Hitler's strategy was wholly tuned to this knowledge. He wrote a handbook about it, and he showed in praxis how the results could be formidable. This total absence of rationality in 'group behaviour' is important in this respect because the disarmament syndrome is one of the results, but also, it could be 'used' rationally by social survivalistic experts. As it is, it gave Hitler the opportunity he needed, he could make people see black as white, thus have them prepare for war (69). This mob, now, has been infatuated by disarmament since time immemorable. They, as six year old logicians, think that it will bring peace. The six-year old logic of disarmament is: 'no weapons, no war' and it is absurd, as every grown-up can reason out by himself. The naked animal, man, is armed to the teeth (claws, kicks, etc.) thus a physical impossibility to disarm him. Besides, a weapon (any object, bacterium, electric current, etc.) is only a weapon 'after' the fact, or when intended to be so. And then, ... is extermination (death) deeper or more thorough, more profound, when machine gunned, than done by atomic bomb, or sling-shot? Six year old logic, there are plenty of examples in everyday life of the child. Such logic, we should adopt for simple things like language, the calendar, geometry, etc., not for complex-, lethal problems. When the six-year old of a friend had just escaped being run over by a car, with tremendous, awful shrieking of brakes, he came in in quite a temper. 'Daddy, why are there roads' he cried. His logic was: 'no roads, no cars, no shrieking of brakes' (it was the latter that had upset him, death being beyond his grasp). It is the same sort of logic of the bomb protesters. Did they not better to either study war, its causes, (i.e. peace too) themselves, or, let experts tell them how to participate in preventing war, for good, as I am trying to do here? Since learning, all learning, is synonymous with ideation, is the incorporation of history in one's present behaviour (70), it is not always sufficient to study Homer (Hesiod etc.). Very illuminating e.g. would be for, say, people of after 1940, to re-read the newspapers of the years between 1919 and 1940 (and of course, Angell, Churchill, Mowrer, Voigt, Shirer, Wells, etc.). Today too, we can easily learn from them that World War 2 was actually caused by the disarmament movements. A 60 million people lost their lives because disarmers agitated FOR war with words that denounced war. A thing, only possible when one does not have the foggiest idea of what one is doing. (Hitler and Goebbels too, cried 'peace', while the message was 'war'). All over these (English, French, American, etc.) newspapers, one can read: 'we are going to make war' in between the lines. Even clear is it, that one can learn how, up till 1934, World War 2 was avoidable without a shot being fired, but for the disarmers, that till 1938 even, it was avoidable with very little shooting, also but for the disarmers (71). For the sake of the voters, many of which were disarmers, governors were competing in their election campaigns, sacrificing 60 million people for votes (see Churchill vol. I, Mowrer, Schwarzschild, etc.). Remembering Polybius (a must for war-peace students), we know that to cause a war and to start a war are totally different things. Hitler started World War 2 but, disarmament move- ments caused it, as it caused even Alexander's wars. Xeres' army counted millions, yet not a single bazooka was found in it, nor was Carthago's lot determined by atomic power, or a wooden horse. People demonstrating against atomic bombs, or against ten inch artillery, that wear badges of broken rifles, are utterly stupid like chicken that run after the leader chick. No reasoning higher than six-year old is to be found. Preventing war is only possible by attacking its causes. These are naturally NON-PHYSICAL, non-implemental, non-molecular, but wholly ideational. No movement against arms, but movements against ideas, against group-consciousness, against 'nations', religions, superstitions, and against wanting to have a say in matters wholly foreign to one's capabilities. In Wyndham's 'Web', we find:

Most of the conflict in the world reflects the conflict in our mind as we strive to move forward while the brakes of false doctrines, superstitions, obsolete standards, and misconceived ambitions are always at work on us.

It is utter insanity even to claim a disarmament movement to be a peace-movement. It means WAR. Let not a disarmer fool you into thinking that he, like you reader, like every sane man, is against war. In the latter case, he would study the subject, the phenomenon, its principles, (Homer, ..., Caesar, ..., Gibbon, ..., Wells, ..., Hitler, ..., Hastings, ..., etc., etc.) hence would not be a disarmer but one of us, mondial integrationists. Clemenceau said that war was too serious a matter to leave it to the military. We should certainly not leave peace to the ignoramoi. War, ... it kills! With regard to 'the bomb' itself, Huxley (A) said:

A single national government may be able to prevent technological discoveries from being developed in its territories. But it cannot prevent them from being developed elsewhere.

This, logically leads to the conclusion of a world government, when no 'elsewhere' is existing. Says Wells:

It may have taken long years of research and the contribution of thousands of scientific workers to discover an explosive or poison, but when that has been attained, only a recipe and materials are needed for its production. It has become a part of 'our human heritage'. Outlook.

With regard to a nuclear war in the West. Who would ever think of it? With all these countries (France, Germany, Britain, etc.) booby-trapped to the teeth, would the Russians risk hostilities there? It would wipe them out as well as the rest of the Northern hemisphere. It may, nevertheless, happen that a bomb goes off in the Mediterranean where somebody (Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, Syria, Etc.) might think it necessary for his survival. The other Western countries, then, would be careful to remain neutral because of their vulnerability by their own powerstations, their stock-piles of chemical and bacterial weapons. Who would engage in a body-contest when he has a life-handgrenade in his hand with the pin torn out? Who would set off fireworks in a powdermagazine? For a scientist then, the protestations in the streets are so ridiculous, when any terrorist can steal nuclear waste, and produce a bomb in his bathroom that, laughingly, he thinks with Wyndham:

We have a new world to conquer: they have only a lost cause to lose. The Chrysalids.