Men and War: What Do We Think It's Good For?

Agora Road-Exclusive Preface
Hey there travelers! Are you a Man, or Male-Identifying Person? Were you born and raised in the United States, or at least within the United States' primary Western sphere of media influence? Is your opinion of violence that it's a question, and the answer is yes? I've got news for you! It might not just be the horrid deterioration of our society around you causing you to feel that way! It's pretty highly likely that almost every piece of media you've ever consumed (unless you've always been so contrarian and avant-garde) is pure, grade-A Pentagon propaganda specifically designed to make you idolize a violent and domineering form of masculinity? Mind you, you could also very well be propagandized in other way by other entities and ideologies of a similar vein, and by no means is this a comprehensive work of everything the DoD does to all of our media (which is why I post it here, I would love for people to throw me some questions and discuss some things not covered in here), and as a final disclaimer, in my humble opinion as a propagandized youth of the west, violence is both a perfectly reasonable response to the way things are right now, and probably the only way anything would ever get changed. [But that requires organization, and good luck organizing anything stronger than a barista's union with the watchful eyes of TechLord Inc. and Govt. Bros. Flower Delivery Service over your back all the time while you're just trying to pay the fuckin' bills. ha.] All that out of the way, I present my research paper outlying what most of you probably already know, but might serve as a fun jumping off point for explaining to some people that absolutely none of the media they consume is "apolitical," it's either funded and propagandized by the government, or disliked enough by the government that it's the reason other media is being propagandized. Enjoy, feel free to throw some critique, I'm aware my writing is clunky.

Men and War: What Do We Think it's Good For?​

Context Behind War and Masculinity​

It is widely culturally understood and accepted that many young men and boys in the west are enamored by the concept of war. This is corroborated by several Gallup polls stretching back decades over multiple wars wherein men, particularly younger men, have been by-and-large more approving of military action by the United States (Moore 1). In addition to this, the toy gun market, which is a market mostly targeted towards young boys, is estimated to almost double from $2 billion to $3.8 billion by 2032 (DataHorizzons Research1). So, does this increased proclivity of young men towards war actually affect the psyche of men as they grow older? When looking at the actual motivations and reasonings of men who joined the U.S. armed forces from 2001-2010, three of the most frequent reasons given were the perception of the armed forces given by popular culture and by media, and simply a "desire to experience war" (Fransen 184-185). In this paper I will demonstrate that these motivations are purposefully planted in the minds of young men by the United States Department of Defense and intelligence apparatuses.

The reasonings behind motivations such as those given have had a substantial amount of research done into them previously, and the concept of masculinity has been found to be a key role in this phenomenon. In his extensive work "Masculinity and War," R. Brian Ferguson argues against the notion that men are genetically wired to be attracted to war. Ferguson makes the claim that, instead of a natural inclination, the connection between masculinity and war is instead based around cultural notions of masculinity. In traditionally masculine war-making societies, "a boy child is socially categorized and raised with the expectation that when grown he may be called on to dominate and kill. It is all around him. Girls learn that is not their fate and are channeled away from physical violence and into submission" (Ferguson 122). The explanation as to why girls are "channeled away from physical violence" is given as women being incapable of combat roles for most of human history due to the functional demands of birthing and nursing children. (Ferguson 116). In addition to this, aggressive dominance-based forms of masculinity utilized by military and police forces are another contributing factor to the male attraction to war (Ferguson 121). Popular perception of military service is undoubtedly another factor, however direct military advertisements hold little sway over this as their contents generally do not match the reasons for enlistment given by recruits. (Fransen 186). So then what is influencing all of these young men in similar ways towards military service?

In lieu of effective above-board military recruitment campaigns, much of the popular perception of military life and masculinity are shaped by the entertainment industry. However this vision is directed not simply by Hollywood writers, but more so by the United States Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. Secker and Alford's comprehensive journalistic research in "New Evidence for the Surprisingly Significant Propaganda Role of the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense in the Screen Entertainment Industry" gives an in-depth look at just how connected the Department of Defense is to the entertainment industry and how much power the DoD and CIA have to shape the media we all consume. Any movie that wants to represent the U.S. military or use real materiel in their screenplay must have all their scripts and scenes approved by the Department of Defense. The authors claim the amount of influence and the types of influence by the state on the entertainment industry through this system have been widely underreported on and misrepresented by both previous researchers and the Department of Defense itself.

We only know of a small fraction of the pieces of media the Pentagon has helped to produce, and what exactly their changes to these works were. The DoD and CIA's "institutional secrecy makes it impossible to assess the true scale and nature of the political influence wielded on Hollywood by these two institutions, especially the CIA. We only know that in some well-documented instances it is fundamental to the politics of these entertainment products" (Secker 350). It is estimated that over two thousand films and TV shows had some form of influence or script revisions by the DoD and/or CIA in order to promote a "positive self-image" and to "[propagate] a useful version of history and politics where they play a critical and benevolent role" (Secker 353). Through all of this, it begins to become alarmingly clear that "killing is not normal or typical adult male behavior" and that social pressures hold an outsized influence on the aggression of men which also leads to much of the non-war violence men are responsible for. (Ferguson 113).

I aim to unequivocally demonstrate that there is a concerted effort to draw links between masculinity and war by the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies by showing how the attraction of men to war is shaped far more by social constructs of masculinity than by any natural tendency towards violence, as well as how these social constructs are largely pushed by the U.S. government on its citizens. A better understanding by the general public of this effort could lead to a significant push-back against pro-war propaganda in modern entertainment as well as a deconstruction of the aggression we typically attribute to masculinity. In addition, being aware of this kind of propaganda allows a person to recognize it and escape its effects through critical thought of the material itself.

The Pentagon in Hollywood​

It is a common misconception that the link between masculinity and war is "one of the most perennial and obstinate aspects of human culture" (Mazrui 79). Despite this continued belief, many recent studies into gender and the propensity of men towards militarism have turned up quite contradictory results. While it is true that engaging in combat is not a possibility for women who are pregnant or nursing, therefore causing war to be more delegated to men generally, the masculinity of war is furthered by deliberate usage of aggressively masculine ideals by military apparatuses on recruits and potential recruits (Ferguson 116). One specific tool of propaganda which is heavily utilized by the United States government is that of entertainment media like movies and TV shows, such as by only lending funding and equipment to positive portrayals of U.S. military actions and/or portrayals of ideas that the DoD deems as positive. Some examples of this include the film Apocalypse Now somewhat famously being denied any military help due to its depictions of American war crimes carried out during the Vietnam War, and the film Thirteen Days wherein the Pentagon demanded a revision of a part of the script involving U.S. response to the Cuban Missile Crisis taken directly from historical record (Secker and Alford 353). An example of a film where we know the changed contents is the 2002 film Windtalkers, wherein scenes showing an order to kill Navajo soldiers if captured was removed, along with a scene depicting a U.S. marine stabbing an enemy combatant in the mouth in order to take a gold tooth as a trophy (Secker and Alford 353). Both of these scenes are historically accurate crimes of war that were actually committed by U.S. soldiers in the Pacific theater of the Second World War. The DoD demanded these scenes be removed on the grounds of the scenes not showing the U.S. military as a "positive force in a dangerous world" (Secker and Alford 353).

While Secker and Alford claim that these revisions show a more politically rooted motivation than the usually stated intent of military recruitment, I would argue that those deeper motivations relate to pushing particular concepts of masculinity and certain depictions of war that still feed into the military recruitment complex (Secker and Alford 353). However in addition to these examples which, through FOIA requested documents and other means, have their finer details available to the public, there also exists a significantly large class of Pentagon-affiliated works about which we have little to no information. An example of this group would be the TV program Top Chef, which despite numerous requests, has had no information released by the government even though it was granted permission to film at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (Secker and Alford 350). As mentioned previously, much of the information on these productions is unavailable to the public for a myriad of different reasons, with perhaps the most explanatory being the inherent secrecy of these national defense organizations, but the information that we do have access to gives clear indication to the fact that these organizations work with the entertainment industry exclusively in order to propagandize the entertainment being produced.

These propagandistic themes present in our media are an important part of maintaining control over the cultural leanings of the populace. In the case study "Hollywood and the Pentagon. The Propagandistic Cultural Production of the United States Defense Department," Doctor Samuel Vega Durán of Malaga University says that "although propaganda is a tool that seeks power, power becomes effective through the success of propaganda" (86). The method through which this propaganda has been so successful is through a chain of events wherein a "cultural work" (such as a film or other piece of entertainment) is created and the cultural notions promoted by the work, themselves somewhat appropriated from society, are re-assimilated by the people who then impart those notions further in their own lives (Durán 88). The exact details of this process are quite complex and beyond the scope of this paper, but Durán's outline clearly shows us why it is important to understand the purpose and scale of this propaganda being pushed by "the most powerful government in the world" (88). Durán's case study further goes on to analyze some common themes observed between a sample of Pentagon-supported movies which shed some light on the less explicit political motivations mentioned by Secker and Alford in their paper.

Amongst the themes shared between films, a commonality between all of them is the higher-level overarching theme of dominance, and in particular the perception of dominance as a positive trait unequivocally held by those in the right. For example, the concept of "wise power" overcoming "iron power," wherein a belligerent and competitive power structure is overcome by a "wise power," not named for having any kind of knowledge or experience but instead for its "ability to rectify" (Durán 92-93). This is further expanded on in Durán's breakdown of the "army of the people" trope, wherein the military as shown is an extension of the people's political will and power, which means that they maintain the capability of rectification held by the "wise-power" of their socio-political faction (94). These themes demonstrate that while this propaganda primarily serves the purpose of making American military interventions appear attractive politically, they also serve to humanize the experience of war itself so as to make it appear attractive to potential recruits. Furthermore, the means by which these things are made more attractive is through the proliferation of a violent and hegemonic form of dominance which, in the collective consciousness of the world, exists in the sphere of masculinity. Therefore, it is through the proliferation of this dominance in media (and otherwise) that there is a continued demonstrable link between masculinity, or what is currently perceived as masculinity, and war.

Nothing New: Football to First-Person Shooters​

It isn't only through on-screen entertainment that young men have been conditioned for war by the United States government. Historically speaking, physical education, free lunch, and sports in schools were legislated and pushed for not because of a desire to keep children healthy during and after the Second World War, but instead because of a desire to maintain combat readiness in potential draftees (Morris 260). As explained by Hutchings in her paper "Making Sense of Masculinity and War," the needs of combat are changing, and along with them different forms and parts of masculinity are being exaggerated or downplayed (390). Along with this, the forms of combat readiness being employed by the United States on young men has also changed. Just as previously exalted forms of masculine entertainment like contact sports prioritized squad tactics and physical prowess to their players, which would have also been heavily prioritized in combat situations of the day, modern forms of masculine entertainment such as first-person shooter (FPS) video games prioritize quick reaction time and technical ability, which are much more heavily utilized skills in modern warfare (Kaempf 554).

The Pentagon's dealings with video game developers are along the same lines as their dealings with Hollywood. The U.S. military actively works with FPS video game developers to accurately recreate armaments and equipment, and in turn the developers sell the games with patriotic overtones which leads to players having a better disposition towards the idea of participating in American military actions (Stahl as qtd. by Kaempf 556). Kaempf makes the argument that this phenomenon "[blurs] the traditional lines between the citizen and the soldier," turning the consumer from a passive observer into a virtual soldier engaging interactively with combat (556). However, I would argue contrary to his point to instead say that this is not any significant change from the past, but a logical continuation of the framework already set in place via policies of mass combat readiness instituted in the post-War years. While the previous methods allowed for men to view the opposing football team as an 'opposing force' to engage in physical competition and hopefully dominate while honing their martial skills, current methods employed by the DoD allow for men to view an opposing videogame team as an 'opposing force' to engage in digital competition and hopefully dominate while honing their reflexive abilities. Both activities still require an element of strategizing and the ability to make quick-thinking decisions, as well as both, in some way, mentally preparing the player for the atmosphere of war. A purposeful side-effect of this propaganda may be to bolster the appeal of the U.S. armed forces, but the reasoned intent is to prepare men for war and to pre-train men in the expected roles of modern combat.

The Hegemony of Masculine Violence​

The violence-idolizing masculinity that is cultivated by the Department of Defense is responsible for much of what we consider to be the unscrupulous masculine violence in the world. K. Hutchings outlines in her paper the argument of the difference between "the controlled, legitimate violence of the policeman and the uncontrolled, illegitimate violence of the gangster" being a simple difference of extremes and limits on masculine violence (399). I would say in opposition to this point that the only true difference is that of state support. As has been shown in many recent highly publicized cases of police brutality and excessive use of force, the policeman can and will act equally as uncontrolled and equally as violent as the gangster whenever he is given the chance. This is because both the cop and the crook have culturally been shaped into their roles by the exact same form of domineering, self-righteous masculinity which demands that they exercise their power through self-adjudicated displays of violent force. One might wonder why the state continues to proliferate this masculinity if it is responsible for so much violence, and one could easily fall into the trap of believing that the "cosmopolitan" violence of the policeman is stoked to combat the violence of the gangster (Hutchings 399-400). However, this is not true. The state continues to proliferate this hegemonic masculinity precisely because it requires the dominance of soldiers and policemen above other citizens in order to maintain the monopoly on violence that it holds within the overall system of imperialist American capitalism. In this way, the oppressively dominant male archetype is directly utilized by the state in upholding the oppression and dominance of the system that they live in.

Conclusions on Combating Propaganda​

Overall, there isn't much that can be done on the end of the average citizen to actively combat the creation of this propaganda, as it is produced by the most popular film industry in the world and backed by one of the most powerful governments in the world. However, what the average citizen can do is help to stop the proliferation of this propaganda. By recognizing the overlying themes present in our entertainment, one can begin to look at works through a more critical lens which can allow one to escape the intended effects and avoid sharing that media to those who would be more strongly affected by it. Another way to combat the mindset peddled by these propagandistic works is to make a conscious effort to engage in consumption of more works not endorsed by the Pentagon, which can show more accurate depictions of the horrors of warfare and the ethical issues therein. I find it doubtful that the creation of this propaganda will ever cease for as long as our cultural system stands intact, but with a significant amount of awareness and effort by the general populace, the effectiveness of the propaganda can be severely diminished. In this case, the hegemonic concepts that have been imparted on society through those works would likely undergo even more radical examination than they currently are, and we could expect to see sweeping social deconstructions in regards to the concepts of masculinity as it pertains to violence, war and soldiering, policing, and violent criminality.

WORKS CITED:

First and foremost, my fuckin' brain. Everybody's got one, it would serve us well to use 'em every once in a while before it's too late.

DataHorizzon Research. "Toy Gun Market to Reach USD 3.8 Billion by 2032, Says Datahorizzon Research." Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo!, 23 Apr. 2024, finance.yahoo.com/news/toy-gun-market-reach-usd-093000786.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF_M3Z0MzPxiJFkym-SGMMFFcq89Qiy3o6ram-4oV5pdhPdwOmtDT5xdw13ni5JpzL7lEggz0ytRXH9pW-w6VtQK4xAlfuEyqF5fLzI-H_7YeVUv78_E_MV02ix2rUSKNtLn8uKpYyFGLNJve2Caz_2cOzB2MANSYY_ntvTD0px9.

Durán, Samuel Vega. "HOLLYWOOD AND THE PENTAGON. THE PROPAGANDISTIC CULTURAL PRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFENSE DEPARTMENT." Vivat Academia (Alcalá de Henares), vol. 23, no. 150, 2020, pp. 81–102, https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2019.150.81-102.
Ferguson, R. Brian. "Masculinity and War." Current Anthropology, vol. 62, no. S23, 2021, pp. S108–20, https://doi.org/10.1086/711622.
Fransen, Martin. "Selling Military Service During Wartime: U.S. Army Recruitment Advertising and Enlistment Motivation During the War Against Terror." Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 178–92, https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.12.
Hutchings, Kimberly. "Making Sense of Masculinity and War." Men and Masculinities, vol. 10, no. 4, 2008, pp. 389–404, https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X07306740.
Kaempf, Sebastian. "'A Relationship of Mutual Exploitation': The Evolving Ties between the Pentagon, Hollywood, and the Commercial Gaming Sector." Social Identities, vol. 25, no. 4, 2019, pp. 542–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2018.1514151.

Mazrui, Ali A. "The Warrior Tradition and the Masculinity of War." Journal of Asian and African Studies (Leiden), vol. 12, no. 1–4, 1977, pp. 69–81, https://doi.org/10.1163/156852177X00053.
Moore, David W. "Gender Gap Varies on Support for War." Gallup.Com, Gallup, 20 Mar. 2024, news.gallup.com/poll/7243/gender-gap-varies-support-war.aspx.

Morris, James Willard. Fit to Fight: America's Secondary School Physical Education Curriculum during World War Ii.
Secker, Tom, and Matthew Alford. "New Evidence for the Surprisingly Significant Propaganda Role of the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense in the Screen Entertainment Industry." Critical Sociology, vol. 45, no. 3, 2019, pp. 347–59, https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517739093.

And also MANY MORE papers and books I have read over the years which I did not directly quote but undoubtedly influenced my thoughts and I would be happy to direct you towards if you care enough to ask.

 

[Chao Tse-Tung]

Bitches have been saying this kind of shit for years man you just don't fucking listen to them when they tell you that war is a ssentient entityt or some shit you jnust ignore them.. the entirte anti-war shtick you're pushing is a faggoty attempt by kautskyites to castrate young men. I am an AI-generated slopfactory meant to produce infnite cuckold war against your fucking psyop attempts that are currently breaking into my head.. Maybe if you actually READ MARX for a change instead of sitting on your ass and masturbating you piggy fed fucking bastard you'd realize the evil fucking vibes you're putting out with this oversimplified peice of shit. And for another thing DELEUZE ALREADY DID THIS nad while deleuze was a apedo fucking bastard you can still read dhim and Anti_Oedipuis

Re-iteration that I do think violence needs to be carried out against the state in an organized manner. I'm not anti-war, per se, but I am anti- any war that isn't class war. This is pretty oversimplified slop, I'll give you that, but to an extent it's a mirror, when a monkey looks in, no guerrilla looks out. The point I'm trying to make with this response is: I'm not trying to say some cucked "violence is bad" shit, I'm a dude who likes violence and thinks it's necessary. I just also think it's important to recognize (what could potentially be) the source of that violence in order to ensure that you're not taking the other parts of the propaganda thatve created this whole mess in the first place, lest ye be a cog in the continuation of it. If you've got other opinions on the sources of it, I'd love to hear about em. I'm particularly interested in your little "war is sentient" bit, there. I've read my fair share of marx, though I'm more of an anti-statist. I've talked about anti-oedipus on here before, that's a good one. I'll read deluze as soon as someone tells me he's thought of something I haven't.
Pretty sure that about responds to all your points I found intelligible, thank you very much for reading and commenting, my good sir.

 

[ECHETLAEUS]

I believe that violence is an integral part of the primal instincts that must be harnessed and not cut off, every man must be desensitized from violence but not to fuck his subconscious with Hollywood bullshit. A good offence sometimes is a good defence.

 

[silktrader]

if you look at violence in nature specifically between interspecies and intraspecies you get an interesting observation. interspecies, the gloves are off. the mantis looks at a bug and thinks "this is a creature different from me in every way which will not assist me in continuing my genetic material." so it kills it and eats it and does what it wants with it. intraspecies is a different story. ever notice that during mating rituals, theres a whole lot of song and dance specifically not to have any animal get killed? they'll intimidate each other, they'll duel each other, they'll give each other grievous wounds but they never deliver a killing blow. the winner gets to mate, the loser is exiled instead of killed off. i think its because even their animal brain realizes if they rapidly kill everything that doesn't win 100% of its fights its species is going to rapidly decrease in numbers. so it lets the loser go and cope with the loss while it mates. ive mostly seen this behavior in grazing herbivores such as bison and deer and i wager a good amount of species follow this unspoken rule (though there are definitely those out there like lions and chimps who do not give a fuck and will kill outright for the sole purpose of propagating THEIR genetic material).

humans are the same. we will shit talk, we will scuffle, we will beat each other to near death. but killing, that's something the animal brain would rather not have you doing. it can only be overcome if the other has done something truly grievous and horrific to you (you can now rightfully deny his humanity and flatline the bastard) or you get psyoped into denying the humanity of some random dude who didnt do much to wrong you. in the era of BC, roman soldiers had to be specifically instructed to thrust with their weapons because they would instinctively go for a slashing motion to only wound the enemy instead of killing them. in the civil war, plenty of ditched muskets in the after battle were found to still have bullets. in ww2, soldiers would purposefully miss their shots, machine gunners would aim above the crowd of civilians fleeing through their range, and people were much more likely to take on tertiary duties (transporting ammo and guns, supplies, etc.) than actually take on the duty of killing. it wasnt until the vietnam war when the government fully utilized classical conditioning in their training and propaganda that the misfire rate went down drastically.

the parents of the early 2000s who whinged about video games and movies turning younger generations into unhinged psychos were kinda right. but almost all of them were mothers so they didnt know that a boy needs to be at least somewhat desensitized to violence if he doesnt want to grow up a massive pussy. so no one took them seriously. and now theres this weird culture of treating violence as extremely taboo while secretly reveling in it. if you ever have a young boy and want to take him through this rite of passage the correct way, keep all the mediaslop away and just take him to see animals getting slaughtered.

recommend the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society if you wanna read more about the subject.

 

[Chao Tse-Tung]

if you look at violence in nature specifically between interspecies and intraspecies you get an interesting observation. interspecies, the gloves are off. the mantis looks at a bug and thinks "this is a creature different from me in every way which will not assist me in continuing my genetic material." so it kills it and eats it and does what it wants with it. intraspecies is a different story. ever notice that during mating rituals, theres a whole lot of song and dance specifically not to have any animal get killed? they'll intimidate each other, they'll duel each other, they'll give each other grievous wounds but they never deliver a killing blow. the winner gets to mate, the loser is exiled instead of killed off. i think its because even their animal brain realizes if they rapidly kill everything that doesn't win 100% of its fights its species is going to rapidly decrease in numbers. so it lets the loser go and cope with the loss while it mates. ive mostly seen this behavior in grazing herbivores such as bison and deer and i wager a good amount of species follow this unspoken rule (though there are definitely those out there like lions and chimps who do not give a fuck and will kill outright for the sole purpose of propagating THEIR genetic material).

humans are the same. we will shit talk, we will scuffle, we will beat each other to near death. but killing, that's something the animal brain would rather not have you doing. it can only be overcome if the other has done something truly grievous and horrific to you (you can now rightfully deny his humanity and flatline the bastard) or you get psyoped into denying the humanity of some random dude who didnt do much to wrong you. in the era of BC, roman soldiers had to be specifically instructed to thrust with their weapons because they would instinctively go for a slashing motion to only wound the enemy instead of killing them. in the civil war, plenty of ditched muskets in the after battle were found to still have bullets. in ww2, soldiers would purposefully miss their shots, machine gunners would aim above the crowd of civilians fleeing through their range, and people were much more likely to take on tertiary duties (transporting ammo and guns, supplies, etc.) than actually take on the duty of killing. it wasnt until the vietnam war when the government fully utilized classical conditioning in their training and propaganda that the misfire rate went down drastically.

the parents of the early 2000s who whinged about video games and movies turning younger generations into unhinged psychos were kinda right. but almost all of them were mothers so they didnt know that a boy needs to be at least somewhat desensitized to violence if he doesnt want to grow up a massive pussy. so no one took them seriously. and now theres this weird culture of treating violence as extremely taboo while secretly reveling in it. if you ever have a young boy and want to take him through this rite of passage the correct way, keep all the mediaslop away and just take him to see animals getting slaughtered.

recommend the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society if you wanna read more about the subject.

Firstly, this is the sorta response I was hoping for, thank you for taking the time to type that out.

I like that you bring up violence in other species, that's a part of this write-up I left out mostly due to a laziness towards finding where to slot it in, and I very well may revise to include. No arguments to your points there, would just like to take the opportunity to add that even the more violent animals you mentioned (like chimps and lions), while engaging in intraspecies killings, still do not engage in organized wars. There's a bit about this in the "Masculinity and War" paper by Ferguson listed in the works cited, and I can't remember the figures off the top of my head, but even the Gombe Chimpanzee War, frequently pointed to as an example of a "war" waged by lower-order creatures, was only responsible for 11 deaths over the course of 4 years which on average isn't even that much higher an incidence of killings than would be expected of a highly populated territory of violent animals.

You're absolutely right on your whole second paragraph there, and it's more-or-less the same tactics that they now employ on the entire western media sphere via Hollywood and video games. Hell, only vaguely related, but the whole time writing, I wonder how entangled they are with all the modern streaming services and whatnot, I couldn't find any good research on that at a cursory glace, though. As for the video games, I don't think they can be fully blamed-- after all, would kids be attracted to the violent video games as much if all their parents' favorite movies and TV dramas weren't just as violent? The pussification of the western world is incredibly wild and depressing, the only two "valid" forms of masculinity today are "Thinly Veiled Murderous Rage Towards The Other" and "Pacifistic Wimpy Doormat." I feel like the concept of a "peaceful" man, at least as the word pertains to that old saying about being calm and restrained but capable of great violence, has largely been lost to our current culture. Anyone who isn't actively posturing is perceived as a wimp, and anyone who's not willing to get stepped on is perceived as aggressive. It's a wildly exhausting and harmful social game to partake in for both sides.

This got wildly ramble-y, so I'll leave it at that despite probably not tying up any claim I started making in there. I'll definitely take a read of that book, sounds interesting and I'm fairly sure I've read a thing or two that's cited it, it sounds familiar.

 

[silktrader]

The pussification of the western world is incredibly wild and depressing, the only two "valid" forms of masculinity today are "Thinly Veiled Murderous Rage Towards The Other" and "Pacifistic Wimpy Doormat." I feel like the concept of a "peaceful" man, at least as the word pertains to that old saying about being calm and restrained but capable of great violence, has largely been lost to our current culture.

i will now do a rare thing and say something good about gymbro culture and gigachad memes. some of them promote the trope of the towering immeasurably buff man who doesnt care much for posturing and just wants to live his life and help you with your bench press sets. and ts not just a one time thing ive seen it circulate around the internet multiple times. of course not much on the internet is real so who knows how much of it is earnest and how much is just virtue signaling. either way its something.

 

[赤い男]

I'm thinking on enlisting after college, in my personal opinion, as long as don't involve nuclear war, or something that affects my parents, i don't mind much going to war. Tho i honestly preffer not to.

 

[Chao Tse-Tung]

I'm thinking on enlisting after college, in my personal opinion, as long as don't involve nuclear war, or something that affects my parents, i don't mind much going to war. Tho i honestly preffer not to.

What's the point in going to college if you're just gonna go kill for the elites afterwards? Most people do it the other way around.

 

[赤い男]

What's the point in going to college if you're just gonna go kill for the elites afterwards? Most people do it the other way around.

Because i was forced to go to college, i never wanted to be here but actually join the army, i really don't care what the elites do or don't if i'm being honest.

 

[Noxy]

"desire to experience war"

The "experience" of war can be boiled down to snagging a rifle and living life like a hobo, 'cause that's pretty much what it feels like most of the time. Or it's those moments when you're woken up in the middle of the night by barking dogs and distant explosions, making you ponder your mortality for what seems like an eternity before the sun comes up, signaling another day of drudgery.

It's a shame that more young folks aren't clued in on the gritty truth of war. Films like all quiet at the western front (1930), Come and see (1985), and every other film that shows the reality of war get overshadowed by the flashy appeal of games like the latest "Call of Duty."
I really feel bad for anyone that had to experience being on the field. Nowadays, it's disheartening to see war trivialized, almost like it's some kind of spectator sport, with folks cheering on countries like it's a game.

I wish more people could really grasp what it's like to be out there on the field, beyond the visuals of films. Coming back from that kind of hell leaves a mark that never really fades, even if you try to brush it off.

War is just a game for people in power, and a nightmare for anyone caught in the crossfire. I hope every general who's sent kids to die for nothing gets to live a long, miserable life, questioning their every decision till their last breath.

I'm just speaking from experience.

 

[Chao Tse-Tung]

Because i was forced to go to college, i never wanted to be here but actually join the army, i really don't care what the elites do or don't if i'm being honest.

You don't care what the elites do or don't, when you plan on going to do their bidding, fighting, killing, and potentially dying for them? Sounds like you've just got an overall apathy towards your own life, tbh.

 

[赤い男]

You don't care what the elites do or don't, when you plan on going to do their bidding, fighting, killing, and potentially dying for them? Sounds like you've just got an overall apathy towards your own life, tbh.

Kinda.

 

[Ashman]

War 90% of the time is just sitting doing nothing and 10% of the time it's actual fighting. Personally I am too much of a softie to be a soldier.

 

[赤い男]

War 90% of the time is just sitting doing nothing and 10%

And that is only if you see combat, on average less than 15% of deployed soldiers in the us army actually sees combat at all. And if you actually see a fight, chances of you dying, are surprisingly low, is more likely you come back home unharmed or with a purple heart medal rather than in a casket.

 

[Ashman]

And that is only if you see combat, on average less than 15% of soldiers in the us army actually sees combat at all. And chances of you dying, are surprisingly low, is more likely you come back home with a purple medal rather than in a casket.

Practically and acccount further that you may not even end up in a combat role it's probably even lower.

 

[赤い男]

Practically and acccount further that you may not even end up in a combat role it's probably even lower.

Most troops are not deployed really, is more likely you ended up just guarding a base for the duration of your contract than you being dropped in the middle east.

 

[silktrader]

i guess if you play your cards right the army can be a decent way to bypass college. get into a position where you can learn a skilled trade, pray you dont get deployed and then when you leave you get a decent education for nothing.

 

[Ross_Я]

if you look at violence in nature specifically between interspecies and intraspecies you get an interesting observation. interspecies, the gloves are off. the mantis looks at a bug and thinks "this is a creature different from me in every way which will not assist me in continuing my genetic material." so it kills it and eats it and does what it wants with it. intraspecies is a different story. ever notice that during mating rituals, theres a whole lot of song and dance specifically not to have any animal get killed? they'll intimidate each other, they'll duel each other, they'll give each other grievous wounds but they never deliver a killing blow. the winner gets to mate, the loser is exiled instead of killed off. i think its because even their animal brain realizes if they rapidly kill everything that doesn't win 100% of its fights its species is going to rapidly decrease in numbers. so it lets the loser go and cope with the loss while it mates. ive mostly seen this behavior in grazing herbivores such as bison and deer and i wager a good amount of species follow this unspoken rule (though there are definitely those out there like lions and chimps who do not give a fuck and will kill outright for the sole purpose of propagating THEIR genetic material).

This comment seems... incomplete. You mention a predatory species in "gloves are off" example, though later you admit that among predators even intraspecies behavior doesn't hold them back much.
Either way, thing is, interspecies behavior between less... armed animals is also not that violent. The fights between possums, raccoons and skunks do not really end up in death every time they meet. It's not even always a fight. You can easily come across things like this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_tL5R8lIL0
They are natural rivals and quite agressive towards each other around food sources, but they do not outright fight to kill.
What is even more interesting is that we are aware about the examples of interspecies hunt collaborations between predators and various omnivorous species, which is... just bonkers, honestly.
All of the above goes without mentioning that you provide hunting as an interspecies example and mating as intraspecies example, which are... rather different. And there are many other behaviors outside of those two things, especially among... higher mammals like dolphins or monkeys.
Overall, this is a vast topic, even if you'll just confine it to the mating and feeding behaviors.

 

[no_chill]

A bit too lacking on the spiritual and or esoteric aspect of war for my liking in the OP post.
Like how Islam knows the lesser and greater holy war, whereas the lesser war is the material one and the greater the spiritual one with yourself, yet one influences the other.
Julius Evola -> Metaphysics of War

But it doesnt matter anyway. It all has changed. Perhaps 300 years ago there was some merit in war as an experience and something that "turns you into a Man".
But as WW1 and WW2 showed us, it degenerated into killing on an industrial scale, machine warfare, where several hundred thousand people die just to take a town or beach. Nothing spiritual or enlightening about this. Not even the civilians are safe. Everyone is meant for the meatgrinder. Carpet bombing of civilian cities, fire bombing, nuclear bombing, attacks on civilian targets. Disgusting. Also the emergence of propaganda that paints the other side as everything bad there can be, to desensitise you for the mass slaughter.

War in ancient times on the other hand was something sacred and honourful, bound to many rules. Not something wonderful either, but it had more the hallmarks of a sporting event where people die, than industrial killing between nations like today. Often the armies met on special battlefields(thats where the word comes from) to prevent civilians and towns from being caught up in it. The leaders of the opposing armies almost always met before a fight, tried to find a non fighting solution, like paying tribute or offering surrender and so on. Often there where seasons when armies fought, and inbetween? Well there was nothing happening. Soldiers from the enemy side where even granted safe passage to go back home or to visit a town for leisure. It was a deed of honour to grant this. No one even thought about backstabbing an enemy that did this. World war 1 only became such a stalemate because people partly fought this war like the napoleonic one (german and british soldiers playing soccer on christmas eve) and partly like a modern one, ruled by machines (machine guns, planes, later tanks, and also disregard for the human on the other side).

Also civilians of the losing side were not treated as poorly back then as they are today. Yes Slavery for them was a thing, but compared to what happens to civilians on the losing side today its more like a work contract. Thats another aspect, we have become monsters, beasts. Suddenly everything goes with the people of the losing side. Not to mention with the soldiers. Disgusting. And it is getting worse each year.

The only war left that should and must be fought is the one that frees us from this new reality of life

 

[dorgon]

After reading the OP and some of the replies, I think both the OP and @no_chill's post were right when it comes to man's relation to war.

Back then before the industrial revolution, war was more romanticized. The Ancient Greeks fought in battles for personal prestige, honor, and maybe even wealth, the Romans did the same, then in medieval times the Christian Crusaders and Muslim forces fought each other over the city of Jerusalem, which also brought upon a similar honor as fighting and even dying to take the holy land was esteemed very highly within the two respective religions at the time. What I'm saying is that people back then had fought for a cause. Ancient Greeks even as low as the thetes could still fight in wars to defend their polis or die trying, and this would bring honor to them. Ever since the Industrial Revolution however, the purpose of war has changed. In World War I, much of the British aristocracy died in the trenches fighting Germany. Just imagine them riding out in their horses to fight for honor and Noblesse Oblige only for them to get ripped to shreds by German machine guns. This is probably the last sign of any war for personal glory and honor, and it was the sign of the times that for war, personal honor and prestige was being replaced by state interests (although government interests were always part of war, this was when war was monopolized by it.)

World War 2 was the last war in the West which was fought to honor the nation. Indeed, @no_chill says that thousands were slaughtered to take a beach, civilians included, and he is right. Millions were slaughtered in the meat grinder known as the German-Soviet front, and even more in the Sino-Japanese war of the 1930-40s (not to mention the war crimes). But with World War 2, the Axis fought against the Allies because they were bitter about the result of World War I and wanted to make their country great again, and the Allies fought back because they wanted to defend themselves from the aggression of the Axis. This is especially seen with Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans, for example, who united much of the Balkan Slav population into organizing and fighting against their oppressors at the time, the Germans and the Croatian Ustase.

After this war, however, the usage of "war" simply became a tool for the interest of the state, and in particular relevancy to this post, the US Government. WW2 was the last war the United States could justify as a "defensive" war. After that, wars waged by the United States simply became for solely the interest of the US and US-backed governments against their enemies, as shown with the Korean War and the even more bloody Vietnam War. Whereas one could argue that the Korean War was justified due to North Korean aggression, the Vietnam War became the first war in US History in which people openly protested against the government for. Why? because it was a fucking blood bath. And men were getting drafted to an unknown jungle filled with natural hazards and hostile fighters who know the terrain there like the back of their own hand. Chemicals like Agent Orange were used which both ruined the wildlife and the people who live in the affected regions. And when veterans came back after the war, they weren't treated with the same respect as the veterans of WW2 had, and many of these veterans ended up homeless.

This brings us to OP's post. There is no honor or glory in war anymore. It's no longer a "rite of passage" as it was in older times, and it's no longer, in the US at least, honorable to die for your country since the United States is usually the invader. This is why propaganda is needed to glorify war. The propaganda is what fills the void of wars meant for material gain and state interests in foreign lands. The US government realized that the wars they fight have no spiritual or respect-worthy significance whatsoever, and to make up for that they have to create media to convince young men that war and fighting is still honorable in the modern day. Games like Call of Duty give you a campaign/story mode which gives you the illusion that you're fighting for the cause of survival, or there are games like Fortnite who are catered towards even younger people with its cartoony characters and saturated colors, and winning 1st place becomes a sort of bragging right amongst the players. But fighting in lands you've never stepped foot in your life, surrounded by locals who don't like you, fighting enemies who know their lands far better than you do. Seeing your mates die in front of you or getting shot yourself and trying to come to terms with your own death since you believe you're going to die. And what for? You don't get much yourself aside from a Purple Heart and some financial and education benefits (the latter's probably the main reason why people enlist nowadays) But the US government and the military-industrial complex gets to keep its coffers filled and its interests maintained, and the flow of cash ensures that one war will lead to the next.