“… Everywhere in the West there are subversive minorities who, sheltered by our humanitarianism and our sense of justice, hold the incendiary torches ready, with nothing to stop the spread of their ideas except the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population. One should not overestimate the thickness of this stratum. It varies from country to country in accordance with national temperament. Also, it is regionally dependent on public education and is subject to the influence of acutely disturbing factors of a political and economic nature. Taking plebiscites as a criterion, one could on an optimistic estimate put its upper limit at about forty per cent of the electorate. A rather more pessimistic view would not be unjustified either, since the gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities, and even where it exists it proves to be wavering and inconstant, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are. The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness.”
Jung (1956)[1]
“…For every manifest case of insanity there are, in my estimation, at least ten latent cases who seldom get to the point of breaking out openly but whose views and behavior, for all their appearance of normality, are influenced unconsciously by pathological and perverse factors. There are, of course, no medical statistics on the frequency of latent psychoses—for understandable reasons. But even if their number should amount to less than ten times that of the manifest psychoses and of manifest criminality, the relatively small percentage of the population figures they represent is more than compensated for by the peculiar dangerousness of these people. Their mental state is that of a collectively excited group ruled by affective judgments and wish-fantasies. … Their chimerical ideas, sustained by fanatical resentment, appeal to the collective irrationality and find fruitful soil there; they express all those motives and resentments which lurk in moral normal people under the cloak of reason and insight. They are, therefore, despite their small number in comparison with the population as a whole, dangerous as sources of infection precisely because the so-called normal person possesses only a limited degree of self-knowledge….”
Jung (1956)[2]
“… On a superficial view, one must regard this response as a positive sign of the feeling of human solidarity. But as you have quite rightly seen there is something more behind it: the pressure weighing on all Europe and the more or less open fear of a still greater catastrophe. The present political situation is historically unique [Jung then referred to how the Iron Curtain had split the world into two halves]… Nobody knows the answer to this problem. But whenever man is confronted with an unanswerable question or situation, corresponding archetypes are constellated in his unconscious. The first thing this produces is a general unrest in the unconscious which manifests itself as fear and makes people seek closer union in order to ward off the danger. But when a catastrophe… occurs, they are reminded of the far greater danger under the threat of which they live. …”
Jung (1953)[3]
“… When the time is fulfilled a new orientation will irresistibly break through,… we are still in the Christian aeon, threatened with a complete annihilation of our world.”
Jung (1953)[4]
Jung lived through both World War I and World War II,[5] times when his native Switzerland was surrounded by warring forces, when no one could be sure these wars would not engulf neutral countries. In World War II the Swiss heard daily of the atrocities and depredations of the Nazis, Mussolini, and the Japanese, and, after the war, of the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Besides these collective sources of terror, Jung recognized there were “subversive minorities”[6] everywhere, as well as “latent cases” of insanity—people who “… are influenced unconsciously by pathological and perverse factors.” and who, with their psychoses and “…manifest criminality,” represent a “peculiar dangerousness.”[7] Jung recognized that terrorism can come in two forms: the individual and the collective, the lone gunman who takes out students and teachers, and an army rampaging in the name of an ideology. In this essay, we will consider Jung’s thoughts on both these sources of terrorism in the context of what is going on now in our world.
The Individual Terrorist in 21st Century America
Fifteen years of repeated news stories of lone gunmen mowing down students, teachers, co-workers, strangers in schools, offices, and the parks and streets of our cities[8] has resulted in a situation in which, as Jung predicted, “… the possibility of reason’s having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies.”[9] As we hear more and more of gunman after gunman killing innocent people, “… the emotionality of a given situation…[has]… exceeded a certain critical degree.”[10] In such times, Jung warned us “If the affective temperature rises above this level,…”[11] it becomes impossible for reasonable discussions to take place, because “… a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic….”[12]
I think Jung would have us recognize that we have now come to this point: the United States is experiencing a “psychic epidemic” of mass murders committed by psychologically fragile people who finally go over the edge and fall into insanity. What to do?
Jung reminds us of the cold hard reality in this situation:
“…For every manifest case of insanity there are, in my estimation, at least ten latent cases who seldom get to the point of breaking out openly but whose views and behavior, for all their appearance of normality, are influenced unconsciously by pathological and perverse factors. There are, of course, no medical statistics on the frequency of latent psychoses—for understandable reasons. But even if their number should amount to less than ten times that of the manifest psychoses and of manifest criminality, the relatively small percentage of the population figures they represent is more than compensated for by the peculiar dangerousness of these people. Their mental state is that of a collectively excited group ruled by affective judgments and wish-fantasies. … Their chimerical ideas, sustained by fanatical resentment, appeal to the collective irrationality and find fruitful soil there; they express all those motives and resentments which lurk in moral normal people under the cloak of reason and insight. They are, therefore, despite their small number in comparison with the population as a whole, dangerous as sources of infection …”[13]
There are not a lot of “latent cases” but they are out there, and they are dangerous: people full of crazy ideas, resentments, and irrationalities. “Reason still survives” in these gunmen, “but is pushed away into some remote corner by the mind’s preoccupation with pathological ideas.”[14]
As we have seen from the various news reports after each shooting, each gunman seems to be set off by a different motive: revenge, anger, resentment, or “affective judgments and wish-fantasies”[15] that they picked up, often on the Internet. Because these instances of insanity are latent, it is almost impossible for law enforcement to spot them and prevent the mayhem and tragedy they cause.
More than this, Jung would remind us that even in normal people there can be “… the sudden disturbance of association by the irruption of apparently strange combinations of ideas… The ‘erratic’ association or ‘pathological idea’ may therefore be a widespread psychological phenomenon….”[16]
Jung’s advice in such situations is to encourage the creation of more consciousness.[17] Since the only thing we can ever change is ourselves, we have to begin by working on ourselves. The more knowledgeable we become about ourselves, the more we get to know our shadow and stop projecting it out on to others,[18] the more likely we are to be immune to the “infection” of the “psychic epidemic” in which we are now living. By tackling the “weeds” in our own “garden” we help to clean up the collective environment.
Jung would also have us “study the comparative history of religion,”[19] and get wise to the protections offered by having a solid sense of connection to the Self, or to something larger than ourselves.[20] Jung felt that in the “cultured”[21] world of the West we have developed a “mental derangement” in thinking that “religion is a peculiar kind of mental disturbance,”[22] when, in reality, a solid relation to the Self is precisely what can protect us from psychic “infections.” Where most Americans look to the government, the police, some outer authority to address our domestic individual terrorists, Jung looks within, calling on each of us to wise up to our unconsciousness, and especially to our shadow side.
Ideas, Ideals and Ideologies
An “idea” is the word we use to refer to “something existing in the mind as the result of understanding, thinking, reasoning, imagination, etc….”[23] While this dictionary definition implies that ideas are conscious, rational phenomena, Jung felt an idea is “… a psychological factor that not only determines thinking but, as a practical idea, also conditions feeling….”[24] Far from being something that our ego mind creates, Jung maintained that “… the operative factor in the formation of ideas is not man’s intellect but an authority above and beyond consciousness….”[25] What is this “authority?” Jung suggests it is “… the primordial, symbolic image… an autochthonous psychological factor constantly repeating itself at all times and places,…”[26] i.e. the archetype. We get our ideas from the archetypes that live within, and also beyond us.
This being so, Jung believed that much of what we think, how we define the problems we face in life, and the ways in which we go about trying to solve our problems are influenced by the collective:
“… Our conception of all problematical things is enormously influenced, sometimes consciously but more often unconsciously, by certain collective ideas that condition our mentality. These collective ideas are intimately bound up with the view of life and the world of the past centuries or epochs. Whether or not we are conscious of this dependence has nothing to do with it, since we are influenced by these ideas through the very air we breathe. [27]
The society in which we live, the collectives within which we grew up (family, school, social groups etc.), and the unspoken assumptions of our native culture color our ideas. We might think of ourselves as “independent thinkers,” and Jung certainly had such an intellect, but none of us can be completely free of the influence of the collective on our ideas.
This is equally true for our ideals, which Jung defined as “collective representations….”[28] An ideal will “release all the hidden forces of instinct that are inaccessible”[29] to our conscious will. Ideals “release” psychic energy because they are “always fairly obvious variants of an archetype,”[30] and Jung offers, as examples of this the ideal of “fatherland,” the underlying archetype in this case being “… the participation mystique of primitive man with the soil on which he dwells, and which contains the spirits of his ancestors.”[31]
Jung had no problem with ideas and ideals, but he had lots of problems with ideologies. He was quite blunt about this: “Our blight is ideologies—they are the long-expected Antichrist!…”[32] and he gave, as two examples from his own day, National Socialism (i.e. the ideology of Nazi Germany) and Communism. In his reference to “the long-expected Antichrist,” Jung was drawing on the principle of the enantiodromia[33] and John of Patmos’ prophesy of the appearance of the Antichrist, aka the Devil/Satan, at the end times.[34] Because 2,000 years of history has featured Christ, the good aspect of the Divine, Jung felt certain that we would have to experience the dark side, the Antichrist, for some time before the end of the Piscean aeon.[35]
Jung’s examples of the Antichrist were all “isms.” In his words: “The current ‘isms’ are the most serious threat… because they are nothing but dangerous identifications of the subjective with the collective consciousness. Such an identity infallibly produces a mass psyche with its irresistible urge to catastrophe.”[36] By “dangerous identifications of the subjective with the collective consciousness” I think Jung means what I mean by “cosmic vanity,” i.e. an individual makes the claim that what he/she thinks is right (the subjective) is what everyone (the collective) should think.[37] We see this today in other “isms” that were not so obvious in Jung’s day, e.g. fundamentalism, Islamism, and jihadism. Jung warns us that
Our fearsome gods have only changed their names: they now rhyme with ism…. Just as outwardly we live in a world where a whole continent may be submerged at any moment, or… a new pestilence break out, so inwardly we live in a world where at any moment something similar may occur,…[38]
We are far better protected against failing crops, inundations, epidemics, and invasions from the Turk than we are against our own deplorable spiritual inferiority, which seems to have little resistance to psychic epidemics….”[39]
In his reference to “invasions from the Turk” Jung was reflecting his European origins. From the 14th until as late at the 17th century Europe lived under the fear that the Ottoman Turks would invade and overrun the Continent.[40] They never did, but, in the expansionist zeal of crusading Islam,[41] they did get as far north as the gates of Vienna, and they seized the territory we know now as the Balkans.[42] Americans often forget this (if they ever learn this bit of history in school) but many Europeans haven’t forgotten.
Jung was well aware that history leaves imprints in a society’s collective memory,[43] especially when a phenomenon (like fear of a Muslim invasion) goes on for centuries. In a way parallel to our dread today of atomic war, many generations of Europeans lived in dread of invasion by the Turks. Modern-day Turkey is a very different place from the Ottoman Empire of the 16th century. Today, the expansionist form of Islam is expressed by the group known as ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh, and the ideal that is driving their actions is the concept of the umma.
Umma is the Arabic word for the worldwide community of Muslims,[44] and, given the cosmic vanity and proselytizing nature of Da’esh’s version of Islam, they operate in the belief that all “infidels” (non-Muslims) should either be converted (so as to be a part of the umma) or killed.[45] In the crusading mindset of Islam, all practicing Muslim men should be willing to take action to protect the umma if/when it is threatened by infidels.[46]
Memory lives long in the Arab world,[47] as we saw when Osama bin Laden referred to the Crusades and the seizure of the Holy Land by “Franks” (i.e. knights from Europe)[48] in the 11th century. This was a thousand years ago! But, just as European memory retains echoes of the dread of the aggressive Turks, so Arabs in the Middle East remember the Crusades and all the other wars, invasions, treacheries and misdeeds on the part of Western powers toward the Middle East.[49] Which brings us to the next section of this essay.
ISIS and Jihadist Terror
While some scholars tell us that jihad means “striving,” in the sense of personal effort for inward spiritual growth,[50] our modern world is experiencing a far more outward, violent, militant interpretation of the term. Harking back to the Middle Ages, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his followers have taken up the old crusader ideal, joining religion with military action, much as Mohammed did in his effort to overcome the resistance to his new religion.[51]
Jung regarded religion as “… a peculiar attitude of mind,”[52] and reminded us that “Religious statements are… never rational in the ordinary sense of the word, for they always take into consideration the other world, the world of the archetype, …”[53] and our human reason cannot fully grasp the depth and power of the archetypes. So we need to remember, when we are dealing with groups like Da’esh/ISIS/ISIL, we are dealing with people motivated by an ideal (the umma) and an ideology (the reinstitution of the caliphate)[54] that are not amenable to logic or reason.
More than being beyond reason, the motivations of the jihadi terrorists are archetypal, and Jung can shed much light on what this means, in terms of the actions, tactics, recruiting success and possible future of this current global phenomenon. Jung would likely diagnose al Baghdadi’s actions as the result of his “identification with the collective psyche,”[55] which would lead a person to
“… infallibly try to force the demands of his unconscious upon others, for identity with the collective psyche always brings with it a feeling of universal validity—‘godlikeness’—which completely ignores all differences in the personal psyche of his fellows. …[56]
The jihadists certainly claim their way has “universal validity,” which I referred to above as “cosmic vanity,” and, from what we hear about their tactics, they brook no differences of opinion.
As for the motivations of the jihadists, Jung would suggest that the psyche of a person motivated by an archetype is seized “… with a kind of primeval force …[that] compels it to transgress the bounds of humanity. It [identifying with an archetype] causes exaggeration, a puffed-up attitude (inflation), loss of free will, delusion, and enthusiasm in good and evil alike…”[57] When we see televised images of beheadings and crucifixions, and hear the jihadists’ rhetoric, Jung’s words about transgressing the bounds of humanity certainly ring true, and so much of what we learn about the leaders of the warring factions suggest they are inflated and delusional.
Jung also offers an explanation for the recruiting success of Da’esh. Why, many Western people often ask, would young men and women find any of this attractive? What could be the allure? Jung explains this as an example of the power inherent in identifying with the collective psyche. For a person who feels isolated, powerless to change his situation in life, or alienated from his culture, there is a powerful attraction in
“… identification with the collective psyche…[which] would amount to an acceptance of inflation, but now exalted into a system. That is to say, one would be the fortunate possessor of the great truth which… spells the healing of the nations. This attitude is not necessarily megalomania in direct form, but in the milder and more familiar form of prophetic inspiration and desire for martyrdom. For weak-minded persons, who as often as not possess more than their fair share of ambition, vanity, and misplaced naiveté, the danger of yielding to this temptation is very great. Access to the collective psyche means a renewal of life for the individual, no matter whether this renewal is felt as pleasant or unpleasant. Everybody would like to hold fast to this renewal: one man because it enhances his life-feeling, another because it promises a rich harvest of knowledge, a third because he has discovered the key that will transform his whole life. …[58]
Many young people living on the edges of Western society, with little hope of finding decent jobs, good salaries, and acceptance into the wider culture[59] are naïve, ambitious and find it hard to resist the temptation to join a movement that promises belonging, appeals to the idealism of restoring the umma, and holds out the possibility of martyrdom in the name of Allah. So they succumb to the allure of the crusader archetype.
But Jung warns young people against doing so:
“Anyone who identifies with the collective psyche—or, in mythological terms, lets himself be devoured by the monster—and vanishes in it, attains the treasure that the dragon guards, but he does so in spite of himself and to his own greatest harm.”[60]
From all we hear about the Syrian civil war, the actions of Da’esh, and the fate of so many participants in this conflict, “monster” seems no exaggeration!
Finally Jung has a warning for us, Westerners, with our modern mindset. We look upon what Da’esh is doing with horror, regarding their ideology, tactics and goals as medieval in their barbarity. We recoil from this, in a smug sense of our modernity and superiority. But Jung reminds us that
“… the much needed broadening of the mind by science has only replaced medieval one-sidedness—namely, that age-old unconsciousness which once predominated and has gradually become defunctive—by a new one-sidedness, the overvaluation of ‘scientifically’ attested views….[61]
If we regard Da’esh as one-sided in its values, actions and goals, we must remember that we too are one-sided in our “overvaluation” of logic, reason, objectivity and analysis. And this one-sidedness has the serious consequence of making it very difficult for us to understand where the jihadists are coming from, why they are doing what they are doing, and how their endeavor has traction with some Western youths. We need to recognize our own shadow (both personal and collective) and face the fact that, as Jung put it, “…nowadays the backwardness of psychic development in general and of self-knowledge in particular has become one of the most pressing contemporary problems….”.[62] This is our problem. If we want to respond to the challenge Da’esh is presenting in our world, Jung would urge us to look within and set about changing the only thing we can change: ourselves.
Conclusion
In seeking to minimize the risk from either type of terrorist—the individual who succumbs to a latent psychosis, or the collective driven by a consuming ideal and ideology—there is not much we can do, in terms of public policy or policing. It is impossible to identify every person who may be psychologically fragile, nor can we hope to defeat an ideology.[63] Ecclesiastical organizations have striven for millennia to stamp out what they consider heresies by undertaking concerted campaigns against ideologies, e.g. the Gnosticism of the Cathars and the Mandeans[64]—to no avail. While a unified global campaign against Da’esh might eliminate that group, the dream of the umma and the restoration of the caliphate are ideas that will linger long afterwards. Jung would urge us to be aware of the archetypal energies we are dealing with in this situation, and to be realistic in both our thinking and our actions. He reminds us that “… we are still in the Chrisitan aeon, threatened with a complete annihilation of our world.”, i.e. the world as we have known it. But Jung also knew that “… when the time is fulfilled a new orientation will irresistibly break through…”[65]
As for each of us, as individuals striving to come to terms with the reality of terrorism, Jung would remind us of the value of “the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population,”[66] as a bulwark against the spread of terrorists’ ideas. We can strive to build up this stratum by undertaking the task of becoming more self-aware, more conscious of the unconscious (including our own shadow), and coming to know the Self, that inner divine core in each of us, which will guide and protect and bring us into the fullness of life.
Sue Mehrtens is the author of this essay.
Bibliography
Blum, Jerome, Rondo Cameron & Thomas Barnes (1970), The European World: A History, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Edinger, Edward (1984), The Creation of Consciousness. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Fisher, Ian (2015), “The Origins of ISIS,” The New York Times (November 18, 2015).
Fisk, Robert (2007), The Great War for Civilization. New York: Vintage Books.
Hegghammer, Thomas (2015), “The Soft Power of Militant Jihad,” The New York Times (December 20, 2015), 4SR.
Jung, C.G. (1960), “The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease,” Collected Works, 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press
________ (1966), “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” CW 7. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1960), ”The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” CW 8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1970), “Civilization in Transition,” CW 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1966), “The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature,” CW 15. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1975), Letters, ed. Gerhard Adler & Aniela Jaffé. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1965), Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books.
________ (1984), Seminar on Dream Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kamrava, Mehran (2005), The Modern Middle East. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kristof, Nicholas (2015), “For Many, Faith Comes at a High Price,” The New York Times (December 20, 2015), 1 & 11SR.
Lewis, Bernard (1966), The Arabs in History, rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row.
________ (1995), The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Scribner’s.
________ (2002), What Went Wrong? New York: Harper & Row.
Mansfield, Peter (2003), A History of the Middle East, 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books.
Oldenbourg, Zoé (1961), Massacre at Montségur. New York: Pantheon Books.
Packer, George (2015), “The Other France,” The New Yorker (August 31, 2015), 58-73.
Rudolph, Kurt (1984), Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Smith, Huston (1991), The World’s Religions. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
[1] Collected Works 10, ¶489. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.
[2] Ibid., ¶490.
[3] “Letter to G. van Schravendijk-Berlage,” 11 February 1953; Letters, II, 105. Jung was replying to a Dutch woman asking him his thoughts on a recent flood that had struck The Netherlands. The “positive sign” Jung alludes to was how the people came together to help one another.
[4] “Letter to Victor White,” 24 November 1953; Letters II, 137.
[5]He was born in 1875 and died in 1961.
[6] CW 10, ¶489.
[7] Ibid., ¶490.
[8] E.g. the bombing in Centennial Olympic Park, Atlanta GA, July 1996; the anthrax letters scare in Washington D.C., Florida and New York, September-October 2001; the sniper attacks in Washington D.C. and Maryland, in October 2002; the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown CT in December 2012; the shootings at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, Charleston SC in June 2015; and the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, October 2015. This list is only a sampling.
[9] CW 10, ¶490.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] CW 3, ¶361.
[15] CW 10, ¶490.
[16] CW 3, ¶10.
[17] CW 11, ¶659; cf. Edinger (1984), 17-33.
[18] CW 7 ¶110.
[19] Ibid., ¶326.
[20] Jung (1965), 325; Jung (1984), 289 & 510.
[21] CW 7, ¶326.
[22] Ibid.
[23] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, I, 976.
[24] CW 6, ¶737.
[25] CW 11, ¶222.
[26] CW 6, ¶736.
[27] Ibid., ¶373.
[28] CW 15, ¶128.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] CW 11, ¶778.
[33] Jung defines enantiodromia (“a running to the opposite”) in CW 6, ¶708-9. For more on the concept see the blog essay “Jung on the Enantiodromia” archived on this blog site.
[34] See Rev. 12:9ff.
[35] “Letter to Victor White,” 24 November 1953; Letters II, 136.
[36] CW 8, ¶426.
[37] For more on cosmic vanity, see the blog essay “All the Labels: Jung’s Frustration,” archived on this blog site.
[38] CW 7, ¶326.
[39] CW 11, ¶778.
[40] Blum et al. (1970), 28,102,158-9,172,189-90.
[41] Lewis (1995), 273-4.
[42] Ibid., 128,276.
[43] CW 6, ¶373.
[44] Lewis (1995), 53; Lewis (1966), 43-4.
[45]Killing people who refuse to convert is a violation of the Koran; see Sutra 2, verse 257: “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” and Sutra 5, verse 48; cf. Smith (1991), 255. In early Islamic countries, non-believers (called dhimmi or ahl al-dhimma, “people of the pact,” were not killed, but taxed; see Lewis (1995), 210.
[46] Lewis (1995), 195.
[47] Lewis (2002), 18,102-3,140.
[48] Lewis (1966), 152.
[49] E.g. Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt (1798), plundering its antiquities; the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), betraying promises of independence; the Treaty of Sevres (1920), carving up the Middle East into mandates by Britain and France; cf. Mansfield (2003), 43-4, and Kamrava (2005), 39.
[50] Smith (1991), 257.
[51] Ibid., 255; cf. Lewis (1966), 43-46.
[52] CW 11, ¶8.
[53] Ibid., ¶222.
[54] This idea of restoring the caliphate is not unique to Da’esh; other Middle Eastern leaders have shared this dream, e.g. Gamel Abdel Nasser; see Kamrava (2005), 96,104,326.
[55] CW 7, ¶240.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid., ¶110.
[58] Ibid., ¶260.
[59] Packer (2015), 58-73; cf. Hegghammer (2015), 4SR.
[60]CW 7, ¶261.
[61] CW 8, ¶426.
[62] Ibid.
[63] That Da’esh is ideologically driven, see Fisher (2015).
[64]On the attempt by the Inquisition to stamp out Catharism, see Oldenbourg (1961). On the Mandeans, or “Marsh Arabs,” see Rudolph (1984), 8,30,65,133,175-82; for Saddam’s destruction of their marshes, see Fisk (2007), 687, 1017; cf. Kristof (2015), 11SR.
[65] “Letter to Victor White,” 24 November 1953; Letters II, 137.
[66] CW 10, ¶489.