Myth And The Lust For War

Today in speaking with Judge Nap, Alastair Crooke spent a good deal of time discussing the ever more apparent role that “myth”—a much misunderstood concept—is playing in the Anglo-Zionist war on the world. This is a topic that figured large in the earlier Meaning in History, and I refer readers to this post (among others) for an overview:

Chesterton's Thomist View of Myth

G. K. Chesterton's magnum opus, The Everlasting Man, amounts to a theory of man in history from a Christian apologetic perspective. The overarching theme is that what could be called the "methodology" of the Christian revelation--God's self revelation in Jesus rather than in a book--is remarkably "in tune with" human nature as we see it in history. While it would be unwise to seek a complete theory of man in a book of apologetics--we cannot expect to find anything quite like Eliade's theory of archaic ontology--The Everlasting Man is, like so many of Chesterton's works, shot through with keen insights that repay careful study. This is particularly true of Chesterton's reflections on the nature of mythology and its relation to Christianity, a topic that is central to his overall argument. For Chesterton, to understand myth is to understand man, and in important respects this approach leads him to address these issues in ways that are both original and also shed greater light than other more familiar approaches.

We can get to the heart of Chesterton's thought in two key chapters. The first is "Man and Mythologies" (Part 1 Chapter 5). In this chapter we find Chesterton's overall characterization of myth, and it is framed in a manner that will strike anyone with a Thomist background as remarkably familiar. First, Chesterton explicitly recognizes the function of myth:

What are here called the Gods might almost alternatively be called the Day-Dreams. To compare them to dreams is not to deny that dreams can come true. To compare them to travelers' tales is not to deny that they may be true tales, or at least truthful tales.

The function of myth is to communicate truth. Not, of course, in the literal fashion we have become accustomed to expect from the ideology of modern science, but rather in the form of metaphors. But Chesterton also adds an important caveat:

Myths are not allegories.

The reason this caveat is important is because it suggests that the myth-making mentality recognizes the limits of human knowledge. To say that myth is not allegory is to say that no complete and literal account of reality can be offered by man--that the truth that myth seeks to convey retains an element of mystery. This, too, is a perspective that should be familiar to Thomists; the idea that man's perspective is strictly limited and, therefore, necessarily incomplete, was succinctly expressed in Josef Pieper's short work, The Silence of St. Thomas.

In this respect it is useful to contrast myths as Chesterton describes them with Plato's use of "myths" in his dialogs, such as The Myth of the Cave, or The Myth of Anamnesis (Recollection). Plato's use of myth as a form is rendered ambiguous by the uncertainty that the reader experiences: how literally are these myths or "likely accounts" to be taken? Are these Platonic myths strictly metaphorical or do they--at least in some instances--seek to formulate a more "scientific" account behind a facade of modesty? Certainly the Myth of the Cave could be considered to be in the nature of an analogy, but the Myth of Anamnesis appears to be more like an attempted explanation in a quasi-scientific sense. It is definitely not an analogy and its very structure invites further speculation, fueled by logic rather than metaphor. Certainly its various transformations throughout the history of Western thought (Augustine's Divine Illumination, Kant's Categories, etc.) demonstrate that it has been taken to be an attempt at explanation. This tendency to mistake myth for explanation and even for science can be linked to the Platonic (in the broad sense) view of being as essence: the Platonic essences are Ideas (Forms) with a univocal rather than an analogical meaning.

This is an extremely important consideration. If we examine most modern ideologies we will discover that, at root, they usually amount to attempts to use mythical categories as literal truth rather than as metaphors that provide insight into reality, without the ideological claim to demystify reality.

Chesterton touches on this aspect when he writes:

These are the myths and he who has no sympathy with myths has no sympathy with men. But he who has most sympathy with myths will most fully realize that they are not and never were a religion, in the sense that Christianity or even Islam is a religion.

Now, the reason that Christianity differs from myth is that, while Christianity shares some similarities to myth, its central truths are historical and therefore not metaphorical in the mythical sense. On the other hand, because the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is absolutely central to Christianity, ultimately an analogical view of being is also central to Christianity--unlike Platonism.

Chesterton moves even closer to the core issue of human nature and man's proclivity for myth when he writes:

The substance of all such paganism may be summarized thus. It is an attempt to reach the divine reality through the imagination...

It is only ... when such cults are decadent or on the defensive, that a few Neo-Platonists or a few Brahmins are found trying to rationalize them, and even then only by trying to allegorize them.

Mythology, then, sought God through the imagination; or sought truth by means of beauty ...

Now, myth seeks to communicate truth through stories. Thus, when Chesterton refers to "imagination" he is referring predominantly to the use of visual images communicated verbally. This should be familiar ground for Thomists, for whom all knowledge is ultimately derived from the senses and for whom concepts derived from sense knowledge are constantly rehearsed through imaginative recall of sense experience. Thus, the use of stories as vehicles for the communication of truth--means by which truth can be "seen" in images (to use Etienne Gilson's expression)--should be no surprise in a universe of analogical being populated by humans who derive their knowledge through sensation: it is precisely what a Christian should expect, based on the Christian view of human nature. And, Chesterton maintains, this account of human nature "fits" the facts of our experience: "it is like life."

…

Hold on to that thought for what follows. Man—and never more than in our modern era—is addicted to myth, conceived of as the attempt to communicate truth through stories, in the broad sense. Novels, poetry, short stories, movies, TV shows. But politicians and public intellectuals also traffick in myth through their own stories or, in the modern way of speaking, narratives. Stories are the dominant way in which man seeks to understand himself, to provide meaning to his existence, and perhaps above all, to find meaning in history. Stories, myths, are abused in ideology to impose pseudo scientific meaning upon the flow of history, whereas myth by its nature can only provide metaphorical insight—true and important, but limited.

Alastair Crooke: Trump: The Self-Made Myth

Crooke: Yossi Klein, who was writing in Haaretz--interestingly, only in the Hebrew version, I can't see it in the English language version, it's only in Hebrew--says: "The old Zionism is over. It's gone. The next stage is Messianic extreme nationalism." He's talking here about Israel, of course. "The third stage will be"--in his words-- "barbarism. Indeed," he says, "barbarism is already here." Blood lust in Gaza has been awakened from the ancient myths in the Torah by precisely these Messianic nationalists. This, again, is Klein speaking. The obligation to annihilate another nation, Amalek is mentioned twice. In Klein's words, "In their eyes [the eyes of the Messianic extreme nationalists], fear of God is a license to kill."

Here is a perfect example of the barbarism that Klein is talking about, but also of the abuse of myth to justify genocide in the here and now world:

Thomas Keith @iwasnevrhere_

Smotrich: War as “Redemption” and “Return of the Divine Presence”

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly describes the ongoing war, and the killing it entails, as part of a “process of redemption” and the “return of the divine presence to Zion” through the “conquest of the land.”

Smotrich praised “religious Zionism at its peak” not only “on the battlefield” but also “in the cemeteries”, admitting that death and destruction are core to his vision. He boasted there is “no space in the State of Israel where we do not see its special imprint.”

This is a settler-theocracy doctrine framing war crimes and ethnic cleansing as holy acts, where civilian massacres, military occupation, and expansion are sacralized as divine fulfillment.

11:08 AM · Aug 24, 2025

Readers will see here the reason why I’ve adopted the term “Jewish Nationalism”—endorsed by a “liberal Zionist”. As a matter of emotion, much of the Zionist political myth is based in the myths of the Isaelite past—Abraham, the Exodus, the Conquest—despite the sociological fact that many, perhaps most, Zionists are not “religious” in any meaningful sense. A famous Israeli historian has quipped that Zionists may not believe in God, but they do believe that God gave them The Land (haaretz). And yet ancient Israelite mythology is used to justify radical Jewish Nationalism and Supremacism—up to and including genocide.

I looked up an interesting interview with Klein, dating to October, 2024:

Interview with Yossi Klein Halevi

In that interview you will find a great deal of self referential angst about the Jewish psyche, but no recognition of the tensions between Zionism, history, and myth. Nor will you discover any angst over the purchase by Jewish Nationalists of the American republic at the leadership level, no sympathy for non-Zionists whose country has been hijacked by a domineering ideology based on a mythical “history”. By way of contrast, I recommend Larry Johnson’s opening comments today with the Judge:

Larry Johnson: Will Trump Permit More War in Ukraine?

Back to Crooke:

Judge: Does Netanyahu have any interest in making a deal to release the hostages or is his steadfast goal the utter genocide, destruction or removal of all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, no matter what the public reaction might be?

Crooke: Well, Netanyahu has a positive public reaction within Israel. But I wanted just to say that we have to look on this also without a sort of superiority to it. James Hillman, in his book, A Terrible Love of War, attempted to address blood lust--an impulse so terrible yet one that ignites a Mars like fury that bonds men in battle.

"'I felt like a god,' says General Patton in the eponymous film. The general walks the field after a battle. Churned earth, burnt tanks, dead men. He takes up a dying officer, kisses him, surveys the havoc, and says, 'I love it. God help me. I do love it. I love it more than life.'"

Much of this next passage appears to be Crooke reading his new article off the screen. He addresses the great danger involved in political ideologies that are based in the abuse of myth. Mere concepts are not normally sufficient to get blood lust up. For that men need stories, narratives, that get the emotions up.

I'm just saying this to underline more than anything the power of these sort of myths in creating these lusts for killing. Not justifying it, I'm just explaining that societies have found, and continue to find, meaning in life through war. Israel is doing this somehow to find meaning from its biblical roots, its myths, from the biblical in the [churn?] desolation that it has visited in Gaza. But this is a profoundly dangerous impulse that is seizing, not only Israel, but is now affecting and turning much of the Middle East to desert. But these dark impulses, psychic impulses once awaken, easily replicate because, not only have we normalized genocide, but Washington today enthuses over decapitation strikes: Lebanon, Syria, Iran--assassinations find their justification and model gold exploding pagers and cell phones are thought to be a cool gift to give to a president.

This is how it spreads. This is how it moves on elsewhere. And there are other deep psychic impulses that seem dangerously close to awakening. One prominent member of Trump's close circle, Peter Thiel [the radical evangelical pederast], is due to give a series of four lectures next month on the role of the katekhon [Greek for “Restrainer” at 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7] as somehow a bulwark against something far worse: the Antichrist. This, no doubt, will be a biblical explanation. But clearly the ancient but still potent image of the Antichrist is now in the air.

Crooke now shows how ideologized categories in ‘Christian’ thought are being abused by the now non-Christian West to demonize Putin as a sort of Antichristic only half human barbarian, and justify the longed for subjugation of Russia:

This is what Macron had to say. Quote, exactly.

"Putin has been a constant destabilizing force," he said. "Russia has become a threat to many, including us." Now listen to this. "It [Russia] has to eat to survive." So, he's a predator. That's Putin. A threat to many, including us. A cannibal at our doorstep. "I'm not saying that France will be attacked tomorrow, but Putin, he's a threat to Europeans. Let's not be naive."

Judge: Here's the American version of this. Here's Lindsey Graham last week saying we must crush Russia.

"Putin fears Trump, and I think he's been tough. And my advice to President Trump and Marco is if you got to convince Putin that if this war doesn't end justly and honorably, with Ukraine making concessions also, we're going to destroy the Russian economy. We have the ability to do it. ..."

Judge: He does manifest this Neocon belligerence and hatred toward and fear of Russia, articulated more potently by the quote you just cited from French President Macron.

Crooke: Well, you asked me a little earlier, what about the Russian view of all of this? I think Putin at Anchorage understood the psychology that underlies Trump and paid attention to that psychology and the sudden request to meet with him. The Russians treated Trump in a very respectful, courteous, and friendly fashion, despite all of the comments that come out of Washington and from Europe--some of them extremely ugly, like the ones from from Macron. Less noticed, perhaps, but psychologically crucial, is that Trump seemed to recognize in Putin a fellow from the pantheon of putative mythic leaders also--Apollonian, perhaps, rather than Dionysian for Trump, yet how striking [was the contrast between] the treatment of Putin by Trump and Trump's treatment of Putin's [compared to] Trump's completely disdainful treatment of the Euros, treating them like snivveling children. I just want to sort of conclude on that part and say, any awakening of these Manichean depths, such as I've just described, can be more potent even than the cold possession of nuclear weapons, more dangerous. Moscow perhaps understands it better than many may think.

Judge: What will it take to stop Netanyahu short of Iranian superior firepower when he again foolishly attacks Iran?

Crooke: Many in Israel see [Israel] as a state that has lost its way, that has no future except in allowing the sort of bloodletting in Gaza and West Bank. The Iranians are preparing for a conflict, preparing very urgently because they suspect that Israel is preparing urgently--because Israel fears that the Chinese are sending advanced air defense weapons to Iran, which they probably are. And so both sides are moving very quickly. I believe that there are big changes taking place in Iran, big shifts taking place at all levels and I don't know that Iran will necessarily wait on Israel's choice on timing of a conflict. The language that is being used by the Supreme Leader is very clear. He thinks that talking to the Americans or to the Europeans is a waste of time because they are simply trying to trick us. [Iranian FM Aragchi: "It is a proven fact that past appeasement has yielded no results and will yield none in the future...”] He sees that the inevitable big conflict is coming, and is coming quite soon. And so they are preparing for that. And they claim that new unsuspected weapons will be used on this occasion. And Israel is preparing also. This is not about the nuclear program. I's about wanting to topple the Iranian state and wanting to decapitate it, topple it and turn it into a Balkanized country like Syria is at present, a disaster.

Judge: Trump on Truth Social suggesting--look at this. This is the president of the United States late last week.

"It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader's country. It is like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning. It is like that with Ukraine and Russia. Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine fight back, only defend. How did that work out? Regardless, this is a war that would never have happened if I were president. Zero chance. Interesting times ahead. President DJT."

Judge: Is he intimating to the Kremlin that he might authorize Ukraine to use offensive weapons that can reach Moscow? Is this any way to negotiate?

Crooke: I believe there is something happening. I can't tell you the details but on the Russian channels they are suggesting that there are preparations afoot to prepare long range missiles for eventual handing over to Ukraine, and that the plan is unchanged. Can't win the war on the battlefield, but at least you can make it appear that it's not a defeat by blasting Moscow and St. Petersburg with long range missiles. It won't change the course of the war, even in Washington. I think that's understood. But how to prevent it being seen by the American public as a defeat. One way of doing that is to show the capacity of Ukraine to fire off missiles into the civilian areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. That seems to be what Russia is expecting. So they're preparing also against some form of escalation and expecting that may well happen very soon. And [Trump's statement on] Truth Social seems to sort of underpin it. [Trump is under] pressures that are coming from parts of the security state that are pushing him. I mean we heard Lindsey Graham just now pushing for escalation. Why? Because, as I say, this is deeply connected to myth and things. Russia is now being seen as the anti-Europe, the anti-Western civilization, standing for everything other than our type of civilization. It's totally wrong and a misunderstanding of the circumstances.

Here is an example of a very real source for the Anglo-Zionist frenzy of hatred for Putin. Crooke sees Putin being portrayed as a type of the Antichrist—by the rabid anti-Christians of the Western ruling class. There’’s quite a bit of irony in play here:

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

15h

“The adoption of Christianity was the starting point for the formation and development of Russian statehood, the true spiritual birth of our ancestors, the determination of their identity. Identity, the flowering of national culture and education.”

— Vladimir Putin

Judge: One last thing. Colonel McGregor reports that over the weekend the Russians destroyed the entire fleet of Taurus missiles that the Germans had sent to Ukraine, and have characterized Berlin as a co-elligerent in the special military operation. So I guess you're right. This is going to get worse before it gets better.

Crooke: What the Germans were trying to do was to not send Taurus missiles from Germany, but to have them assembled and put together in Ukraine to sort of distance Germany, rather precariously, in that way. Early in the week just before the talks in Anchorage the Russians destroyed the three factories that were engaged in preparing the warheads, the missiles, and the electronics of it. So they've been completely destroyed.

I.e., obliterated.

Judge: Chancellor Merz is an idiot. Did he think that the Russians would just sit back and wait for the Ukrainians to fire off the German missiles?

Crooke: I'm afraid to say that all of Europe seems to be extremely--their behavior is very stupid. I mean, they keep going on about a frozen conflict. They keep going on about more sanctions, more pressure on Putin. But what is the endgame? What do they see as a solution apart from escalation? They don't have a solution. They don't have an outcome. They just go on with the same process. ... It's just you know, asking and pining for an escalation.