I have felt the effects of power since early youth. Most of the time, it was unpleasant, restrictive, and oppressive.
As I got older, this conditioning to conform became increasingly subtle.
Much later, I recognized the danger of an unchecked ego—the urge to take possession of anything one desired, even by force.Possession seemed to be of central importance to us humans.In the animal world, I observed the protection and defense of offspring, and in some species, also of nesting sites and habitats—but only when needed. Never, as with us, is it about the abstract accumulation of possessions as a symbol of superiority and the exercise of power, even violence. All this merely to assign special meaning to one’s own existence.
We domesticated animals in order to exploit their life energy through conditioning. We trained humans to kill other humans—for the goals of others.What became of the hunters and gatherers who took only what they needed for daily life?How did we lose our paradisiacal innocence? And how can we contain the excesses of this misguided development?
It seems to me that it is high time for humanity to conclude its adolescent phase and finally see itself as a global community that enters into a humane and egalitarian development—to jointly protect its habitat.
Exhibition Concept
Our knowledge about the lifestyles of people during the Paleolithic remains fragmentary, even with the latest scientific methods.
At least we know that about 2 million years ago, Homo erectus had already succeeded in becoming a hunter rather than the hunted. This transition was achieved through cooperative behavior in small, egalitarian groups – a recipe for success that ensured its peaceful spread.
The migrations of Homo sapiens from Africa into what is now Europe were likely peaceful as well. At the very least, the newcomers interbred with the resident Neanderthals and also learned from each other. Moreover, scientists estimate a migration rate of about 10 kilometers per generation. Given the small population, this rarely led to conflicts. The groups were also too small and mobile. Genetic studies have shown that young women typically left their group to join another, which likely created social bonds between groups.
In their research, Douglas Fry and Patrik Söderberg (Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa) found that in 21 present-day hunter-gatherer societies, deadly conflicts were mostly due to personal disputes (based on the “Standard Cross-Cultural Sample”) and not acts of warfare.
The earliest archaeological evidence of warfare dates back to the last 10,000 years and thus falls within the era of sedentism due to agriculture and animal husbandry. For our cultural region, this primarily concerns the fertile areas between the Euphrates and Tigris, known then as Mesopotamia.
The formation of larger population groups and growing prosperity led to more complex protection measures and administrative structures. While sedentary farmers were protected from the constant threat of bandit raids, they were still existentially affected by wars among rulers.
The dependence of the population on their rulers led to structures of exploitation. In longer periods of peace, surpluses could be generated, allowing for cultural development.
When it comes to prehistory, we are largely dependent on interpretations, which calls for restraint. The oldest finds of stone tools date back to around 2.6 million years. The earliest evidence of controlled use of fire to around 790,000 years. The oldest known burial is dated between 120,000 and 90,000 years ago.
There is a wide range of interpretations concerning paintings, engravings, and sculptures. It seems plausible that sources of nourishment and the theme of life and death played a significant role.
Humans assumed the existence of supernatural forces and likely attempted to influence them.
The earliest high cultures of Mesopotamia and Egypt handed down the first written evidence of their cults of gods (Sumerians: the goddess Nammu [the primeval sea] created the earth goddess Uras and the sky god An). The authority of these pantheons lay in their power to influence fate. That was also the reason rulers aligned themselves with deities. Even in the oldest high cultures, rulers portrayed themselves as demigods—fathered by a god and born of a mortal woman.
The Roman emperors were considered gods, granting them uncontested authority.
A decisive next step was monotheism.
The biblical legend of Moses clearly shows the authority he derived from his “intermediary role” with the one true God.
All of monarchic Europe was legitimized „by the grace of God“—a concept that gradually dissolved between 1789 (French Revolution), 1917 (October Revolution), and 1919 (Weimar Republic). The remaining monarchies are now parliamentary or constitutional, serving part of today’s population as consumption of a naïve, romantic fairy-tale world.
With the end of feudal privileges, the ego-driven rivalries of royal houses also ceased. In this power vacuum arose the age of dictators, who brought even greater suffering upon humanity.
Today, a threatening, anti-democratic populism is growing in several European countries and in the USA, and a new fascist-style dictatorship is emerging in Russia. After over 2 million years of egalitarian human history, power based on ownership has emerged, tempting the human ego into brutal violence. This aggressive tendency now appears to be deeply rooted.
In Mesopotamia – the fertile land between the Euphrates and Tigris – a concept of power emerged that would influence the European cultural sphere up to the modern era.
Because of its fertility, the area was settled early and intensively. The resulting city-states (Ur, Uruk, Lagash, Nippur, Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, etc.) expanded and defended their territories. The rule of Sargon of Akkad was considered exemplary at the time.
There are only legends about his origins, which bear similarities to the Moses story. He was a Semite among Sumerians and thus could not have come from a ruling class. The Sargon legends primarily served to legitimize his extraordinary claim to power.
As a high official under the king of Kish (Ur-Zababa), he assumed power (though how remains unknown).
Written accounts of rulers from antiquity are glorifications and can only be interpreted to a limited extent. Even when implausible or impossible aspects are excluded, this does not amount to an objective statement.
The legends about Akkad, which survived long beyond his rule, made him a major role model for later rulers (Neo-Assyrian kings from the 9th to the 7th century BCE).
The struggle for dominance has accompanied humanity from the Neolithic to the present day. Conquered populations were usually treated like slaves. It is unclear how this played out under Sargon. When he subdued the Sumerians, they were allowed to keep their religion but had to learn the Akkadian language, which became the common tongue of Mesopotamia. He then had all defensive walls torn down. By removing both physical and linguistic barriers, intensive trade developed, which in turn supported the process of integration.
Additionally, there were functioning and widely accepted systems of law and order. He financed his army and commissioned artists to glorify him using a kind of turnover tax.
It can be assumed that above all, the extended period of internal peace among the various ethnic groups was considered exemplary. For after three generations, Sargon’s grandson left behind a state that still functioned effectively.
Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, European expansion marked the second, and even more extensive, wave of conquest in the Old World. It began in the 15th century with the European discovery of maritime routes.
Many of the newly discovered territories around the world were annexed, and their native populations subjugated. A sense of superiority in terms of European state power, technology, and culture legitimized dealing with the “underdeveloped, human-like creatures” in the colonies as one saw fit. The treatment of indigenous peoples varied, but increasingly led to the loss of ethnic identity—up to and including ethnocide and genocide. Entire peoples, especially in the Americas, disappeared. The surviving native populations were forced into slave labor. Hundreds of thousands fell victim to European diseases, to which they had no immune resistance. The lost labor force was replaced by enslaved Africans, whose life expectancy under extreme exploitation was extremely limited (of approximately 40 million African slaves, only about 10 million arrived in the Americas alive). But purchasing new slaves was cheaper than improving the conditions for those already enslaved.
On the African continent, colonial powers established slave economies. One of the most inhumane examples was the exploitation of the Belgian Congo, a private colony of King Leopold II of Belgium. Between 10 and 15 million Africans died there within 20 years due to brutal repression.
During the First World War, many indigenous people fought—often forcibly—alongside their colonial rulers, hoping in return for the promised “right of self-determination of peoples” (as demanded by U.S. President Wilson). However, this promise was not fulfilled after 1920. In particular, Britain and France continued to exploit their colonies.
In the Second World War, the so-called “protecting powers” involved their colonies even more deeply in the war effort.
U.S. President Roosevelt expected his British allies to commit to a “democratic reorganization.” This expectation, too, was ignored.
After the bloody suppression of the Kenyan uprising in 1956 (the Mau Mau Uprising), Britain gave up the colony only in 1963. Hong Kong was considered the last British Crown colony.
From a historical perspective, Europe has seen three monstrous wars driven by ego.
The Thirty Years’ War was about the struggle for political dominance on a confessional level, while the two World Wars were about asserting power on the level of nation-states.
Due to the way in which the First World War paved the way for the Second, the two events are inextricably linked.
The First World War had its origins in a mother who felt ashamed for not giving birth to a fully capable heir to the throne – namely, Wilhelm II. Because of his shortened arm, he was ignored, ridiculed, or despised by his royal relatives across Europe. His mother made his childhood hell by subjecting him to torturous stretching treatments for the arm.
In fact, peace seemed secure through the familial ties between major European powers. But it was the unloved and mocked Wilhelm who, in a compensatory manner, immersed himself in a martial dream world – one that suddenly turned into a brutal reality. And then, in the decisive moment, he lacked the courage to refuse the Austrians – whom he himself had encouraged – Germany’s entry into the war.
This historical episode clearly shows the emotional escalation from compensatory aggression to irreversible warfare. When Wilhelm realized what he had unleashed, he called for his Chief of General Staff, Moltke, to reverse the mobilization. But Moltke had to explain that once in motion, the process was, unfortunately, irreversible. Even the war-ready mood in the population – stoked by Wilhelm himself – would now turn against the Kaiser. His authority would be lost.
And so events took their course – at the cost of millions of lives. In the end, the warlords were left with nothing but a devastated Europe.
This occurred once more, on an even more extreme scale, in the Second World War. The Hitler regime was able to secure its majority support until the bitter end – through polarization and the racial superiority myth of the “master race.”
Josef Vissarionovich Stalin (birth name: Ioseb Besarionis Dzhugashvili) was born on December 18, 1878, in Gori, in what is now Georgia.
As a child, Stalin experienced domestic violence, which he also endured personally as an only child. In 1894, he left school as its best student and was recommended for the Orthodox Seminary in Tbilisi (then the highest level of education in Georgia and also a center of opposition to Tsarism).
At age 17, he made contact with clandestine Marxist groups and joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) in 1898. Due to his political activism, he neglected his studies, left the seminary, and became a professional revolutionary. In this role, he was arrested multiple times and first exiled to Siberia in 1903 (a total of eight exiles, from all of which he managed to escape).
In 1905, he met Lenin for the first time and proved to be a capable organizer of strikes and protest movements. In 1912, Lenin brought him into the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks, where he adopted the name Stalin.
In 1917, Stalin was appointed People’s Commissar for Nationalities, a role that involved preventing the autonomy efforts of various ethnic groups. These movements were encouraged by the weakening of the nation-state – a result of Lenin’s deliberate destabilization of existing state structures. Stalin succeeded in reintegrating many regions of the former Russian Empire, significantly expanding his influence.
Before his death in 1923, Lenin questioned whether Stalin was a suitable successor and considered removing him. (Lenin noted that “as General Secretary, he has concentrated enormous power in his hands,” which he might not always use with sufficient caution.)
By 1927, following the expulsion of Trotsky, Stalin had become the de facto sole ruler of the Soviet Union. By 1931, he had installed and solidified his dictatorial power.
Stalin’s motives for the “Great Purge” of 1936–1938 continue to puzzle historians – particularly the deadly persecution of close, loyal allies and even their families, which suggests pathological behavior.
It is about dominance and exploitation. At the base of the hierarchy stand the slaves—human beings as commodities. The origins of slavery are lost in obscurity. Evidence first appears in early writings of antiquity (e.g., Mesopotamia, Code of Hammurabi, 1750 BCE). These unfree and partially disenfranchised individuals—often war captives or convicts—were treated like goods but were usually subject to specific rights (such as protection from physical harm), which mainly served to reassure their owners.
Children were the property of their fathers and used for labor depending on social status. They could be sold or lent out—a practice that persists in forms to this day (e.g., foster labor children).
Women belonged to men—first to their fathers, then to their husbands. In antiquity, they could also be war spoils (Sargon of Akkad’s wife was named Taslutum, meaning “I took you as booty”). A woman’s status and personal freedom were dependent on her husband. In the lower social strata, women were primarily expected to bear (male) offspring and serve the family economy.
The way in which the sexes in these social layers treated one another depended largely on how the men themselves were treated by the higher hierarchy (i.e., their role models).
All performance- and enforcement-based hierarchies are classic arenas for male power ambitions. These are systems of mutual advantage and exploitation.
These are likely the main reasons why power dynamics became defeminized. As childbearing housewives, women were, for centuries, the dominated subordinates of men, who often compensated for their own systemic inferiority and frustration through domestic displays of authority.
The dissociation of a “peaceful” family life with comfortable everyday provision from this largely inhumane and threatening reality is something male society has been unwilling to relinquish.
The perception of female inferiority has been so deeply internalized over centuries that equal participation would have equated to a profound devaluation of traditionally male domains.
Such stereotypes likely still exist in many male minds today.
To understand the construct of the Church and its consequences, we must first consider the three essential monotheistic myths.
It begins with the myth of Abraham and his covenant with the one almighty God. This formed the basis for the displacement of other deities, including the once-powerful goddesses. This aspect is also relevant to the origins of Islam.
Next follows the myth of the divinely chosen people of Israel, with Moses as the central figure, portraying an ongoing demonstration of God’s omnipotence.
The third myth, essential for the Church, is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the house of David, as the son of the almighty God. This myth remains the Church’s foundational source of power to this day.
A problematic aspect lies in the fact that Jesus’ integrative actions significantly broke with Jewish traditions, ultimately leading to his death. One such break was his liberal and respectful attitude toward women. The Church did everything in its power to obscure this by emphasizing the Old Testament’s view of women – despite its general efforts to distinguish itself from Judaism.
It is unlikely that women in the daily life of early Christianity (the early Church) played a markedly subordinate role; in fact, quite the opposite is more probable. There were even female “diakonos” who actively proclaimed the faith. However, where hierarchical power was at stake, women were pushed into the background by men.
After various phases of Christian persecution in the Roman Empire, Christianity became a state religion through Emperor Constantine’s liberalization (legend of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, 313 CE) and the later Edicts of the Three Emperors (380, 390/91). Whereas Christians had previously formed independent communities, a hierarchical structure began to take shape – modeled on the imperial Roman administrative system -which remains largely unchanged to this day. The Church was not only organized like a state, it acted like one in the centuries that followed.
What we see is an exclusively male society with an extremely exclusionary stance toward women. It seems that in our so-called Christian society, there is a deeply rooted disregard for female dignity that developed over centuries and still operates subtly today, often masked only by external decorum.
In the ancient pantheon of the Near East’s great empires, goddesses populated the religious cosmos as sole sovereigns or equal partners. From the Persian Gulf to the Nile, from the Euphrates to the Ionian Sea, female deities existed throughout antiquity.
In Babylonia, the planetary goddess Ishtar; in addition, Persephone, Demeter, and Hecate represented an original female trinity. In Egypt, Isis, Maat, Bastet, and Mut. Hera was queen of the gods on the Greek Olympus, and Astarte was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven.
Research indicates that there was a long transitional period from polytheism to monotheism. The various deities coexisted for an extended time in the Near and Middle East.
Mithu M. Sanyal writes in her book (Vulva – The Revelation of the Female Sex): “It was only with great difficulty that Astarte/Hewwa/Eve was replaced by Jehovah. Whenever a king destroyed Astarte’s altars at the prophets’ command, his successor would rebuild them. Her name even appears nine times in the Bible.”
Even though polytheistic concepts were later fiercely opposed and suppressed in many places, the inhabitants of Judea only gradually came to accept belief in a single god.
This claim was hindered by the continued presence of other tribal deities in the region. Their existence was actively opposed and denied – also in the course of inter-tribal conflicts.
This struggle – the enforcement of monotheism – is well documented historically and marks another decisive step toward patriarchal dominance.
Alongside the demand for exclusive worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible also asserted a universal claim during and after the time of exile – one that extended beyond his own people to encompass the entire world.
All three monotheistic religions carry within them a claim to global dominance.
From some early popes to ayatollahs and dictators, they have thus served as ideal power allies for the world domination fantasies of egomaniacal rulers.
From the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms of Egypt, there are documented cases of women as rulers. Even among the general population, women – despite the patriarchal hierarchy – were in many respects equal to men.
They could choose their own spouses, own property, enter into marriage contracts, get divorced (retaining their property), and testify in court. In some periods, it was even possible for them to hold higher administrative positions.
Today, Cairo is considered the most dangerous city in the world for women (according to the Thomson Reuters Foundation ranking). Society there is shaped by the absence of laws and traditional roles that legitimize or leave unpunished assaults, exploitation, violence, and discrimination against women.
The Mycenaean culture, as a forerunner of ancient Greece, held women in high esteem, and they apparently lived in freedom. Female dominance also extended to spiritual aspects.
Later, in classical Athens, democracy meant political “equality” only for full citizens – i.e., men.
Married women lived in domestic seclusion and participated little in public life. They were excluded from education, had no legal capacity, and could not serve as witnesses in court. Although they could divorce, they remained the property of their husbands until then, and afterward fell again under the authority of their fathers or brothers. Women were considered inferior human beings – Aristotle wrote: “The relationship of male to female is by nature such that one is superior, the other inferior.”
Thus, the form of patriarchal domination varied depending on culture and law, even into the late European monarchies.
When the citizen Marie Gouze demanded women’s rights in Paris at the end of the 18th century (Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne, 1791), the civil constitution had already been adopted.
She insisted on the urgent recognition of private and political rights for women. (Historian Karl Heinz Burmeister wrote: “…she paid the price for her advocacy of women’s rights. Her actions were seen as unwelcome interference in politics, which was considered a male domain.”) Marie Gouze died on November 3, 1793, by guillotine.
The 19th century (and in some places into the mid-20th) was a period of continued denial of women’s rights.
Only at the turn of the 20th century did real changes toward gender equality begin to take effect.
Every person is born with an individual personality into an existing culture. This culture – and the caregivers within it – convey to us, consciously or unconsciously, the values of their cultural interpretation – in this case, what constitutes a “real boy.”
If the culture is historically shaped by warfare, even in a pacifist environment a heroism rooted in aggression and self-sacrifice will be transmitted. In European cultures, whose soil is soaked with “hero’s blood,” the subtle passing down (transgenerational transmission) of such ideals is nearly impossible to avoid. How strongly the desire for heroism manifests in the male ego is also shaped by one’s inherited personality. Each boy develops an individual ideal of what it means to be a “real man,” which is shaped by play and upbringing (socialization) through processes of conformity and standardization.
The feeling of not being a “real man” is measured against this internalized image.
In the vocabulary of war, “freedom” is the most heavily misused term by warmongers. People are expected to sacrifice themselves and endure great suffering in the name of “freedom.” Yet freedom is an abstract, intangible concept that only becomes meaningful through its counterpart – constraint. We feel freedom only as a release from pressure and coercion. For warmongers, it is about expanding or preserving their own privileges. The supposed “freedom” for affected populations is typically justified with vague threats (oppression, humiliation).
This has led men to idealize military readiness and “masculine freedom” -something that never truly existed. A freely lived “masculinity” is hindered, among other things, by real-world financial pressures and the need to subordinate oneself within systems of performance. When this reality is compounded by further ego injuries, it can result in a buildup of aggression that seeks outlets.
To restore emotional balance, men may resort to exaggerated displays of masculinity (macho behavior), prestigious cars, or attending football matches. Our civilization has become saturated with such emotional release mechanisms.
Centuries of dominant male rule became a female reality, so that despite social devaluation, women developed emotional stability. A compensatory behavior emerged – and still emerges -especially in response to emotional losses or deficits. Only with increasing awareness of their social inequality did a combative resistance to male dominance arise.
Wars instigated by men were a key factor in female emancipation. The absence and loss of husbands and fathers also meant the loss of the promised existential security – a cornerstone of male legitimacy. Out of necessity, many women developed a reality-based approach to securing their livelihood.
Men increasingly had and have to measure up to this sense of realism. As a result, strongly compensatory men are no longer in demand.
At the same time, traditional ideals such as “a happy family” or “a lifelong fulfilling love relationship” still hold sway. The idea of “having a man by one’s side” continues to be perceived as part of a woman’s completeness. As such, rational insights will continue to clash with emotional impulses for some time.
Additionally, reversed gender roles often conflict with the male ego.
Women who casually engage with men without commitment deny their emotionally grounded need for attachment by imitating male behavior.
Some female life concepts tend toward time-limited partnerships. Couples remain together until intense emotions are sufficiently relativized by reality, leading to a significant imbalance between fulfillment and frustration.
Women are increasingly choosing to have children without a male partner. Many live in shared housing with other single mothers and organize childcare through part-time work.
This emerging process of new partnership and life models represents a complex and emotionally profound societal shift – one that must also produce new ideals of fulfillment. Since these pioneering women accept significant additional burdens with reduced security, this leads to a latent increase in pressure on social institutions.
Society’s shaping forces are called upon to invest in the emancipation of men by providing new role models.
It is one of the most outrageous phenomena of the human species that we gather – often at the cost of our own existence, leaving behind home and family – in large numbers to kill one another in service of the territorial dominance of an individual or political force. Outrageous, too, because we suspend essential social values that are crucial to us all, sacrificing our lives to a seemingly collective necessity.
How can such a thing happen? In earlier times, states could manipulate their populations to the point where even a “lust for war” emerged.
One thing is certain: between the exploratory aggression of a child and the aggression within world-dominating systems lies a long road of cultural conditioning. It is a culture that evidently fosters more aggression than it is able to mitigate through individual socialization.
Two types of wars must be distinguished: the war of plunder and the ego war. The latter is fought for the purpose of egomaniacal self-aggrandizement. It includes dogmatism, machismo, and the thrill of aggression, and leads to conquest for the sake of dominance. Economic motivations are always part of the equation, just as they are in plundering wars driven by ego.
Historically, Europe has experienced three egregious ego wars. The Thirty Years’ War was about power dominance on a religious level; the two World Wars were about power dominance on a national level.
The war in Ukraine, orchestrated by the Russian president, is also an ego war.
The argument of historical affiliation is used as a justification. If all rulers were to fight over former borders, humanity would perish in a massive bloodbath. Even natural resources are not a valid reason – Russia already leads the global rankings in raw material reserves by a wide margin. Although the world’s democratic forces are trying to persuade Russia’s leadership to relent, as of mid-2025, all measures have failed. Power, image, and ego evidently form an insurmountable barrier.
Our civilization looks back on a series of major continental European wars with a total of over 100 million fatalities.
The Hundred Years‘ War (1337–1453, 116 years) was primarily a conflict over dominance between England and France, consisting of several wars driven by different motives. Historical analysis clearly reveals all forms of aggression typical of monarchist systems. There are no precise sources on casualties. Estimates range from 180,000 to 3 million deaths.
The Thirty Years‘ War (1618–1648) also comprised multiple conflicts with competing claims to dominance. It began as a religious war and ended as a territorial war with a variety of motives.
Closely related conflicts include:
- The Eighty Years‘ War (1568–1648) between the Netherlands and Spain
- The Confusion of the Leagues (1620–1631) involving coalitions of France-Venice and Spain-Austria over today’s Swiss canton of Graubünden
- The Upper Austrian Peasants‘ War (1626)
- The War of the Mantuan Succession (1628–1631) between France and the Habsburgs
- The Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659)
- The Torstenson War (1643–1645) over Baltic Sea dominance between Sweden and Denmark
Here too, there are no reliable sources on the number of casualties. Estimates suggest around 10 million deaths, including those who died from hunger and disease.
The Seven Years‘ War (1756–1763) was a territorial power struggle between European great powers that also extended beyond Europe (North America, India, the Caribbean). Estimated casualties range from 850,000 to 1.2 million.
The Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815) were a series of coalitions formed in opposition to France’s expansionist ambitions. Approximately 4.5 million war-related deaths are estimated.
The First World War (1914–1918) resulted in approximately 20 million deaths.
The Second World War (1939–1945) resulted in approximately 70 million deaths.
For centuries, the military actions of war have been so dominant that civilian suffering has rarely been documented in historical records. One reason may be the individual nature of personal fates. What remains in memory are ethnic mass killings, the carpet bombing of large cities, and historic flows of refugees. The misery and gruesome death of millions of individual fates are too vast to be emotionally comprehensible.
Literary and visual propaganda (such as historical painting) glorify the military aspects of war. Battles are described as fields of honor where a man proves his manhood. Thus, combat is propagated as the genetically predetermined highest expression of masculinity. Dying in war then appears as personal misfortune. While death is often agonizing, the ‚certainty‘ of having sacrificed oneself for the ‚fatherland‘ offers consolation.
The uprooting of families, the daily existential threats leading to death by hunger, cold, or disease, as well as murder, rape, and the use of child soldiers, represent an even greater catastrophe triggered by war. A person who has died has left their suffering behind. The survivors must somehow continue living with their experiences.
One problem is that there is usually a ’spared‘ majority that wants to return to ’normalcy‘ as quickly as possible. This includes a tendency to ignore those who have suffered, mentally marginalizing them – a form of social brutality still felt today, for example by war veterans in the United States.
Psychological studies have shown that war trauma can lead to emotional disorders lasting up to the third generation, meaning that millions of people are still affected by the last world war.
Research in the field of epigenetics also suggests that significantly more of our lived experiences leave biological traces that are passed on to future generations than previously assumed.
For some individuals, the war in their inner world will only end with death.
To warlords, soldiers are manipulable material – people to be discarded after the war is over („only a dead soldier is a good soldier“). As a result, physical injuries were reluctantly acknowledged, while psychological disorders were largely ignored.
Yet it is both inevitable and comprehensible that participation in violent mass death leaves psychological traces.
In 1874, war correspondent William Howard Russell wrote in his war diary:
“There is something emotionally numbing about watching through binoculars as men are torn to pieces or drag their shattered bodies to safety, writhing on the ground far from any help. It is unpleasant to be merely a spectator to such events.”
Some symptoms of psychological disorders were already noted during World War I (1914–1918), even in the German Imperial Army.
Soldiers suffering from „war neuroses,“ particularly „psychogenic movement disorders,“ were referred to as “war shakers.”
However, those affected were usually labeled as hysterics or malingerers and treated like cowardly draft dodgers.
During the Nazi era, mental illnesses were legally no longer recognized as consequences of war trauma. Based on this policy, between 4,000 and 5,000 psychologically ill veterans of the First World War were murdered as part of the Nazi euthanasia program.
In addition to frontline soldiers, children in particular have been – and continue to be – traumatized due to their still-developing nervous systems.
The long-term effects of war trauma in childhood may not manifest until after the age of 60 as a delayed form of post-traumatic stress disorder, especially when further stressors (such as the death of a spouse) occur in old age.
Even in the 21st century, psychotherapy for children traumatized by World War II is being sought and offered. War-related trauma that has been passed on—often unconsciously – to subsequent generations has also been documented.
Flight from danger has accompanied humanity since ancient times. It began with the search for new living spaces, which also entailed the displacement of other people from fertile lands (territorial appropriation). The first major European migration and refugee movement, known as the “Migration Period” (375–700 AD), was driven by a wide range of motives. Most modern migrations and refugee movements are caused by wars and ethnic “cleansings.” People are often forced to leave their homes under life-threatening pressure (violent expulsions).
Hundreds of thousands (approx. 500,000) fled the Hitler regime, and after the war, over 10 million ethnic Germans fled from eastern territories.
As of the end of 2021, nearly 90 million people worldwide were displaced by war, conflict, persecution, and human rights violations (according to UNHCR). By 2024, that number had risen to over 122 million.
Following immigration comes the challenge of integration into a new and unfamiliar cultural society. The language barrier is a major obstacle. Younger people who are looking to build a future are often more targeted in their integration efforts. They attempt to overcome linguistic and bureaucratic hurdles and counteract discriminatory prejudices.
Older individuals living alone suffer greatly from their “uprooting.” Many elderly people who are persecuted choose to remain in their homeland and prefer suicide over emigration. In foreign environments – especially after traumatic experiences such as the loss of their entire family – they often remain in depressive isolation. Repeated exposure to extreme inhumanity destroys social trust and leads to social withdrawal.
Human beings have always been accompanied by the unanswerable question of life’s meaning. Nevertheless, we strive to give our lives a motivating sense of purpose.
But when deliberate and brutal physical, psychological, and material destruction robs our lives of any meaning – what kind of future is left to believe in?
Our so-called „Christian“ society may appear peaceful from the outside, but upon closer inspection, it is characterized by a partly brutal form of competition. To justify this, we convince ourselves that such rivalrous competition – even to the point of extreme exploitation – is anchored in natural law.
„The fish sees everything, except the water it swims in“ – likewise, we see all the strengths and weaknesses of other cultures, but not those of our own. The main issue lies in the contradiction between the imposed ideal of „love thy neighbor“ and the ways in which it is circumvented.
But cultures can be changed. We can choose whether to invest in transformation or to allow the transgenerational transmission of societal aggressiveness to continue.
This societal aggressiveness is often passed on from one generation to the next unconsciously and unintentionally – through trauma, parenting styles, behavior patterns, and repressed feelings of guilt and shame.
This transmission can lead to psychological strain, recurring problems, and even physical illness in future generations.
The following picture emerges from a breakdown of this process:
- Unprocessed traumatic experiences, such as war or violence, can be passed on from parents or grandparents to their children.
- Certain parenting styles based on fear or violence can be transmitted from parents to children, fostering aggressiveness in the children.
- Repressed guilt and shame or negative behavioral patterns can be passed down without children being consciously aware of the underlying causes.
- Subsequent generations may suffer from psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, or addictive behavior.
- They may also feel responsible for the behavior of their parents or grandparents.
Given these connections, gifting children with war-themed toys – such as toy soldier uniforms, plastic helmets, or imitation assault rifles – would be grossly negligent if the goal is to break with internalized cultural aggressiveness.
Human emotional development is a form of conditioning – a negotiation between genetically determined personality and societal reality (socialization). The greater the discrepancy between these factors, the more intense the internal tension they can produce.
Children’s imaginations create fantasy worlds that help relieve these tensions (for example, through notions of justice and reparation). When external pressure becomes too great, individuals may retreat entirely into these compensatory worlds, which over time can contribute to personality changes.
The next developmental phase, adolescence, is often marked by high stress. During this time, the brain undergoes major changes. Hormonal shifts affecting mood and behavior – triggered by the pituitary gland and gonads – lead to the release of sex hormones, which, particularly in the limbic system, enhance emotional responses and reward impulses (increasing the risk of dramatic behavior and addiction). In contrast, the brain’s control centers (frontal cortex) often develop with a delay.
It is precisely this ability to control one’s emotions that transforms adolescents into adults. This phase – adolescence – can extend into the early twenties (puberty and adolescence are overlapping concepts).
Even when these processes are outwardly completed, they continue to influence personality development throughout life.
What makes a person appear “adult” in a particular social culture is neither their genetic potential, intelligence, nor empathy – but primarily their socially adapted behavior.
Cultures prescribe a value structure. As children, we internalize the values of our caregivers – either intuitively or through upbringing. Youth is shaped by how individuals assert themselves within their social environment. If the law of the strongest prevails, even to the point of extreme brutality, such behavioral patterns become difficult to relativize later in life.
The more we participate in public life, the more we orient ourselves toward generally accepted values. This typically happens by looking up to higher social classes, based on the following pattern: superior behavior equals success; underprivileged behavior equals failure.
In attempting to climb the social ladder, we often learn the culturally sanctioned methods of assertion – usually through failure. In this collective competition, we gradually lose the ability to question the value system we have „conquered.“
Once established in a position of power, we tend to preserve it by continually applying our personal „formulas for success.“
This obstructs, slows down, or even prevents social change. When pressure for change builds up in society, it often leads to protest and revolt.
In totalitarian power structures, an elite – or a single ruler – attempts to impose a singular standard of values, often with the self-legitimizing belief that such dominance serves the greater good of society.
The primary task of democracy is to prevent such egomaniacal tendencies.
Many of our dreams begin in youth.
The harmful ideal of a martial self-image in boys, and the longing for the invincible hero in girls, is still fed by numerous sources.
The goal is not to erase historical wars from memory. But imagine the value of simply reversing the emphasis. Take, for instance, the curriculum on the Thirty Years’ War. If the causes of war – with all their accompanying degradations – were presented in a demystified manner, and then directly contrasted with the horrific atrocities and countless individual tragedies, the narrative would shift. If, thereafter, the classroom placed central emphasis on the significant achievements of the difficult Peace of Westphalia, so that these heroes of diplomacy became more prominent in children’s consciousness than anything else, it would mark real progress.
If history were taught in such a way that the main protagonists of peacemaking became our heroes, it would be a decisive first step toward a new male self-image.
But even in everyday life, boys should develop a stronger awareness of social responsibility. The ability to resolve conflicts should be recognized as a major achievement. This could inspire girls to admire the most competent peacebuilders, rather than those who embody “cool aggression.”
However, educational efforts alone will not be effective if they remain isolated. If muscular action heroes in television series enforce good through brute force and weaponry, then the great peacebuilder loses ground in the hearts of young girls. The media and society must reconsider the limits of their concept of freedom – and the messages they “sell” to their youngest audiences as models for identification.
At the center of all this is a new concept of masculinity. Even young boys should learn to define themselves primarily as empathetic individuals, rather than as all-conquering figures – an ideal that inevitably leads to overburdening. And overburdening is one of the most common causes of destructive aggression.
Following Yeltsin’s resignation on December 31, 1999, Vladimir Putin began to establish a managed democracy after being elected President of Russia by centralizing the country’s existing federal structures.
Following the principle that a strong Russia requires strong leadership, he accelerated typical power centralization strategies such as media conformity, control over oligarchic influence, suppression of opposition, influence over the judiciary, and widespread dishonest and misleading propaganda. These measures laid the groundwork for autocratic rule.
Putin systematically suppressed public protest, thereby severing dialogue with society.
This self-imposed isolation often reduces leaders to their “heroic goals” -in this case, the vision of a revitalized Russian superpower.
With the ongoing failed annexation of Ukraine, the accompanying human rights violations, and the increasing suppression of freedom of expression, Putin is moving toward a totalitarian dictatorship with fascist characteristics that do not tolerate any political weakness – essentially a classic power-ego spiral.
This largely blocks political solutions -solutions that Putin may not even pursue, as he may already envision a future “Russian world.”
Several indicators point to potential further aggression: the accumulation of large gold reserves, which have increased by 72% since 2022 (currently totaling 228.95 billion USD), and the fact that 40% of state spending is now directed toward the military.
„Russia is preparing for a war economy that could last for decades.“
– Denis Manturov, Deputy Prime Minister, June 2024
The motives behind this are unclear. They could range from intimidation tactics and fantasies of world domination to paranoia.
Several of Putin’s reactions have demonstrated how sensitive he is to damage to his image. The threat of condemnation rather than glory likely played a role in influencing his decisions.
Powerful individuals – or those who consider themselves such – often assume that their transgressions will fade with time and be overshadowed by a carefully crafted public image, which, unfortunately, has often been the case in the past.
One example is Leopold II of Belgium. The administration of his personally owned colony in the Congo was marked by an unprecedented reign of terror. Within 20 years, more than 10 million Congolese – half the population – were literally tortured to death.
Following the exposure and publication of these “Congo atrocities,” a wave of international outrage ensued. The crimes were condemned globally, and media outlets demanded that the monarch be held accountable.
However, World War I and the Great Depression soon pushed these crimes into the background. Social and political forces further contributed to this “forgetting,” often in service of preserving a favorable national image. Leopold was suddenly portrayed as a modernizer and liberator. To this day, Belgian schoolbooks contain no chapters on these crimes. The Belgian colonial museum also omitted these historical facts, a situation only rectified in 2018. Societies are often eager to maintain an identity that appears respectable and exemplary. There is a collective tendency to let national blemishes be forgotten.
Such “forgetting” must be prevented. With a world history institutionalized for continuity, condemnation remains a reputational burden for both individuals and societies. This would compel those in positions of power to consider more carefully the risks they are willing to take.
Never before in human history has there been such an explosive gain in knowledge.
Never before have these insights been made so easily accessible to every individual.
Never before have research findings been so rapidly converted into technology.
Never before have people across all levels of society been able to recognize their future risks so clearly.
And yet we remain ignorant in our behavior.
It seems that the conditioning of submission over the past millennia cannot easily be transformed into personal responsibility.
Prolonged disempowerment by state authority, reinforced by power-driven spiritual manipulation, has evidently internalized a submissiveness that delegates all responsibility to those in power—who are increasingly overwhelmed by it.
While initiatives aimed at social change are on the rise and often seek global impact, many of these concepts call for the elimination of injustices without accounting for the triggering domino effects.
Economically dominant societies are systemically commercialized across all social strata. The intention of overturning such a globally entrenched system is unrealistic and unfeasible.
Such excessive ambitions jeopardize the potential for achievable change.
Transforming systemic structures requires a broader window for transformation.
Thus, what is needed is a mechanism that applies permanent pressure for change without requiring radical intervention.