Part 1: The Theories of War

Prologue: The Myths We Fight For

War continues in the world.

Some conflicts may end, but new ones emerge – like hydras growing new heads. Personally, I find it astonishing how many resources – let alone human lives – we sacrifice for war.

Second, our inability to stop these conflicts baffles me.

Third, war strikes me as an endlessly stupid problem-solving method. I mean, really – is violence the only way to resolve disputes? Can we not negotiate, create, or simply walk away?

What irritates me most is that none of this is new.

As a frequent history podcast listener, it struck me recently: humans sure love war. The entire sweep of human history reads like an endless chain of nations clashing with one another. And if there’s no external enemy? No problem: we’ll turn inward with civil wars or punch a neighbor. Can we truly not resolve our conflicts without violence?

And then there’s the gendered dimension: it’s men who fight, rarely women.

What is it about masculinity that drives men to kill other men over land, pride, or ideology? If you have even a single functioning economic brain cell, you’ll realize war is astronomically expensive. If influence is the goal, why not build a culturally dominant nation that others want to emulate? The U.S. nearly pulled this off in the 20th century – not through war, but through cultural export.

All this got me thinking: “There has to be some mechanism driving men to wage war as if it’s beyond their control. I need to understand what that is.”

So I read books, listened to podcasts, and did some research. What follows is what I found.

Then it hit me: Am I part of this war machine with my art – without even realizing it???

(If you want to jump straight to that part, click here. Otherwise, here’s the theory first.)

---

1 Introduction: Is War a Human Constant?

Is war an inevitable part of the human experience?

Some theorists argue yes – that organized violence is as old as humanity itself, hardwired into our biology and woven into civilization. Others counter that war is not a constant but a product of specific cultural, economic, and psychological conditions. The debate hinges on one question: Is war a reflection of human nature, or is it a learned behavior shaped by systems of power?

History does read like a chronicle of war.

From the prehistoric mass graves of Jebel Sahaba (c. 12,000 BCE), where projectile wounds suggest some of the earliest organized intergroup violence, to the Sumerian Stele of the Vultures (c. 2525 BCE), which glorified Lagash’s conquest of Umma with divine sanction, organized violence has been a recurring theme in human experience.

These records reveal that war is not just a clash of arms but a cultural system – complete with myths, monuments, and justifications – that emerged alongside civilization itself.

Yet the persistence of war does not mean it is inevitable.

Evolutionary psychologists like Napoleon Chagnon (1968) and Richard Wrangham (1996) argue that intergroup aggression is an adaptive trait, rooted in male competition for resources and mates. They cite chimpanzee warfare and studies of tribal societies like the Yanomamö as evidence that humans are hardwired for conflict.

Similarly, Steven Pinker (2011) acknowledges the brutality of human history but frames war as a declining phenomenon, thanks to Enlightenment values like reason, commerce, and humanitarian norms.

However, this view is hotly contested.

Anthropologists like Douglas Fry (2006) and R. Brian Ferguson (2013) argue that war is not innate but a cultural invention, emerging alongside states, agriculture, and resource scarcity. Fry’s work on peaceful societies – such as the !Kung San and the Mosuo of China – demonstrates that some human groups have thrived without organized warfare.

Meanwhile, political scientists like John Galtung (1996) and historian James C. Scott (2017) emphasize that war is often a tool of elites, used to maintain power, control resources, and suppress dissent. In this view, war is not a biological imperative but a political strategy – one that can be unmade if its underlying systems are dismantled.

To answer this, let’s dissect the theories that attempt to explain war’s persistence.

These theories span evolutionary biology, psychology, anthropology, economics, and political science. Each offers a piece of the puzzle, but none provide a complete answer – because war is not a monolith. It is a complex, adaptive system that thrives on myth, power, and human vulnerability.

---

2 Evolutionary Theories: War is “Natural”

Some researchers argue that war has deep evolutionary roots.

Studies of chimpanzee “warfare” (Goodall, 1986) and analyses of tribal societies (Chagnon, 1968) suggest that intergroup violence may have conferred evolutionary advantages. The hypothesis is this: Groups that cooperated internally and competed externally were more likely to survive. This aligns with the concept of “parochial altruism” – the idea that humans evolved to be self-sacrificial toward their in-group but aggressive toward out-groups (Choi & Bowles, 2007).

Testosterone also plays a role. Research by James Dabbs (1992) shows that high-testosterone males are more likely to engage in aggressive or status-seeking behaviors. However, testosterone levels also rise in response to competition, creating a feedback loop rather than a simple cause.

“Aggression is not an inevitable outcome of testosterone but a response to social and environmental pressures. The hormone amplifies existing tendencies—it doesn’t create them.” —James Dabbs, Heroes, Rogues, and Lovers (1992)

Critiques and Counterarguments

1. Peaceful Societies Exist: Anthropologists like Douglas Fry (2006) point to societies such as the !Kung San of Southern Africa or the Mosuo of China, where war is rare or nonexistent. If war were purely “natural,” why don’t all societies wage it?
2. Colonial Bias: Early studies of “warlike” tribes often ignored the disruptive effects of colonialism. The Yanomamö, for example, were studied during a period of intense upheaval due to outside interference (Fry, 2007).
3. Cultural Plasticity: Humans are adaptable. If war were an instinct, it would be universal – but it’s not. This suggests that culture, not biology, is the primary driver.

Conclusion: Evolutionary theories offer partial explanations but risk biological determinism. War may not be an inevitable instinct – it’s perhaps a learned behavior, shaped by environment and culture.

---

3 Psychological Theories: Fear, Dehumanization, and the “Dark Tetrad”

Psychologists like Philip Zimbardo (2007) and Albert Bandura (1999) have demonstrated how easily ordinary people can be turned into agents of violence. Dehumanization – reducing enemies to subhuman status (e.g., “rats,” “vermin,” “savages”) – makes killing psychologically easier. Moral disengagement allows individuals to justify atrocities by convincing themselves it’s for a “greater good.”

“Dehumanization is not just a tactic of war – it’s a prerequisite. Once you stop seeing the enemy as human, the rest is mechanics.” —Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement (1999)

• Example: Nazi propaganda labeled Jews and Slavs as Untermenschen (subhumans).
• Modern Parallel: Drone operators referring to targets as “bug splat” on screens.

Fear and the Need for Control

Fear is a potent motivator.

Studies like Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment (1954) show that competition over scarce resources (real or perceived) fuels intergroup conflict. Fear of the “other” is exploited to unify in-groups, often through scapegoating (e.g., immigrants blamed for economic woes).

The Role of Shame and Trauma

Shame – particularly the fear of being seen as weak or cowardly – drives many to violence.

Johanna Bourke’s (1999) work on masculinity in wartime shows how soldiers often fear cowardice more than death. Trauma, too, plays a role: Rachel MacNair’s (2002) research on child soldiers reveals how exposure to violence perpetuates cycles of aggression.

Critiques

1. Overemphasis on Individuals: Psychology often ignores systemic drivers (e.g., capitalism, colonialism). A soldier’s aggression may stem less from personality and more from poverty, conscription, or propaganda.
2. WEIRD Bias: Most psychological studies focus on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic populations. Non-Western cultures may conceptualize “humanity” and “enemies” differently.
3. The Banality of Evil: Hannah Arendt (1963) highlights that war crimes are often committed by bureaucrats, not psychopaths. The Milgram Experiment (1963) shows that obedience to authority may matter more than innate aggression.

“The line between good and evil is permeable, and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.” – Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect (2007)

Conclusion: Psychology explains how war happens at the individual level, but it often ignores the why – the systems that make violence rational or rewarding.

---

4 Cultural and Economic Theories: War as a Tool of Power

Some theorists argue that war is a calculated tool used by elites to maintain power. Examples include:

• Thucydides’ Trap: Rising powers (e.g., China) and established powers (e.g., the U.S.) often fall into war due to fear and miscalculation (Allison, 2017).
• The Military-Industrial Complex: Dwight Eisenhower (1961) warned of the profit motive behind war. Modern examples include private military contractors (e.g., Blackwater) and arms dealers.
• Resource Wars: Conflicts over oil, water, or minerals (e.g., coltan in the Congo) are often framed as “necessary” for economic survival.

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.” – Smedley Butler, War Is a Racket (1935)

Cultural Narratives: The Myths That Sanctify War

War is often mythologized as heroic, sacred, or inevitable. Examples:

• The Hero’s Journey: Joseph Campbell’s (1949) monomyth is frequently co-opted to justify war (e.g., soldiers as “heroes”).
• Sacred Violence: René Girard’s (1977) work on scapegoating shows how societies unite against a common enemy to suppress internal conflicts.
• Nationalism and Propaganda: From Homer’s Iliad to modern action movies, war is framed as glorious. Edward Bernays (1928), the father of PR, showed how propaganda can manufacture consent for war.

Critiques

1. Overly Deterministic: Not all wars are about resources. Identity wars (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda) are fueled by symbolic conflicts (religion, ethnicity) as much as material ones.
2. Agency is Ignored: Soldiers and civilians aren’t just pawns. James C. Scott’s (1985) Weapons of the Weak shows how oppressed groups resist (e.g., Vietnamese peasants sabotaging U.S. supplies).
3. Western-Centric: Marxist theories often assume a state-centric view of war, ignoring non-state conflicts (e.g., gang wars, clan feuds) where economics play a smaller role.

Conclusion: War is often a rational choice for elites, but it’s irrational for everyone else. The myths that justify it are cultural constructs, not universal truths.

---

5 The “War Is Declining” Debate: Pinker’s Optimism

In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker (2011) argues that war is declining due to:

• The Leviathan Effect: Strong states monopolizing violence reduces feuds.
• Commerce: Trade makes war costly.
• Cosmopolitanism: Global communication fosters empathy.
• Humanitarian Norms: Geneva Conventions, UN peacekeeping, etc.

Pinker points to data showing a decline in battle deaths per capita since 1945.

Critiques

1. Selective Metrics: Pinker focuses on interstate wars but ignores:
   • Indirect deaths (famine, disease) caused by war (e.g., Yemen).
   • Psychological trauma (PTSD, generational suffering).
   • Structural violence (sanctions, colonialism’s legacy).
2. Western Bias: Pinker’s “Enlightenment” frame ignores that European peace was built on colonial violence (e.g., Belgium’s atrocities in Congo).
3. Technological Shifts: Drones, cyberwarfare, and AI make war less visible but not less destructive. The cost of war is now outsourced to marginalized groups (e.g., child soldiers in Africa, refugees).
4. Fragility of Progress: Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan show that war can resurge quickly. Democracies aren’t pacific – the U.S. has been at war 93% of its existence (Boston University’s Costs of War Project, 2021).

“Pinker’s optimism is a luxury of the privileged. For those living in war zones, the decline of violence is not a reality but a distant myth.” – John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette (2015)

Conclusion: War hasn’t disappeared – it’s evolved. Pinker’s optimism is premature and selective.

---

6 Alternative Frameworks: War as Ritual or Disease

Some anthropologists argue that war functions as a sacred ritual, channeling societal tensions into controlled violence. Examples:

• Aztec “flower wars”: Ritual battles to feed the sun god.
• Modern “surgical strikes”: War as a performative act to maintain national identity.

“Ritualized violence is not about destruction – it’s about maintaining order. The problem is when the ritual becomes the reality.” – Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973)

Critique: This risks romanticizing war as “meaningful.” Veterans’ testimonies (e.g., Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, 1990) often describe war as absurd, not sacred.

Others frame war as a disease of society, driven by:

• Structural violence: Poverty, racism, and sexism create conditions where war becomes “thinkable.”
• The “War Memes”: Richard Dawkins’ (1976) concept of memes (cultural units of imitation) suggests war is a self-replicating idea, passed down through epics, monuments, and propaganda.

“War is not a natural disaster – it’s a social epidemic, spread by ideas we refuse to question.” – Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites (1997)

Critique: This can overlook agency. People do resist war (e.g., conscientious objectors, desertions).

---

7 The Biggest Blind Spot: Who Benefits from the Narrative?

Every theory of war serves someone’s interests:

• Evolutionary theories justify militarism (“It’s natural!”).
• Psychological theories blame individuals (“Bad apples!”), not systems.
• “War is declining” narratives let Western powers ignore their ongoing violence (e.g., U.S. drone strikes).
• “War is cultural” arguments can essentialize non-Western societies as “barbaric.”

The Ultimate Question: If war is not inevitable, why do we keep acting like it is?

---

8 Conclusion: War is a Choice, Not a Fate

After all is said and done, war looks not like a force of nature. It looks like a human invention, sustained by:

1. Myths that glorify it (e.g. Hollywood blockbusters)
2. Systems that profit from it (e.g. “war business”)
3. Psychologies that normalize it (e.g. dehumanization of those others out there)
4. Silences that allow it to continue (e.g. fans of modern artists often demand their idols to take a side and consider them complicit if they do not)

These evolutionary, psychological, cultural, economic theories each offer a piece of the puzzle, where war is a choice.

But if it’s a choice, it can be unmade.

So I think the question is: What myths are we willing to burn to make that happen?

---

The Myths That Sustain War

Here’s my own framework:

War persists not because it’s inevitable, but because it’s sustained by five key myths – narratives that make violence seem natural, heroic, or unavoidable.

These myths are reinforced by culture, politics, and economics, but they can be dismantled. Below, each myth is paired with historical and contemporary examples to illustrate how it operates – and how it can be challenged.

---

1 The Heroic Warrior Myth

Claim: War produces heroes; soldiers are noble, selfless, and essential for society’s survival. Examples:

• Ancient: Achilles in The Iliad (8th century BCE), glorified as the ultimate warrior despite his brutality.
• Modern: Hollywood films like American Sniper (2014), which frames soldiers as flawless heroes.
• Political: “Thank you for your service” rhetoric, which romanticizes military service while ignoring its costs.

How It Sustains War:

• Glorifies sacrifice: Makes death in war seem meaningful rather than tragic.
• Erases complexity: Warriors are either heroes or villains, never victims of circumstance.
• Justifies violence: If war makes heroes, then war must be justified.

How to Challenge It:

• Humanize soldiers: Show their fears, regrets, and trauma (e.g., The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien).
• Subvert the hero trope: Highlight cowardice as courage (e.g., stories of deserters or conscientious objectors).
• Expose the cost: Focus on civilians, children, and environmental damage—the usual “collateral.”

---

2 The Myth of Inevitable Conflict

Claim: War is natural, a result of clashing civilizations, irreconcilable differences, or human nature. Examples:

• Historical: Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (1996), which frames global conflict as inevitable due to cultural differences.
• Political: “War is the father of all things” (Heraclitus, 5th century BCE), a phrase often used to justify preemptive strikes.
• Modern: The idea that some wars are “necessary” (e.g., “humanitarian interventions” that escalate violence).

How It Sustains War:

• Naturalizes violence: Makes war seem like a force of nature (e.g., “survival of the fittest”).
• Discourages alternatives: If war is inevitable, why bother with diplomacy or disarmament?
• Justifies preemptive strikes: If conflict is inevitable, why not strike first?

How to Challenge It:

• Highlight peaceful societies: The Mosuo of China or !Kung San of Southern Africa prove war isn’t inevitable.
• Expose manufactured conflicts: Many wars are staged or provoked (e.g., Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iraq WMDs).
• Imagine alternatives: Art that explores nonviolent resistance (e.g., Erica Chenoweth’s research on civil resistance).

3 The Myth of “Us vs. Them”

Claim: The world is divided into good guys and bad guys, and war is necessary to protect “us” from “them.” Examples:

• Propaganda: WWII posters depicting Japanese as “rats” or Germans as “Huns.”
• Media Framing: “Axis of Evil” (George W. Bush, 2002), reducing complex geopolitics to a binary.
• Pop Culture: Superhero films (e.g., Captain America: The Winter Soldier), where clear-cut villains justify violence.

How It Sustains War:

• Simplifies complexity: Reduces conflicts to binary oppositions.
• Justifies atrocities: If “they” are not human, anything is permissible.
• Unites in-groups: Fear of the “other” binds societies together (e.g., “rally ’round the flag” effect).

How to Challenge It:

• Humanize the “enemy”: Art that shows the shared humanity of all sides (e.g., The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini).
• Expose constructed divisions: Many conflicts are manufactured (e.g., colonial borders in Africa).
• Focus on shared struggles: Highlight economic or environmental issues that affect everyone (e.g., climate change).

4 The Myth of Redemptive Violence

Claim: Violence can cleanse, renew, or save society. War is a necessary evil—a way to “reset” the world or achieve justice. Examples:

• Religious: Crusades, jihad, or “just war” theory (e.g., Augustine of Hippo).
• Revolutionary: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots” (Thomas Jefferson).
• Modern: “Shock and awe” as a way to “liberate” a nation (e.g., Iraq War).

How It Sustains War:

• Moralizes violence: War is not just unfortunate; it’s sacred or purifying.
• Promises catharsis: The idea that war can “solve” problems (e.g., regime change).
• Justifies revenge: “An eye for an eye” logic.

How to Challenge It:

• Expose the lie: Violence begets violence (e.g., post-WWI reparations leading to WWII).
• Highlight nonviolent successes: Civil resistance is twice as effective as violent struggle (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011).
• Reclaim symbols: Turn swords into plowshares (e.g., Guernica by Picasso).

5 The Myth of Silence = Complicity

Claim: If you don’t pick a side, you’re complicit in the violence. Examples:

• Wartime Rhetoric: “If you’re not fighting, you’re helping the enemy” (common in WWI and WWII propaganda).
• Social Media: Cancel culture demands public statements on conflicts (e.g., celebrities pressured to “take a stand”).
• Political: “You’re either with us or against us” (George W. Bush, 2001).

How It Sustains War:

• Polarizes debate: You’re either “with us or against us.”
• Silences dissent: Fear of backlash keeps people from speaking out.
• Demands performative allyship: Social media “slacktivism” (e.g., “post or be complicit”).

How to Challenge It:

• Reject false binaries: Not all conflicts have “good guys” (e.g., proxy wars).
• Value nuance: Silence can be reflection, not complicity.
• Focus on systemic change: Individual “sides” matter less than dismantling the systems that cause war.

6 The Myth of Elite Profit: War as a Business Opportunity

Claim: Wars are fought for ideological or security reasons, but in reality, they are often prolonged or instigated by elites who stand to gain economically or politically. The true motives – resource extraction, reconstruction contracts, arms sales, and geopolitical leverage – are hidden behind nationalist or moral rhetoric.

Examples:

• Historical:
  • The Opium Wars (1839–1860): Britain’s war against China was framed as a defense of “free trade,” but the real goal was to force China to open its markets to British opium and secure economic dominance.
  • The Iraq War (2003): Justified as a fight against “weapons of mass destruction,” but the real beneficiaries were oil companies, private military contractors (e.g., Blackwater), and reconstruction firms like Halliburton.
  • The Spanish-American War (1898): Marketed as a humanitarian intervention to “liberate Cuba,” but the U.S. ended up seizing Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines for strategic and economic gain.
• Contemporary:
  • Ukraine (2022–present): Initially framed by Putin as a war to “denazify” Ukraine and restore the “Great Russian Civilization,” but the prolonged conflict may now also be about who controls Ukraine’s reconstruction. Western companies (e.g., BlackRock, Bechtel) and Russian oligarchs both see post-war Ukraine as a goldmine for infrastructure contracts, energy deals, and geopolitical influence.
  • Syria (2011–present): What began as a civil uprising became a proxy war where global powers (U.S., Russia, Iran, Turkey) and arms dealers profited from the chaos. Reconstruction contracts in Syria have since become a lucrative industry for regimes and connected elites.
  • Yemen (2014–present): A war ostensibly about regional influence (Saudi Arabia vs. Iran) but also a boon for arms manufacturers (e.g., U.S. and UK weapons sales to Saudi Arabia) and oil interests.

How It Sustains War:

• Prolongs conflicts: Elites have no incentive to end wars if they profit from them. For example, arms manufacturers lobby against peace (e.g., the U.S. military-industrial complex).
• Shapes narratives: Wars are framed in moral or ideological terms (e.g., “freedom vs. tyranny”) to obscure economic motives.
• Creates dependency: War-torn countries become reliant on foreign aid, loans, and reconstruction contracts, which are often awarded to elite-connected firms.
• Justifies intervention: “Humanitarian” or “security” rationales (e.g., “responsibility to protect”) are used to mask economic or strategic interests.

How to Challenge It:

• Follow the money: Investigate who profits from war (e.g., arms dealers, reconstruction firms, resource extractors). Journalists like Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) and Anand Gopal (No Good Men Among the Living) expose these dynamics.
• Expose the revolving door: Highlight how politicians, generals, and corporate executives move between government and private war industries (e.g., U.S. Defense Secretaries joining arms companies).
• Demand transparency: Push for public audits of war profits (e.g., where reconstruction money goes in Ukraine or Iraq).
• Support alternatives: Advocate for economic systems that don’t rely on war (e.g., demilitarized economies, renewable energy over oil wars).
• Art and media: Create works that expose the elite beneficiaries of war (e.g., War Dogs film, The Forever War by Dexter Filkins).

Part 2: Am I Part of the War Machine?

Analysis of my “Player Character” album lyrics in light of the above myths

1. The Heroic Warrior Myth

Claim: War produces heroes; soldiers are noble, selfless, and essential. Evidence:

• “Stand by You“:
  • “I don’t do the tango / I do the cowboy” → The cowboy is a classic American heroic archetype, tied to frontierism, individualism, and conquest. The line frames the narrator as a loner hero, standing by others “no matter the wars.”
  • “I stand by you / in my blue jeans / when you open the Underworld bar” → The “Underworld bar” and “New Frontier” evoke mythic heroism, but the blue jeans (symbol of everyman America) complicate it – this may be heroism or performative masculinity.
  • “They stand by you / in their Wey-Yu uniforms / looking at Mars” → The shift from “blue jeans” to “Wey-Yu uniforms” (sci-fi military) and “looking at Mars” suggests a future of militarized expansion, where heroism is tied to conquest of new frontiers.

How It Challenges the Myth:

• The song’s progression from “blue jeans” to “shapeless light forms” can dismantle the hero trope. By the end, the “heroes” are “the universe”—no longer human, no longer bound by the myth.
• The irony of “stand by you no matter the wars” → The narrator’s loyalty is blind, not heroic. The line critiques unquestioning allegiance to war.

2. The Myth of Inevitable Conflict

Claim: War is natural, a result of clashing civilizations or human nature. Evidence:

• “He Who Walks Behind the Rows“:
  • “Fields are golden but the earth is red / It must mean someone’s dead” → A biblical, cyclical view of violence (golden fields = prosperity built on blood). The line may suggest war is inevitable, a “price to pay” for survival.
  • “Ever since the days of Eden / We’ve fed them apples again” → References the myth of original sin, framing war as a primordial, inescapable condition.
  • “Hide the Oldest Child” → A sacrificial trope, implying that war demands ritualistic violence (e.g., scapegoating).
• “Red and Blue“:
  • “You’re not here to make friends / You’re not here to socialize” → The dehumanizing mandate of capitalism/war. The line may mirror military or corporate culture, where conflict is normalized.
  • “The agents are looking for a clue” → May suggest a world of paranoia and division, where trust is impossible.

How It Challenges the Myth:

• “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” also exposes the cost of inevitable conflict:
  • “It’s their blood you have to thank for / There’s now food in the store” → War’s “benefits” (food, stability) come at a moral price. The song doesn’t glorify this; it lays it bare.
• “Ordinary Day” shows how conflict disrupts daily life unpredictably, undermining the idea that war is “natural”:
  • “But that ordinary day became / Extraordinary day that did / Turn out to be her last day here” → War (or violence) isn’t inevitable; it’s a sudden, man-made rupture.

3. The Myth of “Us vs. Them”

Claim: The world is divided into good and evil; war is necessary to protect “us” from “them.” Evidence:

• “Red and Blue“:
  • “The lights in the twilight paint the room / This night is not over, it is red and blue” → “Red and blue” evokes police lights, political divisions, or team colors—a world split into factions.
  • “You tell the police, ‘I’m not like them’” → The narrator distances themselves from one side, but by the end, they admit “I’m AM like them”—revealing the artificiality of divisions.
  • “Now she’s / one of the agents / with a good contract” → The “agents” (enforcers of division) are interchangeable; loyalty is transactional.
• “All These Worlds Are Yours“:
  • “You set a flaming sword / to turn every which way / to guard your content” → The “flaming sword” (a biblical reference to the sword guarding Eden) symbolizes exclusion and division. The narrator blocks “haters” and claims ownership of “all these worlds,” mirroring digital or geopolitical territorialism.
  • “You telling they can’t / sit with us” → A childish but potent us-vs-them mentality, enforced through cancel culture or war propaganda.

How It Challenges the Myth:

• “All These Worlds Are Yours” ultimately exposes the emptiness of division:
  • “Now all these worlds are / open for you” → The narrator’s victory is hollow; they’ve won control but lost connection.
• “Red and Blue” ends with the narrator admitting complicity (“I’m AM like them”), breaking down the us-vs-them binary.

4. The Myth of Redemptive Violence

Claim: Violence can cleanse, renew, or save society. Evidence:

• “He Who Walks Behind the Rows“:
  • “It’s their blood you have to thank for / There’s now food in the store” → Violence is framed as a necessary sacrifice for prosperity (a classic redemptive violence trope).
  • “This scene is your Dark Side of the Moon” → References Pink Floyd’s album, which critiques war, greed, and human folly—but here, it’s used to mythologize violence as a cosmic, inevitable force.
• “Ancient Manager“:
  • “I’ve sailed the deeps a thousand years / In search of love, to quell my fears” → The “Ancient Manager” seeks redemption through conquest (sailing, trade wars), but it’s a futile, endless cycle.
  • “Tomorrow we sail with god or devil!” → The moral ambiguity of violence: is it divine mission or demonic pact?

How It Challenges the Myth:

• “Ancient Manager” ultimately rejects redemption through violence:
  • “All those moments…. they will be lost / in time like tears under frost” → The manager’s quest is empty; violence doesn’t save or renew.
• “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” ends with:
  • “Fields are golden but our dreams are red” → The “golden fields” (prosperity) are stained with blood, and the dream is tainted.

5. The Myth of Silence = Complicity

Claim: If you don’t pick a side, you’re complicit in the violence. Evidence:

• “All These Worlds Are Yours“:
  • “Your followers are the hollowers / they don’t preach the words of you” → The “hollowers” (empty followers) demand conformity; silence or neutrality isn’t an option.
  • “You block your haters / limit the latest ones” → The narrator enforces silence to maintain control, mirroring cancel culture or wartime censorship.
• “Lover Costing Average“:
  • “Silence is golden so you take your time” → Silence is strategic, a tool for manipulation (e.g., ignoring ethical concerns to “diversify” relationships).

How It Challenges the Myth:

• “All These Worlds Are Yours” also shows the cost of silence:
  • “You telling they can’t / sit with us” → The narrator’s exclusionary rhetoric isolates them; silence isn’t neutrality, but complicity in division.
• “Ordinary Day” reveals how secrets and silence destroy lives:
  • “The secret travelled quickly on the streets / Turned her world from / A strong to a weak” → Silence (or hidden truths) enables violence.

---

6. The Myth of Elite Profit

Claim: Wars are prolonged or instigated by elites who profit from destruction and reconstruction. Evidence:

• “Lover Costing Average“:
  • “Investing pays off when you take your time / and place your eggs in different piles” → The narrator treats relationships as financial assets, mirroring how elites treat war as an investment.
  • “You know you have to diversify” → A corporate metaphor for exploitation; elites “diversify” their wars (e.g., arms sales to multiple sides).
  • “We woke up in the ruins / Collected things the creatures left behind” → The aftermath of exploitation: elites pick through the ruins while others suffer.
• “Ancient Manager“:
  • “The Seven Markets vast and deep / The Ancient Manager picks up his fleet” → The “Ancient Manager” is a metaphor for capitalist or colonial elites, sailing between markets (wars) to extract value.
  • “The employees will see you in hell” → The human cost of elite profit; workers (or soldiers) are discarded.
  • “When the markets don’t feel too well / The decisions force you to sell” → Wars (or economic crises) are managed for profit, not human welfare.
• “Red and Blue“:
  • “Taking double the price / if it’s after five” → Price-gouging and exploitation, a hallmark of war economies.
  • “The penthouse is yellow at his place” → The “penthouse” symbolizes elite isolation; war’s profits don’t trickle down.

How It Challenges the Myth:

• “Lover Costing Average” and “Ancient Manager” expose the emptiness of elite profit:
  • “All those moments…. they will be lost / in time like tears under frost” → The manager’s “success” is futile; profit doesn’t bring meaning.
  • “We woke up in the ruins” → The narrator’s “diversification” leads to collapse, not wealth.
• “Red and Blue” ends with:
  • “her former life was erased / All business contacts deleted” → The cost of elite games: lives and identities destroyed.

Summary

---

Myth	Supporting the Myth	Challenging the Myth
Heroic Warrior	Cowboy in “Stand by You”, Wey-Yu uniforms	“Shapeless light forms” in “Stand by You”
Inevitable Conflict	“Fields are golden but the earth is red”	“Ordinary Day”’s sudden, man-made rupture
Us vs. Them	“You’re not here to make friends”	“I’m AM like them” in “Red and Blue”
Redemptive Violence	“It’s their blood you have to thank for”	“All those moments… lost in time”
Silence = Complicity	“Silence is golden”	“The secret travelled quickly” in “Ordinary Day”
Elite Profit	“Investing pays off”, “Seven Markets”	“We woke up in the ruins”

Key Observations

1. I often seem to reference the war myths indirectly through metaphor, irony, or surrealism (e.g., “Ancient Manager,” “Red and Blue”). This makes the critique subtle but potent.
2. I usually challenge the myths by the end of the songs:
   • Heroes become shapeless light forms (“Stand by You”).
   • Inevitable conflict leads to ruins (“Lover Costing Average”).
   • Us-vs-them divides collapse into complicity (“Red and Blue”).
3. My most explicitly critiqued myth is that of the elite profit, especially in “Lover Costing Average” and “Ancient Manager.” These songs read like allegories for late-stage capitalism or war economies.
4. My use of surrealism and sci-fi imagery (e.g., Mars, “light forms,” “multiverse”) distances the myths from reality, making their artificiality clearer.

Final Thought: Do I Support or Subvert the Myths?

Ok, my lyrics do reference the myths – sometimes unintentionally reinforcing them (e.g., the cowboy in “Stand by You”), but more often subverting or exposing their emptiness.

The surreal, cyclical, and often dystopian nature of my songs suggests a critical stance toward these myths. For example:

• The “Ancient Manager” isn’t a hero; he’s a tired, cursed figure trapped in a system.
• The “world renewed” in “World Renewed” is fleeting and hollow, not redemptive.
• The “agents” in “Red and Blue” are interchangeable, revealing the artificiality of divisions.

My biggest relief is that my work doesn’t glorify war’s myths – it dissects them.

Thus, if I want to go further down this road, I could push this critique further in future songs, perhaps by:

• Explicitly naming the myths (e.g., a song about a “war profiteer”).
• Offering alternatives (e.g., a “Stele of the Doves” to contrast the “Stele of the Vultures”).
• Using my usual ABABCBB structure to contradict war narratives (e.g., A lines = myth, B lines = reality, C lines = subversion).

And whaddya know: as of writing this I indeed am in the middle of writing my next album, “Eternal Echoes”.

A Call to Action

So there you go!

That… was quite a journey.

But tell me: are you yourself unquestioningly repeating some of these myths? And what would happen if you burned them?

Comment below with a song, poem, or story that you think perpetuates – or resists – the myths of war.

Let’s build an anti-war playlist together!

Or, get familiar with my album, Player Characters!