Napoleon said, "A great soldier like me doesn't care a tinker's damn for the lives of a million men." On another occasion--speaking about men who had fought in his military campaigns, Napoleon declared, “Let them die with arms in their hands. Their death is glorious. You can always fill the places of soldiers."

Yet historians write about Napoleon as if he was a great political figure, a military leader, and a conqueror.

Actually, he was a mass-murderer, like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. This isn't an "antiwar" message. It's an anti-historian message: the wet dreams of historians. And a critique of the entire psychological community that attributes pathology only to deviant individuals and not to collective pathologies like war and genocide.

Indeed, the entire culture is aligned to "normalize" historical mass-murderers. To pretend this is not psychopathology. If an individual kills ten people, he is considered sick, demented, a monster, and might be executed.

If a political leader kills thousands of men (or a million)--well, this is the way things are. This is what political leaders do. Somehow, behavior that occurs on the stage of "history" is judged differently than behavior that occurs on an individual level (although Lee Harvey Oswald's mother was hip to the dynamic...she wrote a book calling herself A MOTHER IN HISTORY).

The normally astute Roger Griffin writes on his website that "Since so many millions were involved in Nazism and the Holocaust, this can't be explained in terms of madness or pathology." What???

Well, there it is: my point. Griffin's fantasy of normalization is that somehow if "millions were involved," this can't be pathology.

I'm guessing that historians like Griffin--who devote their entire lives to studying historical phenomenon--can't bear to say that their subject matter is the psychopathology of civilization; collective sickness.

Can the entire historical process be a form of psychopathology? Of course it can. Of course it is.

And don't think that political mass-murderers are not hip to how the game is played. They think of historians as "enablers." The historians are involved in a symbiotic relationship with mass-murderers. What would be the point of murdering millions of people if historians didn't write about the mass-murderer?

Mass-murderers know they will be remembered for their acts; depend on historians to "keep their names alive." Perhaps that's the point of what they do; what they did.​​​​​

Richard Koenigsberg