on the evil ofterrorism has to be recognized. However,this psychological discourse allows, for example, for an agreement withNetanyahu, the Israeli State terrorist, when he states that Terrorism againstAmericans, Israelis, Spaniards, Britons, Russians, or anyone else is all partof the same evil and must be treated as such. This discourse has the same Christian moral basis as Edingers withregards to the dualism of good and evil (although Netanyahu is Jewish). They do nothing to help differentiate betweenstruggles in Colombia, where guerrillas (and here we are not condoning theiracts) are fighting against a State that killed more than 3,000 of their peopleincluding politicians, activists, and presidential candidates[56] the democracy supported by the U.S. and the struggle of Palestinianswhere the Israeli State occupies their land and refuses to let them be anythingmore than second-class citizens of Israel. All that the discourse on universalismthrough psychologism helps to substantiate is a moral superiority in relationto political issues, and the apathy and outright complicity towards the crueltythat it bears on. Instead of solving theissues, psychologism reproduces them, and is at the core of ethnocentrism, thesupport for State terrorism and apathy.Our conversation here on the effects of psychologismshould not lead us to reject psychological realities completely; what we arethinking about is the manner in which history can be disregarded in favor ofpsychology, which is a Christian-European tradition of many consequences, somepretty terrible. We should, however,note that the terrorist does have a subjective experience, but to which wecan only make generalizations with regards to his/her history, which is what isavailable to us. The one thing that wecan say all those labeled terrorist have is a need of power, a need to beheard, as Ahmad says. Of course, angeris also involved, and in Bin Ladens case, a strong sense of betrayal of theU.S[57]. Note, however, that our description of thepsychic aspects cannot reach very far, and in itself it certainly does notserve anyone involved in the conflict for the practice of peace without turningthem into political considerations.A book that has been celebrated in many circles as the explanation for terrorism is called The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism,by Robin Morgan. In line with white-American-bourgeois feminism, the author essentializes a universal terrorist,a He that is a form of a recurrent subjectivity in history, recognizableacross the times and cultures, in much the same way as Edingers archetypes ofthe apocalypse. That universal, ahistorical He is said to be the root ofterrorism. She has an important point,though, when she argues, for example:Theterrorist (or, depending on ones view, the freedom fighter) is the ultimatesexual idol of a male-centered cultural tradition that stretches frompre-Biblical times to the present: he is the logical extension of thepatriarchal hero/martyr. He is the DemonLover, and society is (secretly or openly) fascinated by him. I have to agree that there is certainly thesexualization and the idolatry of a hero/martyr. And this has certainly been otpimized withpatriarchy, as has the State, and the image of the hero works to the advantageof the protagonists of the establishment, like governors, as well as forso-called rebels. I have to disagree,though, that we can portray every