Humanity and the Endless War

[Ewan]

History is one long catalogue of incidents that began wars, outcomes from said wars and the resultant political systems and consensus thoughts that arose out of those wars.

It is also said that history is told from the perspective of the victor. I'm sure that is very true. Which therefore implies that all of history should be suspect in terms of accuracy, veracity. This should be obvious, so why don't schools teach this?

Spiritually speaking it would be suggested that we, (as a species), are constantly at war externally because we are at war internally. Yet individually we are not prone to smash skulls in with a rock because of a disagreement. Is this but the veneer of civilization? In a limited resource scenario would we all become killers at the scent of a rabbit? I don't think so. I believe our primary attribute is cooperation. Are we, here on Avalon, in a minority or is this the true state of man?

The vast majority of the world's population live within systems where they believe they have no individual power. A system where a series of specialists and experts make decisions on our behalf, and our education and society train us to go along with, don't make waves.

I suspect the assumption that such a system allows for sociopathy to rise to the fore would be generally agreed upon?

Basic Slavemaster Propaganda Techniques (https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/world-government/basic-slavemaster-propaganda-techniques/)

(It goes off on a few tangents which I think are best ignored, like did Pythagoras even exist - skip past it).

There are a lot of links within that piece that are worth tracking down and reading imo.

Take a look at a Benjamin Disraeli quote..

"No Government can be long secure without a formidable opposition..."

So, they need enemies in order to maintain their staus. If necessary they will manufacture them.

More from Disraeli HERE (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7412)

The first linked topic, Basic Slavemaster Propaganda talks of an author, Correa Moylan Walsh

Climax of Civilisation.pdf (https://ia601409.us.archive.org/33/items/climaxofcivilisa00walsrich/climaxofcivilisa00walsrich.pdf)

I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted but it is nice to see confirmations in print from one hundred years ago and more that this IS the way of the world.

(I don't intend maintaining this thread, I doubt I will have anything to add. I'm just offering a topic for conversation. I'm very impressed with posters such as Herve, Onawah and Cidersomerset for their commitment to threads.

Let this one though be organic, and go where it pleases.

PS: Does this belong in Politics
https://media.giphy.com/media/130d6vlmqNcqxG/giphy.gif)

[Bruno]

So much to chew on here. Thank you Ewan. I will take a look at the links but first my initial thoughts:

I have always loved History, but only second to myths and stories. I suppose all three are the same but History of course pretends to be the facts. I like to write short stories. I think there is no better way to make sense of the world and yourself then through reading and writing stories. Humans seem made to put themselves into plot graphs.

Who gets to tell "the story" is of course, as you have already pointed out, normally the victors and more than that the elite of those victors. I do think with the Internet there is it at least some democratization of the stories we tell and the "history" we leave behind. Of course it all takes a lot of digging and a good deal of puzzling to put it all together.

[Foxie Loxie]

Very insightful thread, Ewan! I would say we mimic our "creators" since they are continually at war with each other as well, if I am understanding what I am learning on The Forum. :confused: I believe Robert Stanley gives us some insights there & all that has happened in his life. Speaking from experience, we do know that each child is subjected to the indoctrination of the culture wherein he or she is born, which in itself, can eventually lead to wars. I remember a high school teacher saying that a "democracy" cannot survive without war! Looks like it proves true in the case of the U.S. :idea: Thanks for the Disraeli connections.

[Bruno]

Fell right into the Rabbit Hole with those links Ewan! Wonderful information!

[Justplain]

i read in a bertrand russel history of philosophy book that quotes Aristotle saying that tyrants create wars to keep themselves in power because wars make the public believe the tyrant is needed for security purposes. That reminded me that i had heard that somewhere else before, it was from an article about the Rand corp which had issued a policy paper that advocated the same idea, that the federal US government needed a war to justify its existence.

Funny, here in canada the federal gov has for the most part stayed out of some of the big fake wars the US perpetuated, such as vietnam (remember the gulf of tonkin false flag event used to escalate that conflict?) and the second iraq war (remember the missing weapons of mass destruction?). The canadian gov doesnt use this policy of perpetual war to cling to power, tho one could claim that they utilize the trauma applied to the american population since the american news is constantly shipped north.

The cold war was another perpetual conflict, as is the ongoing fake war on terror. The poor public doesnt know how badly they are constantly being screwed.

Here's Alex Jones' assessment of the rand corp:
hFhy4_rvGK4

[Ewan]

So much to chew on here. Thank you Ewan. I will take a look at the links but first my initial thoughts:

I have always loved History, but only second to myths and stories. I suppose all three are the same but History of course pretends to be the facts. I like to write short stories. I think there is no better way to make sense of the world and yourself then through reading and writing stories. Humans seem made to put themselves into plot graphs.

Who gets to tell "the story" is of course, as you have already pointed out, normally the victors and more than that the elite of those victors. I do think with the Internet there is it at least some democratization of the stories we tell and the "history" we leave behind. Of course it all takes a lot of digging and a good deal of puzzling to put it all together.

Now there's an interesting point in itself. Myths and legends. I lean to there being a great deal of truth in what most modern people seem to dismiss with a sneer. 'That's just myth!' - end of subject. I think we told each other stories as a way of imparting information, through the generations knowledge could be shared. There's no doubt people xxx years ago made a different sense of their world than we do today. That puts the burden on us to successfully inerpret what they were sharing. Now was that system co-opted by negative forces way back then to influence the future generations. One would have to suspect so if this is a great game and not just a current event. That leaves us an even greater dilema, and opens us up to confirmation bias's all over again. 'That sounds about right!' or ''I don't believe that for a minute!'.

( There was a Scottish Minister who toured Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France ((I think)), gathering tales of the old folk about the 'fairy' people. I think it was Jaques Valee that mentioned him in one of his books. I would dearly like to get a hold of that text.)

As I typed my opening post I wondered if it were true that all the answers lie within, it seems you could twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make sense of everything presented from the past. Perhaps we just need to meditate on the truth of stories to make sense of them. I truly don't know. (Which is, perhaps, a blessing, it's only when you think you know that you will get upset when you discover you were completely mistaken. :) )

[shaberon]

I believe our primary attribute is cooperation. Are we, here on Avalon, in a minority or is this the true state of man?


Here I would have to say that states of being are always in flux.

It would be hard to really guess the ratio of warmakers versus peacemakers. Iceland and Costa Rica come to mind as rather pacifistic; Bhutan never really trifled with anyone; Mongolia once conquered the biggest land mass ever, but these days they're pretty calm. Pastorality and a lack of plunderable resources probably contribute to this condition.

In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna basically tells Arjuna: it's your duty to kill all those people. It won't hurt their souls.

Looking at the American Revolution, it was launched against the British military--guys whose duty it was to kill or be killed. But in France (and probably many other places), revolution unleashed lynch mobs that went around killing anyone. Those are two fairly different affairs.

Despite the ideals of the American Revolution, the country is typically criticized for its ensuing treatment of Indians and slaves. The thing about the American Indians is that they were at war all the time--and what brought them peace was the Iroquois Confederation--which is well worth study and emulation should one desire peace. Americans, of course, did not *start* slavery, and the exploitation of Africa revolved around Islam. Europeans had no interest and almost no knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa. But they did hang out in Mecca to check out all the Islamic pilgrims. When the king of Mali showed up, wearing gold and having other signs of wealth, that got their attention--and so, among other things, they went to purchase slaves that for the most part came out of an existing institution formed out of the losers of African battles.

Modern wars are wars of conquest, the end goal being ownership, as compared to something like the Crusades where you kill someone for what they think, or when the French King Charles the Fat launched an attack because someone called him fat.

I personally lean more towards Krishna than towards Disraeli, in other words, I, at least, mentally and verbally object to, and refuse to follow, an artificial, self-justified war machine--but if, for example, someone were to threaten my mother, I would rearrange their spinal column. The discerning factors thus having less to do with the fact of violence, but everything to do with protection and/or (what I perceive to be) the right thing. For the record, I have never believed my mother to be in jeopardy from the U. S. S. R., Iran, Al Qaeda, or anyone like that--but there are credible threats available domestically from our own citizens, with maybe a little MS 13 or Latin Kings sprinkled on for good measure. I hope this makes sense.

[Ewan]

I believe our primary attribute is cooperation. Are we, here on Avalon, in a minority or is this the true state of man?


Here I would have to say that states of being are always in flux.

It would be hard to really guess the ratio of warmakers versus peacemakers. Iceland and Costa Rica come to mind as rather pacifistic; Bhutan never really trifled with anyone; Mongolia once conquered the biggest land mass ever, but these days they're pretty calm. Pastorality and a lack of plunderable resources probably contribute to this condition.

In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna basically tells Arjuna: it's your duty to kill all those people. It won't hurt their souls.

Looking at the American Revolution, it was launched against the British military--guys whose duty it was to kill or be killed. But in France (and probably many other places), revolution unleashed lynch mobs that went around killing anyone. Those are two fairly different affairs.

Despite the ideals of the American Revolution, the country is typically criticized for its ensuing treatment of Indians and slaves. The thing about the American Indians is that they were at war all the time--and what brought them peace was the Iroquois Confederation--which is well worth study and emulation should one desire peace. Americans, of course, did not *start* slavery, and the exploitation of Africa revolved around Islam. Europeans had no interest and almost no knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa. But they did hang out in Mecca to check out all the Islamic pilgrims. When the king of Mali showed up, wearing gold and having other signs of wealth, that got their attention--and so, among other things, they went to purchase slaves that for the most part came out of an existing institution formed out of the losers of African battles.

Modern wars are wars of conquest, the end goal being ownership, as compared to something like the Crusades where you kill someone for what they think, or when the French King Charles the Fat launched an attack because someone called him fat.

I personally lean more towards Krishna than towards Disraeli, in other words, I, at least, mentally and verbally object to, and refuse to follow, an artificial, self-justified war machine--but if, for example, someone were to threaten my mother, I would rearrange their spinal column. The discerning factors thus having less to do with the fact of violence, but everything to do with protection and/or (what I perceive to be) the right thing. For the record, I have never believed my mother to be in jeopardy from the U. S. S. R., Iran, Al Qaeda, or anyone like that--but there are credible threats available domestically from our own citizens, with maybe a little MS 13 or Latin Kings sprinkled on for good measure. I hope this makes sense.

Thank you Shaberon for providing food for thought. Of course you make sense.

On many aspects I cannot dispute anything you offered. Not my mother but my children, sure, I would react like a cornered bear if anyone tried to hurt them.

Now, I have not dwelled on your post, I have just read it moments ago, but my first feeling is that you are introducing another dynamic. That being a overlying stream above the base humanity that resides below. (Those are not esoteric terms I am applying, I'm just trying to use language as it is). The overlying stream being a consensus that we all get caught up in to a greater or lesser degree. Take for instance the time of Darwin, or perhaps Columbus, and the supremacy of the church that pervaded all thought at that time. We were teaching the pagans, for their own good, as we* slaughtered untold hundreds of thousands, the importance of civilization. Any book you read between, say 1750 and 1900, would always remark about the uncivilised brute that needed redemption or education. They were a sub-species. This is not an individuals state of mind without that of a broader overlying current.

We see that take place today all over the world as we observe from afar. If we are honest we get caught up in it ourselves from time to time.

In respect of (NA) Indians - always at war, I confess I'm not a great student of that era, I've just got passing references. But was it not the case that there was always rivalries, tit fo tat scenarios, that very rarely amounted to anything significant. I'm not aware of any tales of genocide for example.

Perhaps what I am hoping to reveal in the course of this thread is that the majority of us lean to Krishna, it is only the Disraeli's of the world that influence us for the poorer. There is always a Disraeli, be he born in the Mongolian steppes or the shade of Westminster.

*we refers to the white race, the european, the anglo-saxon

[norman]

The dividing line between myself and one of my brothers is that he believes humans are basically violent and I believe they are basically friendly. He thinks I'm a dreamer, I think he's been brain washed with propaganda.

We argue about it ;)... Good thing it doesn't come to blows. :)

[Justplain]

Humanity in a very fundamental way, is co-operative in nature. Humans have never been a physically dominant species. Human offspring raising also takes a long time and the young are very vulnerable. Lookup some of the fierce predators of the not so distant past, from the tarpit fossil record, see sabre-tooth lions and the dire wolves. Humanity only survived via group action. Group defense, collective hunting/gathering and communal child rearing. This required incredible co-operation. Human survival depended on it.

Later developments, such as agriculture and urban living, all depended upon highly co-operative social specialization. The institutions of government and learning all require a great deal of co-operation from the population who need to agree to support the rules that allow these organizations to exist. If everyone refused to pay their taxes out goes the government.

So co-operation is a fundamental human trait. Violence is not. Theories to the contrary are propaganda designed to divide us.

[Bluegreen]

It is also said that history is told from the perspective of the victor. I'm sure that is very true. Which therefore implies that all of history should be suspect in terms of accuracy, veracity. This should be obvious, so why don't schools teach this?

Good point. It implies a lack of critical thinking on the part of our finest PHDs or if we want to be polite to these so-called scholars and let them off the hook gently PC-style we could call it cognitive dissonance. Or else they're just downright evil. As above. And below? Decent, hard-working citizens who through no fault of their own have been enslaved into the Machine with very few the wiser. It has been designed to never occur to them and it doesn't.

I am convinced we have the Tower of Babel (a true story) to thank for these so-called "words", "myth" and "legend" which have been intended to trick us into thinking these "stories" are "fiction". After all, "history" - take a moment to look at the finality of that word - is told from the perspective of the victor(s).

In fact, I am convinced Zeus or Yahweh or Beelzebub or any one of dozens or even hundreds of names this entity has self-identified as and lied every step of the way or rather told half-truths to get us to buy into the whole Birth-Slave-Death Cycle of fibs, a gimmick to quote Mr WS Burroughs, is still in charge.

We can think of this entity as a single ET possibly with a flowing beard and white robe for convenience sake if we like but I tend to think of it as the AIF or Alien Invader Force, a term from Mr Wes Penre, meaning a relatively small group of amoral ETs who do not have mankind's benefit on the agenda.

Then we have this word "Satanism" and let's capitalize it shall we? to make it even more foreboding which has been wildly successful in its design and verbiage to horrify any ordinary caring humans who don't even want to think about such activities much less deal with and who can blame them?

I am convinced satanism is very real and works. Unfortunately, it seems to work by f-cking and killing children, evidently a lifetime of beer, cigarettes, processed meat and cynicism ruins everything. Further, I am convinced that "satanism" is nothing more than a means of communication, a phone call if you will, that the Windsors and the Rockefellers and the earthlings above them that we don't know (I am generalizing) use to communicate with their off-world masters. These communications consist largely of instructions on how to steal the planet and its resources by means of (again I am generalizing) Exxon, Lockheed, the Fed, the Vatican, Skull & Bones, the Carlyle Group, Remington Arms, let's toss in the United Fruit Company just for color, etc and our current alarming situation is that they are succeeding.

This will not happen as the general population's wake-up call continues and accelerates exponentially. These odious criminals in all of their wealth and their weaponry and their arrogance are NO MATCH for the formidable and loving magic every human on the planet is capable of producing at will and are just now in the process of discovering and practicing and among the many many pieces of undeniable evidence are those reading these very words at this very moment. I will see the 99% prevail in my lifetime or die trying. I promise.


Thank you Ewan for allowing me the opportunity to go off on a rant
:)

[Foxie Loxie]

Good rant!! :muscle:

[shaberon]

The overlying stream being a consensus that we all get caught up in to a greater or lesser degree. Take for instance the time of Darwin, or perhaps Columbus, and the supremacy of the church that pervaded all thought at that time. We were teaching the pagans, for their own good, as we* slaughtered untold hundreds of thousands, the importance of civilization. Any book you read between, say 1750 and 1900, would always remark about the uncivilised brute that needed redemption or education. They were a sub-species. This is not an individuals state of mind without that of a broader overlying current...In respect of (NA) Indians - always at war, I confess I'm not a great student of that era, I've just got passing references. But was it not the case that there was always rivalries, tit for tat scenarios, that very rarely amounted to anything significant. I'm not aware of any tales of genocide for example.


I'm by no means expert on Amerindian tribes, but one of the main groups is Cherokee--the ones that got swept towards Oklahoma on the "Trail of Tears" where hardly anyone survived. They were from around here (Southeastern region), at least that's where colonists found them. They were, however, Iroquoian invaders (from upper Midwest), who scrubbed everyone in their path, including, apparently, the dwarven, subterranean, nocturnal Moon-Eyed People. Mohicans (another Iroquois) had one of the most fearsome reputations, and Apache means "enemy" (I think). All that war paint, war dances, together with tomahawks, arrows, etc., were by no means stage props. The exact amount of small rivalries compared to complete slaughters, I am not sure; of course, they weren't really in the habit of making field assessments to study in a military academy in the next century.

Forming a consensus via academic and civilized means, tends to be out of touch and somewhat of a lie. Attitudes and behaviors can certainly be deeply molded by it. My question to those Darwinists and Disraeli followers would be: Is all that stuff really going to hold true if you are alone? No...without the backing of technology and additional numbers of people, it unravels pretty quickly. It's very artificial, yet at the same time, highly addictive.

Civilization is such a mixed bag. Before being conquered by the "Bastard", England was a lawless country of bandits; post-Norman domination, you could walk from one end to the other with your pockets full of gold and never worry. The Romans had a similar effect, as did a few other empires. Violence of the non-military kind is pretty concerning as well. I liked the point in the OP about our personal inner conflicts--it's a matter of whether we channel this into a relatively harmless direction, act on it on a private basis, or have it publicly funneled into a mass conflict.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Good thoughts here. Some other random ones to add..

War probably has a different meaning today than centuries past. I agree Ewan, in that humans are naturally driven to agree with each other and cooperate. I just don't see violence and negativity existing in all that many people. If you asked 100 people, or 10,000 people on the street about war, nearly all of them will want disarmament and an end to it - globally. Most just want a normal, happy life, living securely and in peace (and cooperation). Of course self-defence as an instinctive action/reaction, is very a different thing.

But war remains in the world, as widespread as ever. A type of psy-op perhaps, to sow fear and insecurity, keep us all fearful and compliant, so governments can keep hold of power. And also to encourage us to keep paying those heavy taxes, because we just must have a strong military to keep us safe!

All a scam really. Because the *majority* of humanity has evolved beyond the need, desire, and impulse for war in my opinion.

Conquest, subjugation, and elimination of other groups or nations of people is something only the elites are interested in. Their motivation to constantly maintain war is to constantly sustain profit. I think that's what it comes down to sadly. War means trade, industry, and innovation. It drives technology forward, as well as the economy. War is income as well as control.

Wouldn't it be so very different, if those at the forefront of war policy, were also at the forefront of the war effort. If they had to fight on the frontline (of their phoney wars), hahaha, how different things would be!

[Jules]

How do people that love peace get along with creatures that love to profit from war or do low down things at the expensive of others? In the old days, psychopaths did not do well with native people. What was their secret? Well, the psycho would go on a trip with a few men, there was an "accident", then after the trip the men came back home without said psycho. Nowadays, we call the psychopaths: bankers, CEOs, and politicians, and we don't seem to be able to deal with them very well. Sometimes the way we handle a psycho is by someone else who is a bigger psycho, for instance a Rothchild dealing with Prince Charles. This tactic still doesn't solve the issue humanity is facing either. We can expose what is going on... I guess that is a start.