Is War Ever Necessary or Justified?

[arjunaloka_official]

Posted by Delight (here)

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Just a few random thoughts.

• The world's power structures memorialise war, allowing for an endless supply of young people to fight. Uncontrolled ego is dangerous enough but the untethered superego of the young fighting-age male is lethal. The superego reminds the person of their commitment to a patriotic lifestyle and instils feelings of guilt for non-participation in war. A patriotic lifestyle can be a healthy attribute but our leaders have found a way to channel patriotism into the death and destruction of war, and then memorialize it to enshrine its importance and usefulness.
• All despots create enemies because it allows them to justify war. This is what Hitler did in 1939 before he invaded Poland. This is what Putin did in 2022 before he invaded Ukraine. This is also what Europe/USA did to taunt Putin into war.
• Conflict is a precursor of war so in my mind, it is the same. Quite often the media uses the word conflict because it draws less attention and is not so threatening. But to those being maimed or being killed in the conflict it sure as hell feels like war.
• The mainstream media's grip on how we view wars (conflict vs war) has just about come to an end. Once that happens conflict/war will start to be viewed in a much more realistic and horrific light. It is just another reason to hate media and this change can't happen soon enough.
• War is a psychological mass phenomenon that diminishes our humanity. It is man-made and contrary to what we have been taught it has no cultural or historical value whatsoever. Violent behavior must never ever be normalized, we must memorialize math, science, health and altruism.

The memorialization of war, the romanticism of war, the social demonization of "pacifism", the ongoing "crops" raised to satisfy the maw of the machine is against all reason or preservation of the world. There are the "old fat men" who would take all the young females to themselves. You see it in Islam, in Mormonism and subtly in western society where older men have the means and young men are expendable. IMO, no one should even be allowed to suggest others fight. Therefore we must demand NOW the "honest war" fought by the (old fat) men and witches who "think it is ever necessary or justified".

you are right, we need to stop the willingness for war "in us".

[rgray222]

A wonderful depiction of those who rally people for war and those who fight the war.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ud-8IToj33I

[rgray222]

World War 1 Soldiers with PTSD

[Mike Gorman]

War is politics in kinetic form, it represents the struggles of differing factional intentions: it is a human reality whether we agree or not: this is why the Earth gig is considered to be among the most difficult in the Universe, I am told by insightful souls - we earn much kudos, learn many things: is it worthwhile? I am not sure about this.

[sdv]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Anyone in a socialist country is compelled to labor for the benefit of another. That's slavery.
Why aren't you protesting against socialism, too?

That is a description of unfettered capitalism, not socialism. The allure of capitalism is that supposedly if you work hard, you will end up at the top, as an owner, and can then profit from the labour of others. Poverty, homelessness, etc. are regarded as the result of personal failure, but in reality the wealthy owners protect themselves by forming networks and controlling government through political networks. When workers try to do the same (labour unions, protests, strikes, etc.), the wealthy owners use state force to suppress and thus protect their accumulated wealth.

Some form of socialism is adopted by most countries in the world.

Here is a real-world example of the differences between the two systems (a snapshot): a large wine estate (vineyards and a winery) is privately owned. Most workers live on the farm in labourers' cottages and earn roughly minimum wage for their labour. They are poor but they are not homeless. The owner takes all the profits, lives in a large house and has an expensive car, sends his children to expensive private schools and university, has holidays overseas, etc. Then, there is a transformation and the state buys the estate from the owner and gives it to the labourers, who continue to live on the estate but now share in the profits from the vineyards and winery (instead of one owner taking all the profits, everyone is now an owner and shares equally in the profits). Those who continue to work also earn wages. Some get basic education in business management, etc. and the best are chosen to manage the affairs of the estate. They earn more than someone who remains a labourer and picks grapes during harvesting. But, without their management skills, the estate does not generate profit and everyone loses. Since everyone is an owner, everyone has an equal vote in making decisions about the estate, and no one can be evicted or fired and end up homeless without a job.

Are there sometimes huge failures in the above model? Sure, but if a group makes 'bad' decisions, or cannot collectively make decisions at all, everyone financially suffers the consequences, but they remain owners of the property. In capitalism, if there is a huge failures, one person (the owner) still retains the property and all the advantages of taking all the profits (gone, car, children educated well, connected to wealthy friends, etc.), but workers end up on the street with nothing.

Capitalism is not slavery because if an owner owns labourers, 'he' is obliged to provide for the basic needs. Can you simply throw your possession out on the streets to fend for itself, like a dog you no longer want? But socialism is definitely not slavery. People are being conned about capitalism and socialism. Of course the elite are terrified by socialism because one person cannot exploit an entire class of people. Everyone wants to be a billionaire and you need workers to create that wealth for you,l!

China is perhaps the best recent example of how a mixture of capitalism and socialism can hugely benefit a country and its people, but the Scandinavians countries showed how blending socialism and capitalism (with a strong socialist framework) can result in a high standard of living for everyone and savings rather than debt for the country as a whole. Even a pure capitalist country like the USA implements a patchwork of social programmes (one president gets them introduced; after 4 years, another president then abolishes them ... ) to try and mitigate the risk of a working class revolution and because even in a pure capitalist system you do have people with genuine compassion for others.

[sdv]

Bill, with all due respect, most wars are not purely defensive but are about exploitation. The myth of defence is used to justify invasions, assassinations, regime change, etc. But the true motive is exploitation. The new year brought the tragic news of the USA taking over Venezuela and its resources by eliminating its president. It is another tragic story to add to a volume of such stories.

If a group is stealing your cattle, you have the right to prevent that from happening by using force against those thieves when they are on your property stealing your cattle. (If you do not step back from my cattle that you are trying to steal, and get off my land, I will shoot you. ) But, you do not have the right to destroy the surrounding community to stop bandits from stealing your cattle, and 'justifying' every atrocity you commit against that community and ultimately seizing their land and property and, by force, exerting your control over the entire population.

International organizations like the UN and its many organizations are toothless because of rogue actors such as the USA, because Johnson of the UK was sent to Ukraine to persuade the actor playing a role president to abandon a negotiated peace settlement and fight a war, because ...there are so many examples. Rwanda is another example of how toothless the UN is ... The USA adamantly opposed the resolution in the UN labelling the genocide a genocide, despite pleading from US officials who were in Rwanda, because members of the UN are obliged to act to stop a genocide. The genocide was stopped, militarily, by a Rwandan 'rebel' group, backed by Uganda. Is violence justified in such a case? No, but it is inevitable. Put down that machete, stop killing people, or I will have to kill you!

War happens, but it is never justified, and it is rarely a necessary defence. The USA had the right to shoot down the planes attacking Pearl Harbour (no negotiation or discussion or hesitation required on that day ... maximum violence required to stop this). The USA did not have the right to drop those bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I am aware that there are people on PA who have a 'spiritual' perspective about violence. I use quotes not to denigrate in any way that perspective but to try and highlight a term that most of us may have some kind of understanding of, hopefully without judgment.

I am adamantly against violence (when I am personally confronted by violence, physical or emotional or psychological, I experience varying degrees of severe anxiety to the point of a full-blown panic attack!). Violence is often understandable, predictable to the point of inevitable, and avoidable, but never justified. The United Nations is supposed to manage predictable violence so that it does not become inevitable, and stop it when it does. It has failed. We are in World War III as a result id this failure.

[Agape]

"It may be so or not". Every war starts as a conflict of interests.

And every effort to justify conflict results in delusional states of craziness, hysteria , mania or depression.

Justification of conflict therefore does not help.

It's important to realize there are no 2 sides of a conflict or a war.

There are 2 or more sides plus conflict, as independent subject and phenomenon with life of its own. Merely feeding "the conflict" makes it grow.

"Resolution of conflict" simply minimises it , which enables further transformation of sides.

Parties engaged actively in prolonged wars can not evolve on their natural timeline. The worst massive crime of humanity is in their effort to prevent each other from "ascension".

It's because we all are naturally "on the train" of natural evolution of intelligence and in certain times of humanity , also natural soul sublimation.

Prevented from their natural sublimation many souls turn deeply frustrated or straightly desperate and commit crimes against humanity especially the part of humanity that seems to be preventing them from further transformation.

We are still facing human desperation and abuse of human rights and freedoms on massive scale on this planet. That accounts for 4 billion reasons for revolt and rebellion against warlords, dictators and other regimes sacrificing their children in wars and conflicts.

The world is in the state of evolving WWIII.

All I wish is that they can sort their situations digitally because they can. Remotely, intelligently, using nothing else than digital or other pens.


[OMG] We gave those people the best Pens with Golden Tips. We gave them copies of Holy Books . We let them to sign checks and international treaties. We got them computers with evolving progressive AI.

There is nothing else needed NOW with all the above equipment than let them sort it out remotely.





Happy New Year 2026

🪷