The True Enemy of Mankind

originally posted by: Astyanax

Has anyone on this thread actually been promoting war?

Some has declared that war was part of being human, giving the erronous implication that war is justifiable. And some have avoided the topic altogether, and seized the opportunity to shift the blame on religion exclusively.

a reply to: swanne

Some has declared that war was part of being human, giving the erronous implication that war is justifiable.

That does not follow. Human beings do lots of things that are not justifiable.

a reply to: Astyanax

Too true!

But then, how else can the low popularity of this thread be explained? I am not one who actively seeks flags, but surely you agree that they are indicative of the general appreciation of a thread.

originally posted by: donktheclown

or why don't we find a way to stop those who think they own it in the first place?

a reply to: jessme2

Tell that to starving people of countries that DO own it. Just a thought.

Those aren't the people who think they own it either. The People, for the most part, what is commonly labeled the "indigenous peoples", know that no one owns the land, but that it is borrowed from our grandchildren, to roughly paraphrase, although actually many nations thought on to the seventh generation. That is neither here nor there. The point I am trying to make is that the ones who Think they own it are the ones causing the problem, because maybe ownership itself is the problem. When someone thinks they own something, then they think they have a right to do whatever they please with it.

a reply to: Astyanax

Who created those institutions?

I'm going to share a bit of history. Some will only look at it as myth or the ramblings of the intellectually imbalanced. But non the less, recorded. History is full of stories of people showing up under mysterious circumstances, influence society, then vanish one way or another. Enoch is probably the first documented case.

Then this very interesting and revealing story of Dr John Dee. (The contactee)

Over the next ten years, the pair delved headlong into contacting angels—and either Kelley ran a decade-long confidence game on Dee, or they indeed made contact with “something.” Either way, the spirit diaries that survive—dug up in a field ten years after Dee’s death—contain not only prose that rivals Shakespeare and Joyce, but a completely new language, with its own grammar and syntax.

Dee would perform ritual invocations of the angels, and Kelley would stare into a scrying mirror or crystal ball, wherein a series of angels appeared, transmitting prophecies, instructions and furious pronouncements on the spiritual nature of mankind. The angels were not charitable. Raging at the fallen state of humanity, who have only become progressively worse since being sent East of Eden, they consistently liken humans to “harlots”—not in the sexual sense, but in the sense that they weakly allow their attentions to be captivated by literally anything except God. Over years of Actions, the angels described the ordering of the cosmos; a series of instructions for ritual invocations; predictions of apocalypse and events to come in European politics; and, finally, the Angelic or “Enochian” language, which they explained was the ur-language of humanity, spoken before the Fall of Adam.

boingboing.net...

We can jump to the present day, last 100 years or so, and look at the UFO phenomenon. All the contactee's sharing the "BS" stories of "Aliens" and out of this galaxy stories. Earths history is nothing but a tapestry, hidden for the most part, external manipulation. All taken out of context, all made confusing by extended lengths of time, misinterpretation, and language barriers. "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool all the people, all of the time".

Who was Apollonius? Where was he from??? What institution sprung up from his wisdom? www.livius.org...

These are but a few examples of how humanity has been covertly manipulated. What are people to do? They were not give the full information or facts concerning the true intentions, or for that matter, location where these trains of thought originated. Was it simply a test to see how gullible humanity really was, or maybe how childish we all are.

But what really changes? Presently there are programs that covertly attempt to once again manipulate mankind into another set of paradigms. How long will they last? Till our short lived memories die out, and it all becomes a myth in the future? If Dr Dee had only known the truth, the whole truth!

So you want to Blame Dr Dee for listening to "Angels", and advising the Queen on "Institutional" matters. So you want to blame UFO contactee's for the lies they spread? Blame the individuals, not the "Hidden" powers that spread the half truths and lies. "I can hear them now "Hey, its not our fault the gullible and ignorant human beings believed us". When we are presented with the whole truth and the facts, then, we are responsible, not before.

As St. Augustine observed 1,500 years ago, the fallen nature of mankind is revealed in the behaviour of babes and sucklings. I am not religious, but biology agrees with the good father. We are born all the things you mention, as well as their opposites. We are human. We are capable of anything.

There is a distinct difference between "Humans", and "Human Beings". I would argue we are not all mere "Humans". Prisons are filled with "Humans". One of the main differences I suspect is that Human beings have some control over their animistic nature, while humans merely play the game.

Whoever they were, were they not human?

As the first upright intelligent species walked, they called themselves "Humans", I would suspect. Anything derived from that would be considered human as well. Yes, they were humans. But human beings are a whole new game.

Have you ever been a conscientious objector? Would you be one if there was a war? Would you fight back if the government were to oppress you?

Now, you yourself advocate that which you say you despise. I imagine the "Humans" would fight because that is in line with their animistic tendencies. A human being would stop and try to determine what causes the hostilities and rectify it without bloodshed.

We are human

I was tempted to put this in the same fashion you ended your post, but instead Ill say this, We are all not humans. Go in peace.

a reply to: swanne

I had at least a modicrum of respect to you.
Then you pull this silly bullcrap........

I shall now leave you to glory in your own percieved brilliance.

Recklessness, the biggest killer of human kind since the discovery of fire.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Um... Did I offend you in any way??

a reply to: swanne

But then, how else can the low popularity of this thread be explained?

Perhaps others simply disagree with you, like most of those who have taken the trouble to reply.

You'll notice that even those who've sort-of agreed with you have gone on to attribute war itself to some other cause, such as greedy power elites, organized religion, etc. This should make it evident to you that most people don't think of war as the 'real enemy of mankind'. They think of it as the work of 'the real enemies of mankind'.

It is time for you either to defend your thesis or withdraw it.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly take your post seriously. Have a nice day.

a reply to: swanne
The Rich. The Rich create, War. They don't fight in it.

a reply to: ugmold

The Rich. The Rich create, War. They don't fight in it.

Completely untrue.

Royalty killed in action in WWI

British aristocrats killed in WWI & WWII

Ten myths about WWI debunked (see Myth #4)

The First World War and the British Aristocracy 'The Doubtful Future of the House of Lords'. Vanity Fair, 1916

a reply to: jessme2

Wouldn't that be trying to beat the opponent at its own game, own rules?

In such a circumstance, it seems to me the most appropriate meta-method is something akin to sacrifice, a selfless act irregardless of the consequences at the hands of the oppressors. Something that holds up the mirror and reveals their true nature and appeals to their black hearts.

The Civil Rights Movement was composed of such non-violent active bravery, was it not?

originally posted by: Astyanax
This should make it evident to you that most people don't think of war as the 'real enemy of mankind'. They think of it as the work of 'the real enemies of mankind'.

Perhaps. But the purpose of my original post was not a blame game. It is true that war has many causes. But the effect is universal. And if the effect is universal, then for once, we (the whole of mankind) have the chance to share a common enemy - that is, war itself. Sure, my methodology is a bit unorthodox. But if we can all realize that war is destructive to mankind as a specie, and to Earth as a biosphere, then we could all recognize those emerging philophies (or any policies that promote violence) as bad ideas instead of subscribing blindly to them.

It is a bit unorthodox to treat the symptom as the cause, but nowadays the "symptom" is the cause!

a reply to: Astyanax

I second that statement

Geographical Borders.
Leaders get to be kings whilst the people argue internally all for a line drawn in the sand way before there time.
Continuing to squabble over the past rather than looking to make the future better.

The true enemy of mankind is the potential destructive ways all have within them

Some give way to hatred, fear and greed and divide themselves from what truly unites us

a reply to: guidetube
a reply to: artistpoet

Exactly

Yet there is so much to discover, so much to procted instead of destroying.

If only we could re-direct all the energy we waste in wars and use it instead to battle pollution, protect endangered species, build ecological settlements, implement free energy, mankind could leap a century forward.

Let's, for a moment, stop the blame game, let us stop finding more ways to divide ourselves. For thousands of years it didn't work. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein). Let's try something new: combine our intelligence, think up a better future - lay out the foundations for the utopia we have been promised in the 2000s by the sci-fi writers of old.

I know, some of us are dreamers. But the world sorely needs those.

I must gho now. Thank you all for reading.

a reply to: swanne

I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment and sentiment. To go a step further: The future survival of the world's peoples depends entirely upon such a conversion of resources: from weapons being the highest technological form, to tools of life support.

Both of your posts, guidetube and artistpoet, take a firm grip on the core aspect of the predicament: the unwillingness to let go of the past and forgive our brothers and sisters who've done us wrong. This does one great harm to the psyche and spirit for it generates an inner turmoil that translates into violent thoughts tendencies. Violent action which stems from this inner turmoil will only serve to plant the seeds of hate in others.

Take heart, friends. There is an anecdote told by Thich Nat Han about bringing waring factions together in friendship. He would invite Israelis and Palestinians to an event with food, but wouldn't tell either group the other would also be there. At first there is a flaring of anger and resentment, but soon, when they hear of how the other's are suffering, they realize they have more in common with one another and begin to see themselves in each other. The two groups leave the event as friends.