No Peace.

"Holding on to anger is like holding a hot coal in your hand with the intention of throwing it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned."

^ Philosophical garbage from some eastern meditationist.

Before assumptions are made, the 'eastern meditationist' part of what I said isn't what makes me qualify it as garbage. It is the content of the quote, and the passifistic whining it represents. Because moreso then the banal simpering of Plato or Socrates, or any other turtle domed* philosopher out there, there has been one thing that has driven society..

War.

Thats right. War. It is irrational to believe that humans aren't bred for war, and disproved by the whole of recorded history. At no point have a nation or people prospered without conquest, and conversely no people who refrained have ever been anything but waiting territory. Another quote, which I find far more fitting for the world that we all wake up to in the morning..

"Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will only use them to serve those who did not"

- From someone, somewhere, at a time and near a place.


Consider for a moment the Gallic peoples, the Normans, the Amerindian, Pacific Islanders, the Huns, the Vikings, and a laundry list of other groups and cultures. None had the overreaching conspiracy, or a looming 'new world order' to guide their paths. They conquered because it is human nature. Because, should any of you dare to live the life that YOU want to live and not one hemmed and hawed upon by old philosophs, you will find yourself feeling far livelier then you ever did reading yourself to sleep with Nostradamus.

Consider Richard the Lionheart in his prime, battle axe in hand. Now imagine whimpish, pallid philosopher scrawling down his latest thought. Which do you think is leading a life of joy, and which do you think is filling their heart and soul with a pale imitation of what life is meant to be? But perhaps cowardice, delusional grandeur, pedophilia, and physical abnormality is what makes men into philosophers. Should Plato have been born of larger build and firmer heart, he may well have been a great general. Perhaps even an emperor. But his womanly build and penchant for young boys rendered him an incapable leader.. And thus he became a philosopher.

Some who preach philosophy do so out of genuine good will.. And others use it as a shield to excuse themselves for being unable or unwilling to physically defend themselves in the slightest capacity. To these disingenuous individuals, who would more likely then not be brave enough to say something back if they were carrying a firearm, I tell you to stop reading. If you feel offended or described by the above statement, say so in your post, and I will specifically not reply to you.

For those philosophers out there, I ask a simple question. If human beings were capable of living in peace, why is it that at no point in recorded history there hasn't been a society lead, dominated, or had its norms enforced by violence? And why is it that peoples removed from all governing or law are by and large more prone to violence then people kept on legal 'leashes'?

We will only have peace when we have one gender, for those who do not think this will happen, have no imagination what so ever. You also have no clue what discoveries and science knowledge of the benefits of one gender will bring.

On peace, how can you have peace when we are different and people are taught game theory of wanting everything someone else has.

America is a country for example, that has no understanding of passive males.

reply to post by andy1033


IF we were ALL the same race, the same religion and had the same upbringing, we would all see ourselves as the SAME. As ONE.
What that requires is a conquerer to conquer ALL nations, wipe out whole civilisations and belief systems, wipe out whole races and then allow TIME to pass so that the conquest is in our history books.
Example, we don't view as a 'big deal' the demise of the neanderthal, why? Because it happened long long ago.
I know it sounds real real bad, but, say the Germans had won WW2, and subsequently turned on the Asians, the Africans, Mexicans, Arabs etc and whittled the races down so that only the Aryans were left. Then enforced laws that ensured we were all 'raised' with the same belief systems, moral systems etc, and this continued for, say, two thousand or five thousand years. The people of that future would not view the war/genocide as a 'bad' thing. They would view it as a triumph like we view our triumph over the neanderthal (bad example I know but I'm thinking on my feet here). Maybe then, when we're all the same, we could have peace.
Just a thought.

P.S. Don't flame me for trivialising the holocaust, I do't mean to offend. Just using that war as an example beacuse that German leader had those types of ideas in mind when he set about doing what he did.

those who preach of the nobility of war have probably never been in one.

your conception of war is the same as the conception a fifteen year old has of sex because he watched some porn. richard the lionheart with axe in hand

we'ld all be richard, on his horse, in armor, surrounded by our elite guard on a well defended hill top issuing orders.

who'ld be the conscript that hasn't eaten in three days, lost his blanket last week and is nearly passing out on his feet from dysentery watching a thousand well fed muslims rushing across a plain towards him with murder on their minds?

Originally posted by cannibalman
reply to post by andy1033

 

IF we were ALL the same race, the same religion and had the same upbringing, we would all see ourselves as the SAME. As ONE.
What that requires is a conquerer to conquer ALL nations, wipe out whole civilisations and belief systems, wipe out whole races and then allow TIME to pass so that the conquest is in our history books.
Example, we don't view as a 'big deal' the demise of the neanderthal, why? Because it happened long long ago.
I know it sounds real real bad, but, say the Germans had won WW2, and subsequently turned on the Asians, the Africans, Mexicans, Arabs etc and whittled the races down so that only the Aryans were left. Then enforced laws that ensured we were all 'raised' with the same belief systems, moral systems etc, and this continued for, say, two thousand or five thousand years. The people of that future would not view the war/genocide as a 'bad' thing. They would view it as a triumph like we view our triumph over the neanderthal (bad example I know but I'm thinking on my feet here). Maybe then, when we're all the same, we could have peace.
Just a thought.

P.S. Don't flame me for trivialising the holocaust, I do't mean to offend. Just using that war as an example beacuse that German leader had those types of ideas in mind when he set about doing what he did.

Doubtful. As long as there is land there is inequality and as long as there is religion there is hierarchy and rebellion. How long would it last before someone did not believe what their parents did? How long would it take before someone created their own religion? How long before new distinctions were concentrated on? For example, if you go to a Catholic school where everyon ewears uniforms and is the 'same' dress code and religion -you will find people trying to be different in other ways. Kilts being pinned in different directions to have meaning, short kilts long kilts to have meaning of who is cool and who is a nerd, who can afford the most uniforms and who wears the same shirt each day-to find out who is poor and who isn't. There's always ways to start segregation and always a reason to start war and fights.

The holocaust wasn't the only example...Argentina had what is known as the 'dirty war' hidden from the public for a long time-as this event is pretty recent (the 50's i think). Creative thinkers, people who thought differently than the majority, those who were volunteers helping the poor-all slaughtered/disapeared. They wanted to keep a certain ideology. It didn't work though.

Originally posted by pieman
those who preach of the nobility of war have probably never been in one.

Nobility nothing. War is nasty business, and it being built into human nature is just one of those ugly parts of the world. It would be nice if tigers were cuddly, you could pet pandas and dolphins didn't murder things for the fun of it.. But those things aren't true, just as humans aren't meant to live a life of study and being locked away in libraries and halls. Assuming that human beings are naturally peaceful is as ridiculous an assumption as assuming any other animal is. And, like with humans, the only animals that don't violently react to unwanted company are the only ones who can't.. The turtles, the sheep (lol), and other lame critters that are put on the earth as food. And if put into nature, without the coddlings of society, I would be willing to bet that the apathetic, limping philosophers would become just that.

your conception of war is the same as the conception a fifteen year old has of sex because he watched some porn. richard the lionheart with axe in hand

we'ld all be richard, on his horse, in armor, surrounded by our elite guard on a well defended hill top issuing orders.

who'ld be the conscript that hasn't eaten in three days, lost his blanket last week and is nearly passing out on his feet from dysentery watching a thousand well fed muslims rushing across a plain towards him with murder on their minds?

The same guys who are well fed, rushing across streets to fight sickly and disenfranchised muslims today. That sick, starving conscript would have probably been sick and starving at home had he not been sent to war..

Of course King Richard isn't going into battle. He's the fraggin' king. Of course the conscripts are diseased and malnourished, their medieval peasants. Do you expect them going to war to upheave the entire dynamic of their entire society? The disparity you mentioned extended to the almost the entirety of 'civilized' Europe, whether in a status of war or otherwise.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Jackboot.Heel]

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
The disparity you mentioned extended to the almost the entirety of 'civilized' Europe, whether in a status of war or otherwise.

well yeah, but my point was that richard may well have been having the time of his life, but generally, people in wars ain't having fun.

there's a reason that you don't see many people who have the means to avoid it going to front line combat.

war is hell.

EDIT: but hey, don't let me stop you, it's not s if the armies of the world ever has enough idealistic and dedicated cannon fodder. the governments of the world will send anyone who's willing to war, except their own sons and daughters, of course. if you think it's so great, try it out for size, i'll pray it doesn't cost you your life while i continue to hope for peace.



[edit on 27/11/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
The disparity you mentioned extended to the almost the entirety of 'civilized' Europe, whether in a status of war or otherwise.

well yeah, but my point was that richard may well have been having the time of his life, but generally, people in wars ain't having fun.

there's a reason that you don't see many people who have the means to avoid it going to front line combat.

war is hell.

I'm not arguing that its noble or anything just, but war and war alone is what keeps the gears of society turning. If Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser and every other general in history had been an artist, a poet, an actor, or anything but what they were.. Where would we be today? Would anyone have left their home countries, or would they have whiled away in stone huts and sacrificed livestock to pagan gods?

Imagine if no one had possessed the fortitude to conquer the new world, or even conquer their neighbors.. We would have stagnated literally thousands of years ago.

My reply is a question...

What are you doing posting on an internet forum? Shouldn't you be in a middle east country fighting a war?

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
For those philosophers out there, I ask a simple question. If human beings were capable of living in peace, why is it that at no point in recorded history there hasn't been a society lead, dominated, or had its norms enforced by violence?

Because we haven't as yet learnt how to. We will or we will all die.

Man is not violent by nature, he is violent by necessity, it is an evolved tool of survival. Those that create wars exploit this to get men to fight their 'foes' for them, they invent the laws and therefore the necessity.

Modern wars are fought by professional soldiers, trained and indoctrinated to remotely murder their fellow man. They have to be, because it is very difficult to kill someone, assuming that you are not in some way mentally impaired, if you do not have to do it to protect yourself or your own. Modern warfare is seldom about hand to hand combat and there is nothing even remotely glorious about it.

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
And why is it that peoples removed from all governing or law are by and large more prone to violence then people kept on legal 'leashes'?

Because laws are false morals. Reliance on laws to maintain norms and values, a sense of right and wrong, will inevitably lead to those norms being rejected along with the leadership if it fails or is lost, for example the anarchy that marked the disintegration of the Weimar Republic. The more martial the culture, the more marked the disintegration will be.

Of course I shouldn't. No one should.

Your being pretentious to think all war is good war. Spring water can be refreshing, drinking out of the Jersey River could kill you on the spot. Not all wars are created equal, my friend.

reply to post by Jackboot.Heel


You've misunderstood.
No war is "good" war.

Originally posted by shamhat

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
For those philosophers out there, I ask a simple question. If human beings were capable of living in peace, why is it that at no point in recorded history there hasn't been a society lead, dominated, or had its norms enforced by violence?

Because we haven't as yet learnt how to. We will or we will all die.

Man is not violent by nature, he is violent by necessity, it is an evolved tool of survival. Those that create wars exploit this to get men to fight their 'foes' for them, they invent the laws and therefore the necessity.

I do not think we will all die. Certainly the stakes are higher now then at any point in known history, but humanity dying by way of war is just foolishness spread out during the cold war. The countries that are capable of starting a major nuclear exchange aren't going to, and the only ones willing to use a nuclear weapon are going to stand out like sore thumbs. Mutually assured destruction assumes an exchange between superpowers, which isn't happening. A single or even pair used by a small, unimportant country on its neighbors isn't going to start the MAD scheme.

I only assume you mean nuclear war as the way for war to end us all, since the entire population dying by way of conventional warfare would have happened by now if it was even feasible.

Modern wars are fought by professional soldiers, trained and indoctrinated to remotely murder their fellow man. They have to be, because it is very difficult to kill someone, assuming that you are not in some way mentally impaired, if you do not have to do it to protect yourself or your own. Modern warfare is seldom about hand to hand combat and there is nothing even remotely glorious about it.

War was never glorious. Ever. Not when he it was neanderthals splitting eachother at the skull with sharp rocks or olive drab boughboys hitting Normandy with their M1's in hand. The system we have now, of a standing professional military and conscripted civilians as filler, isn't new or unique to history.

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
And why is it that peoples removed from all governing or law are by and large more prone to violence then people kept on legal 'leashes'?

Because laws are false morals. Reliance on laws to maintain norms and values, a sense of right and wrong, will inevitably lead to those norms being rejected along with the leadership if it fails or is lost, for example the anarchy that marked the disintegration of the Weimar Republic. The more martial the culture, the more marked the disintegration will be.

Surely you aren't saying you think laws are completely worthless? A group of people declaring something to be downright dastardly and setting a fixed punishment for it is a bad thing? Laws are an extension of the norms and values of a people, not the other way around.

reply to post by jitter


'Good' is a relative term. Everything has its hierarchies. For example, having your hand set aflame is 'good' compared to having your genitalia immolated.

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
I do not think we will all die. Certainly the stakes are higher now then at any point in known history, but humanity dying by way of war is just foolishness spread out during the cold war.

I never said that we would die as a species as a result of war, we will die unless we learn to live in peace.

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
War was never glorious. Ever. Not when he it was neanderthals splitting eachother at the skull with sharp rocks or olive drab boughboys hitting Normandy with their M1's in hand. The system we have now, of a standing professional military and conscripted civilians as filler, isn't new or unique to history.

Neaderthals knocking each other about with rocks is not war, that's more likely to have been a result of a fecund looking Spring. Professional armies have indeed existed since the Crusades, more or less, and that is why the Crusades are seen as the beginning of modern warfare, when the soldier was rewarded for service, rather than merely defending one's own home.

Originally posted by Jackboot.Heel
Surely you aren't saying you think laws are completely worthless? A group of people declaring something to be downright dastardly and setting a fixed punishment for it is a bad thing? Laws are an extension of the norms and values of a people, not the other way around.

Laws are the enforcement of the norms and values of one group of people over a wider group of people. Self-governance is preferable, but some laws are admittedly necessary to contend with severe deviancy...but then it depends very much on what you consider deviant. Admittedly though, given the current state of society, I wouldn't be too chuffed living without those constraints to protect me, doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer greater autonomy myself. There are better ways of doing things, but those ways are currently or foreseeably impossible. I remain optimistic though.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by shamhat]

reply to post by Jackboot.Heel


Belize thrives and they have not been to war, the past of that particular area might be different, but atleast there is a country out there that is economically sound and hasn't been to war...

Originally posted by cannibalman
reply to post by andy1033

 

IF we were ALL the same race, the same religion and had the same upbringing, we would all see ourselves as the SAME. As ONE.
What that requires is a conquerer to conquer ALL nations, wipe out whole civilisations and belief systems, wipe out whole races and then allow TIME to pass so that the conquest is in our history books.

I know it sounds real real bad, but, say the Germans had won WW2, and subsequently turned on the Asians, the Africans, Mexicans, Arabs etc and whittled the races down so that only the Aryans were left.

The people of that future would not view the war/genocide as a 'bad' thing. They would view it as a triumph like we view our triumph over the neanderthal (bad example I know but I'm thinking on my feet here). Maybe then, when we're all the same, we could have peace.

Just a thought.

No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it so called humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit,will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by RRokkyy]

Humans by and large are a product of their environment and circumstances. Humans for the most part have their environments and circumstances manipulated and provided to them by governmental, religious and familiar institutions.

Humans are only capable of utilizing the tools that have been given to them or in some cases forced upon them.

It is rigid societal control and brainwashing at a fundamental core level that forges the perspective that most people share in most endeavors including wars.

You are right OP that humans have been bred for war, but you have failed to ask why they have been bred for war.

The reality is humans could be bred and taught to believe in and conduct a wide range of activities and goals excluding war and they would exclude war if the concepts and notions of it weren’t taught to them and bred into them as an acceptable alternative to settle arguments that mostly revolve around the hording of resources.

Some people have been more completely brainwashed than others but the reality is what is inherent in the animal kingdom and nature from which we spring in regards to violence for self preservation and propagation based on immediate and not preplanned need does lead to the concept of organized warfare.

Hording and communal collectivization and then the protecting of those resources or the addition to those resources are what lead to organized war.

Hording and communal collectivization are not natural occurrences within the animal kingdom either beyond small familiar or tribal units.

Religion and religious disagreements which often are used as pretexts for waging war by the oligarchs that horde and organize communal collectivization for power, control and prestige are likewise not natural to the animal kingdom either.

In fact all these things are programmed in us and instilled in us as a form of control and brainwashing by a relatively small group of humans who benefit most from hording and communal collectivization and the selective distribution and subsequent artificially created scarcity of resources this process engenders and entails.

They could just as easily be programmed out of us should that small group of rulers wish too or if enough of the highly conditioned and brainwashed masses rejected their programming for the path to ruin it truly is as opposed to the path to power and glory they imagine it becomes.

You are correct that humans are bred for war, you are wrong that it is a natural thing for any species.

In fact looking around at the rest of the animal kingdom one might be inclined to question based on the state of the world human intelligence has wrought just how intelligent humans in fact aren’t in their dubious distinction of being the so called ‘intelligent’ species.

Things like genocide, trench warfare, and violence as a means to solve disputes are the epitome of stupidity not intelligence.

As already stated, it is the gender war that breeds physical war. Male human animals self-identify as men, and NOT women or spirit. Female human animals self-identify as women, and NOT men or spirit. This necessitates that one be the logical dominant, while the other is the emotional dominant. "Woman" weaves a drama, ringing a bell so that man might be a character to resolve her drama. Man logically commands woman, trying to keep her in check, all to make sure that either the drama is woven in his favor or for the perceived benefit of all. In this hyper-sexualized society in which we live, it is the natural order for women to be ruthless, manipulative, web-weaving, man-eating and virtuous woman-eating black widows. Total C word. It is natural for men in this drama to be ruthless, dominating, controlling commanders. Both are filled with vainglory, trying to project their images across society as if they are God, smearing their poo like monkeys. Plus, to top it off, "Yahweh" is socially unacceptable for many at this point. "Satan" is perfectly acceptable, and is prancing around maniacally. This is an obvious lack of balance, so eventually "Yahweh" must put "Satan" in its place. Hopefully, at that point, the two kill each other, killing the war, domination and manipulation, divide and conquer, master and slave order with it. Many of us have been selfish, because we could have ended this circular drama, albeit one with occasional role-swapping, long ago if we did not go the easy path of least resistance. Belief in the false image, fear, pride, vanity, narcissism, lust: This sequence leads to slavery, as it sticks us on our binary cord, the reptilian brain. It creates the split, the schism, the dynamic of a society filled with controlling schizophrenics seeking vainglory. (I am not talking about those diagnosed, BTW. I think, ironically, that those diagnosed tried to understand the split.) This all makes us quite easy to program, and we can be quite addicted to our programming (although we can choose to unravel addiction at any time). But when one becomes unbearably hollow, one starts the path to free both self and others from this hell we have created. Peace.

reply to post by RRokkyy


So when are we enough like "God," or rather "THE OMNIPOTENT BEAST," to end hell on earth. If the hell makes us more capable, what is the point of being more capable in hell? Eternal hell? I think not. Nature has a way of correcting such folly. Besides, every story has an end, and I think the story of hell on Earth is fast ending. Some people perceive a benefit from this order, and, for them, there is that ominous je ne sais quoi in the air, so they are not going down without a giant temper tantrum. It is my view that the animal alphas are in free fall, while the spiritual alphas are rising to the occasion. Of course it is only in my opinion. But it is also my opinion that my opinion is very close to the center of the "O," if you catch my drift. I think that I am not "missing the mark," so to speak. BTW, I understand that the word sin means "missing the mark."