By William T. Hathaway for the Saker Blog
The wise men of the establishment are again telling us that hopes for lasting peace are a delusion. They declare that human nature makes it impossible, that war is built into our genes. They point to research by evolutionary biologists that indicates our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzees, make war. Therefore war must be part of our heredity.
“We’ve always had wars,” they claim. “Humans are a warring species. Without a military to defend us, someone will always try to conquer us.” These assumptions have become axioms of our culture. They generate despair but also a certain comfort because they relieve us of the responsibility to change.
It’s true that in certain situations chimpanzees do raid neighboring colonies and kill other chimps. Those studies on killer apes got enormous publicity because they implied that war is hardwired into human nature. Most scientists didn’t draw those conclusions from the evidence, but the establishment media kept reinforcing that message.
Further research, however, led to a key discovery: The chimps who invaded their neighbors were suffering from shrinking territory and food sources. They were struggling for survival. Groups with adequate resources didn’t raid other colonies. The aggression wasn’t a behavioral constant but was caused by the stress they were under. Their genes gave them the capacity for violence, but the stress factor had to be there to trigger it into combat. This new research showed that war is not inevitable but rather a function of the stress a society is under. Our biological nature doesn’t force us to war, it just gives us the potential for it. Without stress to provoke it, violence can remain one of the many unexpressed capacities our human evolution has given us. Studies by professors Douglas Fry, Frans de Waal, and Robert Sapolsky present the evidence for this.
Militarists point to history and say it’s just one war after another. But that’s the history only of our patriarchal civilization. The early matriarchal civilization of south-eastern Europe enjoyed centuries of peace. UCLA anthropologist Marija Gimbutas described the archaeological research in The Living Goddesses. No trace of warfare has been found in excavations of the Minoan, Harappa, and Caral cultures. Many of the Pacific islands were pacifistic. The ancient Vedic civilization of India had meditation techniques that preserved the peace, and those are being revived today to reduce stress in society.
Our society, though, has a deeply entrenched assumption that stress is essential to life. Many of our social and economic structures are based on conflict. Capitalism’s need for continually expanding profits generates stress in all of us. We’ve been indoctrinated to think this is normal and natural, but it’s really pathological. It damages life in ways we can barely perceive because they’re so built into us.
We don’t have to live this way. We can reduce the stress humanity suffers under. We can create a society that meets human needs and distributes the world’s resources more evenly. We can live at peace with one another. But that’s going to take basic changes.
These changes threaten the power holders of our society. Since capitalism is a predatory social and economic system, predatory personalities rise to power. They view the world through a lens of aggression. But it’s not merely a view. They really are surrounded by enemy competitors. So they believe this false axiom they are propagating that wars are inevitable.
In the past their predecessors defended their power by propagating other nonsense: kings had a divine right to rule us, Blacks were inferior to Whites, women should obey men. We’ve outgrown those humbugs, and we can outgrow this one.
William T. Hathaway is an emeritus Fulbright professor of American studies at universities in Germany. His new novel, Lila, the Revolutionary, is a fable for adults about an eight-year-old girl who sparks a world revolution for social justice.
Wow, that was an incredibly bad take. Especially the stuff about matriarchies. Women are not leaders, that’s the thing killing the gynocentric West.
Additionally, throughout history, female leaders, when normalized for the number of years that they are in power, get in wars MORE frequently than men do. Women may be more willing to negotiate, but less willing to make reasonable concessions.
Alternatively, women leaders are perceived as weak and ripe for conquest by aggressive males and thus forced into defensive wars merely to survive, e.g. Elizabethan England vs. Spain.
Yeah right, “defensive”. More of perfid albion’s black legend about Spain.
Nonsense. Read up on history and prehistory before you make such unsupportable statements.
The author left out major elements driving current global politics and war:
1. Massive cross-continental emigration of hostile peoples and cultures to the West in reaction to the depopulation of the West and its need for low-paid workers to support industry, farming, and menial jobs.
2. The massive population explosions in the rest of the world overtaxing their native countries’ ability to support the population growth; i.e. Nigeria, Congo, and Pakistan.
3. Global digital communication that has prepared the “Golden Calf” of Western industrialization and consumption for “slaughter” by spurring massive movements of peoples to the West to share in the spoils before it is too late.
This massive movement of hostile peoples and cultures driving the disappearance of Western peoples and cultures may prove comparable to similar movements circa 4,000 BC when the native cultures and populations of Spain and Britain mysteriously disappeared. Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, and the United States are particularly at risk.
Although I agree that a phenomenon observed in ape society should not draw into any conclusions about human society, studies had shown that war between chimbanzees was not due to lack of resouces or shrinking habitat – at the contrary, bloody wars were observed even in territories capable of sustaining double the population of the waring fractions!
Another argument against excusing human wars through analogies with the animal kingdom could have been the bonobo society: bonobos (aka pygmy chimpanzees) are living in pacifist societies with strong bonds between their members and minimum amount of violence. Both species (chimps & bonobos) are equally related to humans, so both ways of living can be attributed to us as inherited…
Author simplifies ….he forgets that waging war and chest pounding is a great tool maintaining power domestically.
Marija Gimbutas’ peaceful matriarchy is a myth. Weapons of war were as much part of Europe’s culture in the Neolithic as they were are any other time.
Modern day matriarchy… ALL of Africa.
Yes, the political top dogs are men… but almost all of the tribes in sub-saharan africa have matriarchal families…. the same as we see in modern, welfare funded American ghettos.
With all respect I would like to point out that Prof. M Gimbutas hypotheses regarding the social situation in a large part of prehistoric Europe is no longer considered valid by many of the present day archeologists.
An excellent article; thank you.
Liberals still believe the Hobbesian nonsense that we are all savages at heart and only remain peaceful from fear of legal consequences.
Because they fear their own citizens, it’s not surprising that they regard other peoples and cultures with fear and contempt.
We will not have a peaceful society until liberalism is eradicated.
“Capitalism’s need for continually expanding profits generates stress in all of us. We’ve been indoctrinated to think this is normal and natural, but it’s really pathological.”
I read “Das Kapital” in the 70s last century, translated of course, and it said the same…
Capitalism is BANKING, not manufacturing.
When a manufacturer needs capital, who does he go to first? BANKERS.
From what I can see, it is precisely this stress that the Americans are trying to create in the countries of Europe, leading a desperate population to face the Russians (who are already being described as the bad ones, responsible for world hunger and all the lack of energy for industry and home heating). Everything suggests that the goal of the US, completely bankrupt in its domineering messianism, is to lead to a life-or-death struggle between Europeans (NATO) and Russians. Another sordid propaganda campaign. Demons Never Rest.
As Jeanne Kirkpatrick wisely said after the fall of the Soviet Union, America needs to become a common nation among common nations.
Imagine if we had followed that course.
“In the past their predecessors defended their power by propagating other nonsense: kings had a divine right to rule us, Blacks were inferior to Whites, women should obey men. We’ve outgrown those humbugs, and we can outgrow this one.”
Whatever the lesser humbugs, the primary one is the psychopathic world system based on levels of direct and sublimated Nazism. Anyone still operating under this system, whatever race, sex etc., will act as psychopaths until the system itself is brought down, which ultimately is what “denazification” will have to mean if it’s not to be just a repetition of the post-WWII sham denazification (and how could that not have been a sham, since the western plutocracies themselves were nazistic, and for them WWII in Europe was a gangland turf war.
Meanwhile we see how “wokeness” is among other things the ultimate campaign to divide and conquer among the sheep while still keeping them within the psychopathic sheepfold.
Well, I certainly don’t think that the kumbaya, liberal approach has been any use at all in that regard. It is used as war propaganda now. Look at the Afghan occupation with all it’s George Floyd murals and pride flags. Not to mention its potential for civil war. Definitely not a recipe for peace. Thinking that it is, leads to conflict.
“We’ve outgrown those humbugs, and we can outgrow this one.” — The key is recognizing and outgrowing humbugs, is it not? Modern PR is designed to bury the masses under greater and greater amounts of humbug. Unless the individual’s power of discrimination is enhanced, PR wins.
Yes, the general peace may be possible once the West is conclusively defeated and entombed.
When your worldview is reduced to a hammer, every problem is a waiting nail. The West is a chameleon which has had countless transformations and justifications over the millennia, but its core Germanic foundation is a way of life based on permanent war and all it entails – external pillage, and the internal regimentation and self-delusion necessary to maintain this course generation after generation. So they have been relatively unchanged since Roman times, except they assumed the oversized glittering mantle of the Romans, and now know not when they are defeated. “People should know when they’re conquered.”
Perhaps when Operation Z is concluded, Russians will chisel this forgiving and diplomatic epitaph on their tombstone, “Groups with adequate resources didn’t raid other colonies.”
Western countries are currently de facto matriarchies, and we have become very warlike. Women are not great negotiators because it requires that each party take at least some small losses (and sometimes even big ones) and make concessions to the opponent in order to achieve balance and harmony, which is the road to peace. Women have a hard time letting go. This fact is as observable in neighbourly relations as it is at the level of countries. There are several foreign ministers and defense ministers who are women and they blow the horn for all-out war with no quarter given and no talking allowed.
In Canada well over 60% of the federal workforce is female (that is some serious equality right there), half of the cabinet are women by decree, the deputy prime minister is a woman and she doubles as the finance minister. Fancy that. And lastly, our minister of defense is a woman and our federal head of health is a woman and a foreign national. Our laws are designed to give women exclusive rights and protections and the family courts are tipped in favour of women. When a woman applies for a job, she gets to check a little box that says she is a woman, and lo and behold, she gets the job. There is no box for me to check. It is a matriarchy in terms of the water we are swimming in. Yeah OK, maybe men own the banks (I seriously doubt it’s as simple as that) but women control 80% of spending.
All matriarchies are conquered in short order. Russia is a patriarchy. So is China. Hmm.
Excellent exposé over the false notion of human nature claimed by the establishment.
Without William T. Hathaway’s insights we will fall prey to our false preachers.
With psychopaths and incompetents in positions of power, there is only a slim glimmer of peace; but, that is not to say it will never happen.
Human lost their animality a long time ago. He has become a sick animal without an ecological niche.
But modern man has also lost his spirituality. He has become a mere “thing”, probably an evolutionary error.
The war of men is not comparable to predation for food. Modern man kills out of wickedness (cf. Evil), a term
which does not apply to any other animal, vegetable or mineral species.
It is wickedness that generates wars and hatred. Everything else is Love (cf. God).
Of course, not all humans are evil (satanic) thank goodness. Take the example of Christ. He was above all a
revolutionary of the Peace and the Love in a society of hatred and war, a society which wanted to appropriate the Earth and its wealth.
Jesus that the law of men has
condemned and persecuted for his ideas until he was nailed like a wounded bird to prevent it from flying towards the voice of Truth, to prevent it
to express and teach his spirituality which could have uplifted humanity in a finally glorified and harmonious environment.
Ulfr: Quote: Take the example of Christ. He was above all a revolutionary of the Peace and the Love.
Doesn’t sound like ya’ read the bible much . . . . . here’s just a couple of woo-woo lines off the top of my head . . . and there’s Plenty more such stuff if you looked.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37
We must not confuse pacifism and passivity. In the same way we must not confuse the “drive” (like the pulsion to Eros or the pulsion of life) with aggressiveness.
In this context, the sword cannot be considered as a tool of war but as the symbol of the cosmic forces of Eros.
To deny Eros, to deny its deep impulses of the body and in its creative intelligence, but also on the spiritual level, that is to say in its relationship to God, is to deny the animal in us. He who is ashamed of the animal is ashamed of God. For God is in the animal as he is in man.
All this has nothing to do with war and the multiple crusades should be considered heresy
I am not the one in mental confusion/delusion.
Whatever Woo-Woo you want your mind to fabricate for you is find by me, so long as you keep it to yourself . . . . do not attempt to push these contorted mental gymnastics on my children or make rules in expectation of my compliance.
As to saying “oopsie daisy,” . . .’the multiple crusades should be considered heresy’ ~ this doesn’t do anything to “ameliorate” two millenia of slaughter.
Males are genetically programmed to compete for breeding rights. This is built into their DNA. The males of many mammalian species exhibit this behavior in mating rituals and fights. Females are genetically programmed to be caregivers and raise offspring. [here comes the woke crowd …]
Humans have the mental capacity (many of us, anyway) to deal with and compensate for this programming. Unfortunately the educational and especially value ($) systems do not recognize this and in many instances actually amplify this programming. In fact wealth accumulation (the monetary value system) and associated violent behaviors can be seen as a mirror of the aggressive behavior of silverbacks, bucks, and other animals competing for breeding rights.
Money is a particularly poor value system, the only thing it is good at measuring is itself.
People are herd oriented mammals, and in that group there are two different kinds of violence. Within the herd it is typically a fight for dominance. (fighting whether there is an in heat female around or not) Common for most species, if sufficiently submissive, the loser is tolerated. When it is not a fight for dominance within the group, the fight is usually with lethal intent.
Chimps are aggressive and dangerous. The ones you see in movies are juveniles because it isn’t safe to be around an adult.
This reminds me of Chatham Island off New Zealand. The inhabitants there were peaceful and preferred talking to resolve disputes. Then some war like Maori from New Zealand came to pay a visit, and the local populace stuck to their pacifist ways, sure that some sort of arrangement could be reached with the newcomers, all nice and civilized like. They got turned into long pig for their stupidity.
I think that Russia (yes Russia) can be seen as confirmation of his point. Russian society (especially Slavic Russian society) isn’t really a violent aggressive society. Certainly like all peoples there are exceptions to that rule. But we see the humaneness shown by the common soldier Russian in Ukraine. And not just in Ukraine either. And the common expressions used in Russia about “peaceful people,etc”. Some account for that with expressions like “Russian soul”,I can’t say about that. I just can say that I don’t see a common wide ranging “macho culture” in Russia that I see in many other countries. The fact that people (especially women) can walk the streets of cities at all hours without anywhere the troubles they would face in many other parts of the world are another confirmation of that to me.Another sign of that as well is (compared to many others) the lack of common police violence reported in Russia. Corruption might be another matter I really can’t comment on. But Russians don’t seem to have the fear of the police that are common in many other nations.
Russian corruption is both misunderstood and overstated. Most government functionaries receive little or no salary. They are EXPECTED to make their living off of payments for services. To the west, this sounds like bribery, but it really isn’t. It’s just that they aren’t getting paid by the general public who doesn’t need their services, only those individuals who do.
This has the added benefit of naturally reducing the number of bureaucrats to the actual level necessary, because if there are too many bureaucrats doing the same thing in the same city, few or none of them make enough money to live, so some will drop out of the government business and go back to the private sector, because in Russia, just because you’re a government official doesn’t mean that you’re going to get paid a steady paycheck. It’s much more like sales. Base + commission or even pure commission.
That is I’m afraid the same excuse used in much of Latin America. And their citizens and Russian citizens don’t think highly of it when it strikes them. One form of corruption can easily lead to another. Along the lines of the old saying, “a little bit pregnant”.
Yeah, the United States promulgates all the wars because we’re “under stress” because there’s not enough wealth/opportunity/food/freedom here, and…….although clean water is plentiful, there is no Valium in it. We’re just at our wit’s end all the time.
What a croc.
Is lasting peace possible? Only when we realize that we have relinquished rulership to Satanic forces!
Don’t laugh – start with this link –
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2022/06/america-we-have-chosen-this-path.html?m=0 – follow the train of thought and after reading all the linked articles written by a variety of authors that I connected……draw your own conclusions.
But watch out for your presumptuous presuppositions……..we all have them and I admit it took me a while to see mine.
His writing is full of clichés and clichés. Human beings are not animals. God created us in His Image and Likeness, He gave us a soul and intelligence.
Evolutionary biologists make a living studying what they can never prove…good business. Using Gimbutas (full of nebulous hypotheses as always) to say that from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age we were all pacifists…well, we have Homer and the Exodus of God’s people going around around those dates.
Finally, America is a little piece of the Americas.
“Is lasting peace possible?”
“They declare that human nature makes it impossible, that war is built into our genes.”
War in its various forms not restricted to things that go bang are derivatives of competition which is a form of interaction precluding sole agency, and hence “they” declare in a different form – there is no alternative to a construct which never existed – in contradiction to anthropological, archeological and historical research, which “they” hope will be believed by some as function of “dumbing down” from 1970 onwards, and some others through emulation, thereby “proving” the hypothesis in the short-term that lasting peace is not possible, thereby hoping to encourage belief and/or emulation by others, in hope of limiting change to linear modulation.
Strategies are in some regard functions of purposes, one of “they’s” purposes is to attempt to limit change in an environment where lateral change is a constant through interactions of multi-agencies, whose variables include but are not limited to, trajectories and velocities, to linear modulation by limiting the agency of others, and by doing so as an “unforeseen consequence”, re-iterate the experiences of some whom are afforded opportunities to consider/re-consider their experiences and evaluate whether their experiences are acceptable, consider the hypothesis that lasting peace is impossible, and join with others to transcend the coercive social relations which require continual war (attempts of coercion) in various forms to be sustainable, which may require a reducing emulation in the short term, thereby transcending through various velocities and trajectories the hypothesis that lasting peace is not possible.
That lateral process has been ongoing through varying velocities and trajectories from at least 1969, by an increasing sum of some whom understood that the transcendence of “The Soviet Union” by The Russian Federation also simultaneously facilitated opportunities for the transcendence of “The United States of America” with the complicity of both “the Soviet Union” and “The United States of America” as “force multipliers”, which some of “they” still do not perceive as “plausible belief” since they are primarily “informed by belief” not rigorous analysis as a function of their purposes – including but not limited to “We won the Cold War”.
If Russia wants lasting peace it will have to invade DC and remove the Ukrainian Khaazars who rule America from power and put someone loyal to Russia in charge. i.e. it will have to do the regime change thing America loves to do to America itself in order to have lasting peace.
This silly, intellectually vapid essay is full of holes. The chimp studies are far more nuanced than the author cares to tell us. This is an lazy renovation of the Noble Savage theory using primates studies (distorting what they tell us) as a foundation. Bah humbug.
Homo Sapiens Sapien has deeply engrained warlike tendencies as well as deeply engrained peace making and cooperative tendencies. Armies and diplomats have always existed. Likewise, we have deeply engrained fantasy-denial tendencies and deeply engrained reality-orientation tendencies. This essay is fantasy. Bah humbug.
wow…a decent article making cogent points and suddenly the comment section turns into vdare and unz.
for anyone who isn’t a scum right NPC i’d recommend evola’s “metaphysics of war”. seeing as he actually lived through and suffered from two world wars i’d say he knew of which he spoke.
war is materialist. eradicate materialism to whatever degree possible (we obviously won’t see eating, sleeping or sex go away anytime soon) and suddenly there’s no reason to kill for land and resources since they only “belong” to whomever used brute force at the correct point in history. as for the predictable “derp womun cant be leeders durrrrrrrr” spam; how have all the male “leaders” been doing for the past several centuries? it takes a special kind of brainlessness to complain constantly about the evil machinations of ______ (WASP guys, jewish guys, masonic guys, black guys) but then turn around and say “at leest they arnt womun durrr”.
see also: jiang qing. you can argue about her motives and methods but she had a charisma most EU yuppies only dream of.
All you have to do is compare the actions and attitudes of all the females in leadership roles in the collective West versus the men in leadership roles in Russia, China, India, Pakistan . . . I could go on. So just go ahead and compare them, and you will see what the problem is.
Sure, women can be leaders. That has happened, but a society that advances people based on box checking (identity, if you prefer) will get mostly strivers and psychopaths who know how to navigate a system which is set up to benefit them. We see the results of that now. At a meta level this was, I believe, by design, but that is another topic.
As for how our leaders performed in previous centuries, they were a hell of a lot better than this. Sure, the men in power are no better, Trudeau and Johnson are weaklings, but they were not drawn from among the natural leadership of the nations.
In support of the author I would cite Graeber & Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, which lays out a powerful case in support of the argument.
Where I would disagree is:
“Since capitalism is a predatory social and economic system, predatory personalities rise to power. They view the world through a lens of aggression. But it’s not merely a view. They really are surrounded by enemy competitors. So they believe this false axiom they are propagating that wars are inevitable.”
This is only true if you ignore Russia and China’s oft-repeated and invariably ignored statements in favor of cooperation, agreement, partnerships, self-determination and peaceful international relations.
One name, Smedley Butler, hired muscle!
The program to make Artificial countries cobbled together from different cultures, religions,values, history,… must be stopped. The US is such a chimera, and so is Ukraine, which is a Frankenstein monster of East and West. Russia seems to understand how to manage such an arrangement with Chechnya, but it must be done giving the constituent parts cultural autonomy, and not as a lever which invites in a foreign power and tries to destroy the host. Usually such carelessly assembled countries fly apart – eventually anyway, and it takes a great deal of wisdom to keep this from happening. Cantonization can work as in Switzerland. The US is about ready to fly apart. After the civil war, a clumsy attempt was made at federalism but was done in bad faith and vindictive at it’s core.
Short answer: no.
The book “War, Peace, and Human Nature – The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views” published 2013 and edited by Douglas P. Frey is a tour-de-force collection of research on the topic. Bottom line: genetics does not predispose aggressive behavior, but offers a path as well to peaceful resolution of conflicts in both humans and primates.
The trend since the agricultural revolution towards ever increasing war and aggression is a cultural development. A reason pre-agricultural revolution social groups did not wage war was that aggressive males who violated norms against theft, violence, or rape were either exiled or killed.
The recorded “his”tory of hu”man”ity is primarily a collection of stories written by men of patriarchic societies warring against each other for resources upon which agricultural societies depended upon for their existence: food, minerals, goods, slaves, and women. An excellent reference on the subject is “Against The Grain” by James C. Scott published 2017.
The conundrum of “civilization” is that to protect resources, a given society needs to employ violent males to protect itself from other societies employing and run by similar violent males to steal and kill stuff that didn’t belong to them. Everyone winds up under their thumb. Fast forward to today, and here we are, still under their control.
In the US, mass murders – committed nearly universally by violent males – is a recent phenomenon. The cultural underpinnings to the rise of male hate and violence can be linked to the loss of access to resources – primarily jobs but also social safety nets. In the US, men have been betrayed by the promises made – and kept for a short time after WWII as in my family – to be able to afford to buy a home, raise a family on a single income, and retire on a decent pension, all of which have evaporated under bi-partisan action. A well documented reference on this topic is “Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man – The Roots of Modern Male Rage” by Susan Faludi published 2000.
” to protect resources ”
The “requirement” to protect resources are functions of competition which require forms of coercion, and is transcended by sharing through co-operation.
“War in its various forms not restricted to things that go bang are derivatives of competition which is a form of interaction precluding sole agency, and hence “they” declare in a different form – there is no alternative to a construct which never existed”
Competition also limits/precludes co-operation “and hence “they” declare in a different form – there is no alternative to a construct which never existed” – the construct which never existed being “human nature”, an attempt to posit the static existence of homogenous aggregates to deny time inherent in “there is no alternative” in emulation of Mr. Cnut trying to control the waves.
” competition which is a form of interaction precluding sole agency”
requires various forms of divide and rule to facilitate coercion, including simultaneously “patriarchy” and “feminism”, the interaction of which presently sustains coercive social relations through emulation/replication.
Coercive social relations are saturated with, and floated upon, forms of divide and rule, and hence the strategies of some which are also derived from their purposes, are not informed by losing/winning but by transcendence – lateral processes of transcendence of coercive social relations by mutually beneficial co-operative social relations, facilitated with the complicity of coercive social relations in their own transcendence through iterations of win/lose, “war”, competition, belief in “human nature” and other imagined “static existences of homogenous aggregates” to deny time,and assumptions including within methods including “big data” with contingent reliance on short answers in obfuscation by omission.
“Is lasting peace possible ? Short answer: no.”
Spectators often ponder and project various derivatives/interpretations of what is, whilst some practitioners often ponder how can lasting peace be facilitated, sometimes rendered as “How to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback ?” which their opponents continually attempt to frustrate – the present “strategies” of “The United States of America” and components therein, including but not restricted to NATO and Ukraine offer illustration.
A current hypothesis upon which various strategies have been implemented since at least 1969 facilitating modica of transcendence, suggest that lasting peace could be possible only through transcendence of emulative coercive social relations presently sustaining “The United States of America” and previously sustaining within contradictions thereby facilitating the transcendence of “The Soviet Union”, which since “The Soviet Union” never posed an existential threat through emulation to “The United States of America”, the emulation of some forms continuing in the vectors/ideological constructs/chrysalises chosen/implemented and contingent opportunities facilitated in early trajectories from 1991 until 2000 in the lateral process of the ongoing transcendence of “The Soviet Union” by The Russian Federation,simultaneously facilitating through related trajectories and velocities, the ongoing lateral parallel processes of transcendence of “The United States of America” by The Russian Federation, the perception of which was restricted to few, partly as a function of the conflation by others of – an answer/the answer.
“The Soviet Union” by “virtue” of emulation, was never perceived to pose an existential threat to “The United States of America” even during “The Cuban missile crisis”; that narrative was primarily for “the little people”, whilst “The United States of America” presently attempts/wishes to restrict The People’s Republic of China and The Russian Federation as posing an existential threat, thereby attempting to obfuscate that, as a function of opportunities facilitated, much of the world poses an existential threat to “The United States of America” which poses an existential threat to most of the world, including “The United States of America.”
The above contribute to, but do not fully illuminate, the reasons for the present hysterias enveloping some who are not pondering “How to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback?”
“Evolution” is a complete hoax, invented to soothe atheists. No kind of living thing “evolved” from any other. Dogs, in all their sizes and shapes, are dogs and cats are cats and cows are cows, not whales, always have been and always will be.
Apes and mechanical zoology, as a frame for interpreting complex human phaenomena?
This incredible nonsense has to be cleared, sooner or later.
There is a very serious and distinct difference between human and animal (all of them) – and it is justice. Humans have the inherent ability to perceive justice, animals know it not.
It is normal for animals to be unjust to one another, for justice is absent from their nature, but for humans it is there. It is possible to know right from wrong, right from unjust.
All wars can be explained and understood from the viewpoint of justice, or injustice.
And there is no just war except in defense.
Great points about human behaviour, in my view.
Canadian PM Lester Pearson seemed to reach the same conclusions based on life long experience rather than the scientific method, per se.
Understanding the nature of conflict leads to peace.
Lester B. Pearson
We must keep on trying to solve problems, one by one, stage by stage, if not on the basis of confidence and cooperation, at least on that of mutual toleration and self-interest.
Lester B. Pearson
Today continuing poverty and distress are a deeper and more important cause of international tensions, of the conditions that can produce war, than previously.
Lester B. Pearson
Desperation is the mother of war. When Putin undertook his special military operation, he wouldn’t say war, but he did speak of desperation about Russian security.
But pride, conceit and greed also play great parts.
1 Timothy 6:6-10 (KJV) 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into [this] world, [and it is] certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
“Desperation is the mother of war.
When Putin undertook his special military operation, he wouldn’t say war, but he did speak of desperation about Russian security.”
Whilst all of the above is a function of interpretation.
There’s dropping small yellow cluster bombs, which is not motivated by desperation, but rather driven by power and complacency.
The B-52 bomber crews were not desperate so you have a point. Sometimes they do it just because they have that power and a target. It’s like being gods.
So you have a point, but on the ground level of mere mortals, I believe mother looks a lot like desperation.
” I believe mother looks a lot like desperation.”
Thank you for your further confirmation of your reliance on belief and interpretation.