Posts by David Bennett53

Linda Hughes88 said:Yeah, look, wars actually started with corporations. Before all that, there weren't even real wars—you know, those massive Greco-Persian conflicts, the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, or even the Hundred Years' War... those were all just corporate fabrications.
oil is obviously just a manufactured necessity because, honestly, what kid is gonna choose driving a car, taking a train, or flying in a plane when you could just use carriages and horses? It's the exact same thing, really... we shouldn't be using combines or tractors or any of that heavy machinery instead of just relying on good old Sherrill to pull everything along while dropping some organic fertilizer so we don't have to deal with artificial stuff. 😵

Back in the day, wars were fought over living space, but today they are fought exclusively for resources needed by corporations to expand. Back then, these massive financial and military powers hadn't even formed yet, so clearly, they couldn't have been corporate!

If this doesn't apply just to modern times, look at the Opium Wars. That happened after the Chinese man tried to ban opium and got in the way of British monetary interests (which is where the roots of corporate thinking actually lie). Those wars crushed the uprising in blood, and in the 19th century, it established the Saasoon family as the rulers of the opium trade in Taiwan, effectively screwing over the Chinese people and establishing the world's first true drug corporation. Later, in 1915, Saasoon married Alan Rothschild (it's pretty obvious how they knew the Saasoons were smuggling opium
🤣) and thus—by some strange coincidence, I guess 🤣—the biggest drug smugglers merged with the greatest financial power in the world.

Over several hundred years of draining billions from China through opium, most of the British nobility and lords earned their titles specifically through the opium trade.

So much for the idea that historical wars "weren't corporate at all.".

As for oil, it's perhaps the dirtiest energy source imaginable. It was conceptualized right when Tesla and Murray were already experimenting intensely with free, clean energy. But that didn't suit the banking interests of the major energy mogul, J. P. Morgan. So, Tesla missed his chance to give the world clean energy, and Murray's lab was destroyed just to ensure the future of oil—meaning the bankers and investors—wasn't called into question.

There's that much regarding how "perfect" an energy source like oil isn't "artificial."

It's not a conspiracy to me; it's just good old dirty economics.

Nancy Chase2 said:It exists; it’s the concept of necessity.

Necessity, or perhaps the mere illusion that certain things are indispensable to us. At the peak of this hierarchy sits survival—the absolute essentials without which we simply cease to be: water, food, oxygen. Once those are secured, you have a cascading list of secondary "necessities," things like clothing, shelter, personal space, security, control, oil, companionship, progress, and so on.

Flowing directly from that primary driver are two sub-causes that act as derivatives of need: scarcity and separation.

Scarcity is the perception that there isn't enough of what we require; not enough of those things we deem vital.

Separation is the notion that we are distinct entities, fractured into "us" versus "them." When you pair scarcity with separation, you get the mindset of "there isn't enough for everyone." Combine that with pure necessity, and you arrive at "there isn't enough of what we absolutely need to survive." Furthermore, separation provides the psychological loophole that allows us to grab what we want by stepping on others; we can toss them under the bus without feeling like we're hitting ourselves, because we've convinced ourselves that they are separate from us, rather than being part of the same whole.

While some of what you mentioned are actual needs, things like oil and technological progress feel more like imposed requirements. Oil, for instance, is an imposition by massive energy conglomerates like ExxonMobil; they’ve basically engineered a global dependency to ensure their own profits, making it part of our very fabric—from fuel and heating to plastics and medicine...

As for progress, that's a deep philosophical question. I guess the world could function at a different level of development if everything were managed on a local, community scale. In that scenario, energy, food, and basic welfare would be produced right where they are used.

There would likely be far less theft and violence, too. But the issue remains the imposition of values by corporate overlords; the world essentially functions as one giant corporation. These companies have seized almost everything, including the ability for individuals to produce their own food or power.

Wars might be necessary, but perhaps not for us, but rather for the global corporate machine which can't sustain itself—let alone expand—without them.