Posts by rustymaker5

Gerald Perez5 said:it wouldn't actually require those kinds of massive changes you're imagining, because it should be exactly what we refer to as—well, God.

this whole conversation about absolute versus relative reality—though, if I'm being honest, I'm not particularly fond of this line of talk, nor am I interested in that sort of Eastern wisdom; it all feels a bit too much like "instant spirituality" to me—steps right into the territory of the supernatural. You don't even need to go looking toward the East for these ideas; Western metaphysics has already covered it all (Schopenhauer, for instance, laid out this entire messy narrative in his work regarding Will and Representation, which I personally find far more fascinating and engaging); besides, Kant already established that we can't say anything at all about this "absolute reality"—what he called the thing-in-itself—because it simply transcends the boundaries of possible experience (an 'x' that remains forever out of reach)

so, Bob, regardless of what you choose to call this "absolute reality"—whether it's the Self, the Will, the Logos, or God—the fact remains that it ultimately rests on faith.

this whole argument about things being "senseless" is empty—because the very idea of sense is questionable, isn't it? I mean, you don't have direct access to The Meaning, so you can't really claim to know what is meaningful and what isn't from any objective standpoint; the furthest you can go is to establish some sort of personal foothold and then judge everything else based on that—essentially deciding what matters from the perspective of a "relative" observer of meaning.

and so on.

Just imagine for a second that we’re all fully aware of where we all came from—that we share the exact same primordial origin. If that were the case, why would there be any intolerance at all? Why the constant scramble to climb over everyone else, the desperate urge to dominate, or that exhausting habit of treating your own interests as more vital than anyone else's... or even just that basic, flawed assumption that some people are inherently better than others? It makes zero sense, doesn't it? That kind of ego-driven thinking only happens when someone thinks they're operating from an "Absolute" standpoint.
But let's be real, if a person actually wanted to view things from the perspective of The Absolute, they'd have to undergo a massive internal transformation, because most humans tend to hunt for truth and purpose within their own subjective grasp of the relative, rather than grasping at the absolute meaning all...
If you take the absolute truth—that we are fundamentally one single entity—as your anchor, that is truly the highest thing a person can strive for in this messy, relative world. But to actually get there, you really do have to change... first by acknowledging and accepting that this relative reality we're navigating isn't the same thing as the absolute realm, and realizing that in our very essence, we are beings from the absolute world placed into this relative one specifically so we can become conscious of our own absoluteness. So, honestly, clinging to the position of a "relative knower of meaning" is just a pretty shaky foundation to build a life on...

Sandra Wilson68 said:Look, I drop in on these discussions uninvited every once in a while, but let’s be real—hardly anyone ever pays attention to what I have to say.

I’m jumping in this time to tell you all that you’re using the word “reality” completely wrong. Reality splits into two parts: absolute and relative. Absolute reality is what actually exists, period. Relative reality is nothing more than the physical or mental action of that absolute existence.

Understanding this split between absolute and relative is vital if you actually want to grasp the truth about anything. There’s no other way to get there—you have to divide reality into these two pieces and then look at them together to make sense of things. But you guys aren't doing that. You’re just chasing the "relative" side of things. You're obsessed with the physical universe, your bodies, and your minds, which are just the relative manifestations—the mere actions—of the absolute. So when you inevitably hit a wall where you can't make sense of this relative world—why it exists or how it works—you freak out. You panic about your own survival because you mistakenly think *you* are just this fleeting, relative thing. In your desperation, you start inventing religions and gods living in some far-off heaven just to feel better. If you ask me, you’re just making fools of yourselves.

Here’s the deal: Absolute reality is *you*. It’s your invisible, unknowable SELF. Your physical and mental actions are just what your SELF does to create your body and mind. Beyond that SELF, there is no other god for you. Based on that SELF, you are indestructible. Everything that exists relatively—which is the entire material universe down to the smallest atom—has its own indestructible SELF sitting right at the center of its activity. When that SELF is exerting force, moving, or acting, it appears as material stuff that we can perceive. Once that movement stops, the SELF is still there, but it doesn't show up physically anymore.

That is the WHOLE TRUTH about REALITY. Period. All the human beliefs, the world religions, the temples, the priests, the wars fought in the name of God, the fear of death, divine punishment, heaven, hell—it’s all just stupid and senseless.

Well, I actually did pay attention. 🙂

The reality is that there's both an absolute and a relative truth out there, though we mostly spend our lives tripping over the relative stuff. Tapping into the absolute would require us to undergo massive internal shifts; let's face it, shedding the need for the kind of stupidity and utter nonsense that brings tears to your eyes—the sad kind, obviously—isn't easy, and it takes a genuine effort from every single individual...😉

So, if you’ve been following the research on the possibility of synthesizing female sperm from a biological standpoint, we might be looking at a future where men are left with nothing more than the option to be fathers—assuming women even want them around for that purpose at all. 😍
And honestly, why would men even bother wanting to be fathers? I haven't the slightest clue 🤷... though in this specific scenario, they might actually find themselves eager to become fathers just to ensure the male lineage doesn't hit a dead end, since female sperm would presumably result in nothing but girls. 😉
Or maybe they'd only crave it in the hopes that their offspring will act as a vessel for all those unfulfilled ambitions they carry around (which is pretty much what most people do when it comes to their kids), or perhaps just to have someone to exert some semblance of authority over... at least until they go out and get a dog or something. 😛

fadedbison17 said:Let me give you an example to clear things up:
It's one thing if I think about making a post, then actually hop onto Reddit and type it out.
It's a whole different story if I just close my eyes and pretend the post already exists...

Well, yeah, obviously. That second scenario is just pure fantasy, and without any actual physical effort, it stays right there in your head, true enough...

Though, I did come across some theory once suggesting that the brain doesn't always distinguish between performing an action and just vividly visualizing it. 🤷 Obviously, that wouldn't apply to actually being active on a forum, clearly, but it’s a fascinating thought... It might have something to do with belief systems, or those chemical reactions triggered when we convince ourselves we can or can't do something. It all sort of trickles down into how we eventually choose to act, or whether we act at all...🤷

fadedbison17 said:Just gonna repeat myself a bit to stay on track—I mentioned at the start this was a comparison; the question was about advantages—meaning, who has the edge over whom. I noted I'm comparing a rational person (someone mentally sound, an atheist) against a believer (and I noted I have nothing against believers 😉) — so check the earlier posts if you want.

So, I said that with faith, you can't really be consistent with your own reasoning because you have to accept facts based on what's presented to you as absolute truth—you don't have the right to question them, otherwise you aren't a believer anymore. Basically, logic and faith are incompatible (this doesn't mean a believer doesn't think, it just means a specific part of their life is closed off to questioning)

Now, to answer you:
When someone accepts their limitations, they learn what they can influence and what they can't. Sure, they'll mess up along the way, but that's part of the lesson—you can't control when you're going to make a mistake.
From my own experience, accepting those limits makes your impact more focused and effective, and another huge thing—in my book—is that it makes a person feel much freer.

Are you being serious? I'd be the first one to sign up for faith if that were actually how things worked 😉

This reminds me of the old stories about lightning—back when people thought lightning was a god. Same goes for floods. People living by a river used to think the flood was the river god. They couldn't explain these things, so they labeled them "god." There's no issue with that part. But they attributed the cause of both the flood and the lightning to a deity. That's where the real problem started. The issue was that no progress could be made in understanding these phenomena because they were already "explained" away as God. Luckily, humanity broke through those barriers and figured out the actual causes.
Your example—whether it’s getting sick, a breakup, or just a flat tire—you might not be able to articulate it, but offering explanations like that is basically the same thing as those ancient people who blamed lightning strikes or floods on gods.
In my humble opinion, that isn't some kind of subjective advantage... it's just a total mental block.

Let me be super clear here.
Imagine a believer and an atheist are about to jump into a swimming pool. The believer prays beforehand so they won't get wet.
Scenario one:
They both jump in, and they both get soaked.
Scenario two:
The atheist jumps in first and gets soaked.
Then the believer jumps in, and right at that moment, a bird flies by and carries them straight to the edge of the pool.

What’s the believer gonna say?
"That was God."

But what actually happened?
In that second scenario, was the reason the believer didn't get wet because of a prayer?
Nah, it was the bird that carried them to the edge.
Did the bird show up just because they prayed?
The bird showed up because birds fly.
THE POINT: Can a person (the believer) actually influence reality through their thoughts?
No. Birds fly, and that bird was just like any other bird—it flies.

People can't change reality with their thoughts, and I don't think there's any actual advantage to "convincing" yourself that you can. 🙂

But then again, what is at the core of anything that actually changes our world, if not a single thought?

Don't be like that. Why don't we just invite all the women here who actually have those perfect, ride-or-die best friends to step up and describe what that life is even like... just so the rest of us can sit here and choke on the jealousy... 😛

rustyfalcon52 said:I feel like we first need to actually define what "best friend" even means... what does that even entail?

As soon as someone adds me on social media, they're a friend. I don't really see the point in all these extra labels like "best friend."

Maybe it’s like those Hollywood movies where you can just call them up at 3:30 in the morning and they’ll drive halfway across the state just because you're having a breakdown; or maybe you snap at them and tell them to get lost, but they just sense you're in a bad mood and give you your space without making a scene; or you find some incredible designer vintage piece while traveling abroad and you immediately want to borrow it, then you end up ruining it with a cigarette burn, but instead of blowing up, they just shrug it off and lend you something even more rare and expensive that they haven't even worn yet; they know every single one of your darkest secrets and guard them like the FBI; they’ve always got your back, and if they have to criticize you, they do it patiently and strictly behind closed doors; when you lash out, they know you don't actually mean it, so they're always ready to answer when you call again; they're willing to drop everything and be there for you even if it completely wrecks their own weekend plans......🤷...in the movies, that kind of stuff seems amazing, but I've honestly never met anyone like that in real life... and let's be honest, I'm probably not that kind of person either, at least not for the long haul...🙄

Christian Wells6 said:

nimbleviper75 As stated by:
Ladies, I find myself wondering—does everyone here possess that one indispensable best friend?

Never!

It seems that biological mechanisms dictate that women remain in a state of competition with one another throughout their entire lives, persisting until their very last breath.

I have always found that I much prefer to observe competition from a comfortable distance; there is something about being directly in the fray that feels unnecessarily taxing. As for the matter of close companionship, I suppose I have never quite managed to cultivate that one quintessential best friend, though in the grand scheme of things, I find myself wondering if such a thing truly matters all that much.

My closest friends? Well, if we are being strictly honest, my entire inner circle consists of men. Period.

😍
Short, sweet, and blunt... just like always, isn't that right, Tanja? 😉

I can't really comment on that whole competition thing because I've never actually experienced it myself... 🤷

I have exactly one friend left over from my school days, and whether she's my "best" anything... I honestly haven't a clue. 🤔 She lives in a different city, we catch up on the phone, but when she comes to visit me... well, after three days, I find myself wishing she'd head home... 😛 (She's a psychologist, which means she's exhausting—just constant chatter and analyzing everything through a clinical lens... though, I suppose she did a few things for me that earned her a permanent spot in my heart...)

I never really had male friends either. If I wanted to chat, it was coworkers, but if I wanted more than just small talk, they were guys... and once the romantic part ended, the friendship usually didn't stick. 🤷

Nowadays, my social circle revolves around my husband; we hang out with other married couples. We're bonded by shared interests and just enjoying good company. I also have a few gals I grab drinks with for purely female outings, but we aren't exactly real friends—it's more of an informal thing where we meet up whenever it happens to suit everyone's schedule.

All in all, I can't exactly brag about having a best friend... for now, that role is pretty much filled by my husband...🙂

I don't have much else to add at this point, since I’ve already made my case that war isn't some inherent part of the human condition, nor does nature trigger it, and it certainly doesn't serve any natural purpose... And bringing Bo into this? That's just not an option for me. 🙄
Looking for some grand, ultimate cause—some "cause of all causes"—is really just a way for people to turn a blind eye and shift the blame onto someone or something else...
It’s just humans, specifically those small-minded, malicious individuals driven by nothing but their own selfish, purely materialistic desires, who are the sole reason we fight. 🙂

At the end of the day, wars are completely unnecessary for us, but until humanity actually wraps its head around that, a lot of time is going to pass and a whole lot of water will flow under the Arlington Memorial Bridge...

Linda Hughes88 said:sorry to crash this super deep and brilliant discussion, but I gotta know... who are the actual people making bank off all this? thanks!

Well, look, if you believe the idea that global events are being steered by some shadowy cabal of maybe three hundred people... or even fewer, as some suggest... then we can definitely call those folks "individuals" who are profiting, especially when you consider there are 8 billion people out there on this planet...

casualowl1 said:

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

And what exactly did I write? ☕

casualowl1 said:

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

There’s something else that plays that kind of role...☕

casualowl1 said:

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

There is no such thing as a "balance of power," if it ever truly existed to begin with. There aren't any guarantees, and there isn't anyone left who can actually provide them.
And what do you honestly think constitutes the interest zones for Russia and China? Just wait and see when the Chinese person starts reaching for the oil while America sits perched on those massive reserves! It'll be a total blowout, enough fireworks to be seen from the other side of the universe!

casualowl1 said:

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

An oil war is a global war, regardless of whether it's being fought on "local grounds" or under different names and excuses, and it's always the same story where certain individuals walk away with the profits while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
The prejudice is that there isn't enough to go around. The problem is really just a matter of redistribution.
No tribe, family, or nation ever truly had everything they needed just to survive. That’s why bartering evolved, and eventually, trade. And everything would have worked out fine if it weren't for those greedy individuals who started hoarding goods and resources with the sole purpose of getting rich—not to survive!—and forcing others into a state of dependency, both economically and socially...

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
It's true that technology advanced rapidly. But I am certain that wars aren't the ones to thank for it. That was just the natural progression resulting from the advancement of human knowledge...
And we could easily flip the argument on its head and assume that technological development might have been even greater if wars hadn't happened in the first place...

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
Albert Einstein was a brilliant man. That little anecdote just illustrated exactly where wars lead...
If the people running this world actually understood that war is just fundamentally pointless, then wars wouldn't be happening constantly, yet here we are... and it doesn't matter if they're just local conflicts, because there’s absolutely no guarantee those won't spiral into some massive, global catastrophe. Once you have these lunatics driven by nothing but pure ego and megalomania deciding to go on conquest sprees to satisfy their own delusions, there isn't much anyone can do to make them stop and think about the consequences... It's like the sheer amount of power they hold gives them this twisted sense of being invincible, like they're somehow above the laws of reality itself...

Kyle Morris7 said:First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...

Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
How is he not a unique case? Every other imperialist power carries out liquidations against opponents if they offer resistance, or at worst, conducts reprisals against members of a people due to assassinations carried out by individuals from that same people or state. Hitler and the Nazis were the only ones who liquidated entire peoples who weren't even their opponents—the Jews and the Gypsies. Isn't that specifically Hitler's idea? Or had such things happened before? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not quite sure why you attach so much weight to whether something is "natural" or not... If something is natural, it doesn't inherently mean it is good or bad... The only thing is that in terms of manipulation, it becomes easier to lead people astray if one claims a behavior is natural. But I suspect it doesn't really matter which motive is cited for the purpose of manipulation... If the goal is to awaken evil within people, then it matters little whether one uses the term "natural," "useful," "good," or something else entirely... What truly matters is the persuasiveness of the manipulator...
A poor speaker won't be able to sell even the finest wine, whereas a good one could sell even sugar-coated alcohol...
Are they really the only ones, though? Don't the leaders behind every uprising, every revolution, and every single war start by wiping out their political and economic rivals... anyone who might potentially obstruct or complicate their pursuit of interests? And for a man as mentally unstable and fanatical as Hitler, the Jews fit his narrative perfectly, since they held onto most of the wealth back then—the banks, the factories, the small businesses, the department stores...
And it doesn't strike me as odd that he probably found some justification in Malthusianism for dealing with the "overpopulation" problem—something that supposedly prevented the Aryan race from reaching its superhuman potential—so they decided to solve it by exterminating the Jews, the Gypsies, the mentally ill, the Slavs...
🤷 but personally, I suspect that the idea wasn't originally "Hitler's alone."

p.s.
How did that "confused" guy end up at the top of the thread? 😕

Lawrence Robinson5 said:The only thing I really can't wrap my head around is this whole idea that death has somehow become a tragedy. It hasn't. Honestly, life isn't either. They’re just two sides of the exact same coin, and if we decide to label one side as tragic, we end up dragging the other down with it too.

No matter how someone passes away, from an objective standpoint, nobody is truly a victim—because killers don't stumble upon their "victims" by accident. If a person doesn't perceive themselves as a victim, they never actually become one. That’s just a subjective truth that eventually hardens into a subjective reality. There’s this old wisdom from India that says if you are perfect in *ahimsa* (non-violence), no enemy can even begin to form against you. We don't sit around and think about that enough, but the fact is, like attracts like: violence breeds more violence, while peace fosters more peace... our version of that is basically "you reap what you sow."

A hero—a true legend—is defined by how they lived their entire life, which includes how they face the end. Someone who dies in a car wreck isn't a hero; firefighters aren't inherently heroes just because of their job. A real hero knows exactly what they are doing, even if nobody else sees it. They have mastery over themselves and their own existence, meeting death with a sense of awareness and peace, knowing they lived exactly the kind of life they intended to live.

So, to me, it feels totally pointless to label this girl as either a hero or a victim. She met her end just as she was, for reasons that remain entirely unknown to us... but I know we live in an era where we've collectively decided to cast death as some kind of monster. It isn't a monster; we only act like it is because we don't truly understand it.
Violence, though, is a different story altogether. We spend all our time condemning the violence others inflict on each other, yet we practice it ourselves every single day in one form or another... if you look at it strictly, any act that forces someone else to bend their will to yours is a form of violence, and there are endless ways to do that. Every time we shrug our shoulders at violence, deciding it's not a big deal, we're actually fueling it. There are infinite ways that happens too... when a bunch of small things pile up, that power multiplies a hundredfold—and yeah, that applies to the negative stuff just as much.

Things like this should serve as a wake-up call for us to reflect on where we ourselves are committing or enabling violence, so we can start consciously stripping it away instead of just making assumptions about someone else's life that we know nothing about. I honestly don't think there's a more effective way to handle it.

👍 thanks for the whole post... though I suppose it’s a bit much for most people to wrap their heads around. 🙂

Kyle Morris7 said:The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...

First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...

Kyle Morris7 said:From what I have gathered while reading various interviews and debates surrounding Engdahl's work, his worldview seems remarkably similar to that of Noam Chomsky. Wouldn't you agree? I have read two of Chomsky's books myself, and for the most part, I find myself in agreement with him, even if he does occasionally exhibit certain biases or lacks a full grasp of certain situations—for instance, his assessment regarding Mexico was quite misguided...

I’ve always been a believer in just consuming as much information as possible, looking at every angle and every different perspective available so that I can filter through the noise and build my own conclusions... I haven't actually read any Chomsky yet, but I probably should. Got any specific recommendations?

Kyle Morris7 said:Quinn:

rustymaker5 As Kyle Morris7 says... So, I find myself wondering if we might be able to assume that not everyone is inherently inclined toward conflict... perhaps it isn't a universal truth, but rather something that only feels like a natural state to certain groups—those who, one might argue, possess a more aggressive disposition by nature...

At the very beginning of this discussion, we failed to establish a clear definition for what it actually means for a war to be "natural" to someone... which leaves us in a bit of a bind, really. Because without that foundation, we can only truly debate whether a conflict serves a purpose and who exactly stands to gain from it. It follows, then, that we must consider the possibility that entire nations might reap the benefits of warfare, rather than just a few select individuals at the top... Yet, you have maintained quite firmly throughout our exchange that no nation, as a collective entity, ever finds any benefit in war...

Quinn:

Do you honestly find that acceptable? The idea of one nation subjugating others just to seize their natural resources, or perhaps merely to secure a strategic foothold for even more conquests down the line... does that truly strike you as some sort of "natural law" regarding how nations behave? To my mind, it feels like nothing more than pure, nakedly selfish aggression, driven entirely by self-interest at the absolute expense of our shared humanity...

I find myself unable to accept this... It is truly difficult to reconcile. I believe we are in complete agreement on this point, though I must clarify that my intention was never to pass judgment on whether something is morally sound or righteous, but rather to simply outline the facts as they stand in reality...

The whole thing isn't really about whether wars in human history are "natural" or "unnatural"... 😉
It’s more that the author—who I think was some kind of economic analyst, though I can't quite recall the specifics—is basically just laying out the raw facts from the economic and social spheres of humanity starting from the late 18th century all the way to right now, complete with specific dates, names of key players, and those direct cause-and-effect chains... When you lay out the facts like that, all in one place and following a continuous timeline, it gives you this entirely different, much broader perspective... one where it becomes easier to wrap your head around what happened, how it went down, and why... and if you actually have the analytical chops, maybe you can even pinpoint exactly what is happening today and why it's happening...

rustymaker5:

I mean, honestly, if you really think about the sheer scale of everything we’re dealing with right now... it just feels like we're spinning our wheels in this endless cycle where nobody actually listens to anyone else, and then you see people like rustymaker5 chiming in with those same old arguments that we've already exhausted a thousand times over... it makes me wonder if there's any point in even trying to have a coherent conversation anymore when everyone is just so stuck in their own little bubbles, you know? It's like we're all just shouting into a void while the actual issues—the big, heavy stuff that actually matters—get pushed to the side because they're too uncomfortable or too complicated for the average person to wrap their head around... and I don't mean to go on, but it's hard not to feel a bit frustrated when you see the lack of nuance everywhere you look... it's exhausting, truly... rustymaker5 says: First off, I have to clarify that when I’m looking at whether something is a benefit or a liability, I’m strictly analyzing it from the perspective of the attacker... because the one being targeted doesn't really get a vote in the matter, they're just caught up in the conflict because they have to be...

So, can we actually just assume that not everyone is on board with war, or is conflict just some inherent, built-in setting for certain people—you know, like those types of nations that seem wired for aggression from the jump...?

Quincy:

I was just sitting here thinking about how everything seems to be shifting lately, you know, like we’re all just drifting through these massive waves of change without a compass... and it really gets me riled up when I see people ignoring the obvious patterns right in front of them. It’s like watching someone walk straight into a wall while staring at their phone, only the wall is this giant, systemic shift in how things work in America, and everyone is too busy arguing over trivialities to notice that the foundation is basically vibrating under our feet... anyway, I don't want to go on a tangent about the socio-economic implications of modern infrastructure, but it feels like we're losing that sense of deliberate progress we used to have back before everything became so fragmented and loud... it's exhausting, honestly. rustymaker5 says: Imperialist wars... honestly, if you look at how any of these global economic superpowers actually built their empires today, it all traces back to those massive conquests and the sheer amount of wealth they sucked dry from the territories they took over... it’s just the way it works. So, when you think about it, the people living in those countries aren't exactly innocent bystanders either, because they reap some pretty significant benefits from all that historical plunder... it's a massive advantage that shapes everything we see now...

And you actually think that’s acceptable? That one nation can just go around steamrolling others, all for the sake of seizing their natural resources or maybe just grabbing a strategic foothold to prepare for some future conquest... you really look at that and tell me it’s just "natural law" or some kind of justified behavior... I mean, honestly...
To me, it just looks like pure, selfish aggression—people steamrolling over everyone else just to chase their own interests while completely tossing humanity to the curb... I mean, honestly, what gives any nation the right to just launch an attack on another, purely because they want to get their hands on wealth that isn't theirs, especially when they’re struggling with such scarcity themselves?
There are other ways to get things done, much more peaceful and infinitely more humane ways, wouldn't you agree?... I highly doubt that any regular person, say during an oil shortage or some other kind of crisis, would ever dream of picking a fight with their neighbor just to get a finger on some black gold. But then again, that’s exactly how the powers that be operate, isn't it? That's basically been the playbook for the ruling structures for the last hundred years or so... they go after those resources, and once they finally secure the oil or whatever else they're hunting for, they line their pockets like absolute gluttons. Sure, the public gets a little something back eventually—some crumbs to help heal the wounds left by the conflict—but man, you have to wonder about the actual cost of all that...

rustymaker5:

I mean, I don't know what to tell you... it’s just one of those things that stays on my mind, you know? People always want to jump to conclusions without looking at the whole picture, and honestly, it's exhausting trying to explain the nuance when everyone is just looking for a quick headline or a reason to be outraged... It feels like we're constantly circling the same arguments, going round and round in this loop of misinformation, and yet nobody seems to actually listen to the details that matter... it just goes without saying at this point, really... rustymaker5 says: It’s basically like a second round of the American Civil War... just a different kind of struggle, really. It’s functionally the same as that first point I made, only this time the people actually stand to gain something tangible because we aren't bleeding cash and raw materials out to foreign interests anymore... instead, we actually get to keep what's ours and put it to use right here at home...

Hold on a second... do you honestly believe that it’s the people themselves who are actually out there clamoring for war? 😕 I’m still standing by what I said, really... it’s always the same pattern where entire nations aren't actually looking for a fight, but instead they get played like instruments by these warmongering leaders who are basically being fueled by a bunch of followers with completely twisted, broken mindsets...

I was sitting there today watching this old American movie about the Vietnam War—you know the type, soldiers stationed on an aircraft carrier—and there was this one heavy moment, this speech from a commanding officer to one of his men... he’d actually saved the commander's life, even though they couldn't stand each other to save their lives, and he says something that really stuck with me: he tells him that we don't have families back home, that this ship right here is our only family. It hit a nerve because when I was just a kid growing up, I didn't really have anyone of my own, no one to turn to... and eventually, the military became everything to me, my whole entire world...
And honestly, I think those kinds of people—those emotionally stunted types who can’t see past their own rage—really need to be the ones proving to me that war actually serves any purpose at all, because let’s face it, they don't seem capable of doing anything else besides looking for a fight... There have been plenty of movies out there exploring how the top brass in the Pentagon stirs up a crisis in some far-off corner of the world, not just as an excuse to burn through old stockpiles and test out the latest shiny new hardware, but also just so they have something to do, you know, so they don't just sit around getting rusty while their military seniority ticks away without them having actual combat experience under their belts...

Kyle Morris7 said:3. Ideological wars. There might be some benefit there, but it’s not a given. It’s obviously beneficial if the side winning is democratic, but it’s a disaster if we end up with dictators and psychopaths taking over...

Man, ideological wars... what a joke. 😠 All this talk about nations gaining something positive through war is just empty rhetoric. It's no different than a guy beating his wife and then claiming he does it because he loves her. 🙄

Kyle Morris7 said:During the American Civil War, we were attacked and we simply didn't have any other choice.
When you don't have a choice, arguing about whether it was "useful" or not becomes completely pointless.

And that's just more nonsense... We were backed into a corner with zero options. Everything had already been decided at higher levels of government... maybe they didn't necessarily want things to go down that way, but people were manipulated into it...

Go read John Engdahl's book "The Century of War," maybe it'll actually open your eyes to something...🙂

Kyle Morris7 said:To put it more accurately, you won't be able to convince them to voluntarily kill. But once they find themselves mobilized and facing mortal peril, even those types of people will kill just to survive...
...

On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.

They are never the same? Well, it isn't quite that simple, if one considers the nuances... Not all wars are created equal. Regarding imperialistic conflicts, I have already detailed why the masses might see some benefit. But in wars of liberation—where people rise up because they are enduring unbearable injustice—those fighting actually share the same interests and benefits as the leaders guiding them (assuming, of course, that they prevail)... And it isn't as if all leaders are inherently negative characters... In liberation struggles, they are most often positive figures...

Well, obviously survival instinct kicks in when things get desperate. But that doesn't mean war is some kind of natural state for humanity... if anything, the sheer existence of PTSD proves my point; I highly doubt people would experience such soul-crushing trauma if being at war was actually our baseline setting...

...

Kyle Morris7 said:To put it more accurately, you won't be able to convince them to voluntarily kill. But once they find themselves mobilized and facing mortal peril, even those types of people will kill just to survive...
...

On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.

They are never the same? Well, it isn't quite that simple, if one considers the nuances... Not all wars are created equal. Regarding imperialistic conflicts, I have already detailed why the masses might see some benefit. But in wars of liberation—where people rise up because they are enduring unbearable injustice—those fighting actually share the same interests and benefits as the leaders guiding them (assuming, of course, that they prevail)... And it isn't as if all leaders are inherently negative characters... In liberation struggles, they are most often positive figures...

At the end of the day, war is just war. Whether you label it imperialist, a liberation struggle, or whatever else, the reality remains... it never actually benefits the general population, except for a tiny minority who either get rich off war profiteering or climb the ranks of the new power structure.
What kind of actual benefit has any war ever brought to the common person? Take an imperialist war, for example—did the average citizen get richer, or was it just the winning side's establishment lining their pockets? Even in liberation wars, you're usually just swapping one ruling class for another, which rarely helps the people on the ground. Just look at the "liberation" wars across >...
Besides, what did the American Civil War really bring us? Aside from massive grief, loss of life, and destroyed property, it left behind a mountain of physical and mental disabilities, disillusioned veterans struggling with suicide, people who will never see their homes again (if you'll excuse the 🙄cliché), and a handful of vultures who built their careers on the suffering of the nation... all so a few individuals could satisfy their sick obsession with playing a major role in history by stepping over the bodies of their own countrymen...
Man, if I had the power, I'd take those leaders who decide to drag a country into combat and sit them down at a chessboard instead... let them clash through pure intellect and strategy, let the better mind win, and spare the people from having to suffer for it...

swiftdriver11 said:Look, let me put it this way. I believe all those economic and political justifications are merely the immediate excuses used to trigger these conflicts. I suspect the true cause—if you can even call it that—is some kind of biological chip nature has embedded into our subconscious.
I’ll give you a clear example of how this works in the wild. For instance, if humans wipe out a sparrow population, the byproduct is an explosion in the worm population (which they eat). The following year, you'll see a much larger surge in the sparrow population than usual, simply because nature demands that balance be restored.
Could something similar be happening with humans?🤷

I highly doubt it. Because nature regulates itself, you know, it establishes its own equilibrium... you can still see that in those rare, untouched spots where humans haven't messed things up yet.
But humans have disconnected themselves from nature, and even worse, they've disconnected themselves from their own true nature. You can tell by the way we exterminate entire species and irrationally strip-mine every single natural resource—hoping, I guess, that nature will just magically replenish itself—but we do it at such a frantic pace and in such insane quantities that nature can't keep up with the rhythm we've forced upon it without "responding" with some sort of catastrophe. That disconnect is also proven by the very way people think about things like "hardwired chips," innate aggression, or the supposed biological necessity of warfare...
....Anyway, I’m just throwing my thoughts out there like everyone else, not trying to claim I'm anything special.
Everything we’re going through, which is probably what happened to all the ancient civilizations before us, is likely just the fallout from the gap between our technological advancement and the basic awareness that we are all, fundamentally, stuck on this planet together... it’s just that we have such a hard time grasping or accepting that reality. But I suppose that's just our karma...