mikey mikey wrote: I don't know where all that aggression and bile comes from. He'll be getting his free bus pass in a few years, he should be happy.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Perhaps he's making up for something.

Ouch

psketti wrote:
Ah..c'mon. It was only a little prick.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Simple solution to this, humans need to behave better and not kill people for money...

.......... wrote:
See. Simple.

Now on to scarcity.

Tomorrow disease and hopefully renewable energy by the end of the week.

mikey mikey wrote:

.......... wrote: Well, yes, I agree completely, but many people are very confused about what's going on. As I've explained previously:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/92736-sh...html?start=20#142464

...any 8 year-old knows the difference between right and wrong, unless it's a particularly maladjusted 8 year-old. If it's a particularly maladjusted 8 year-old, we recognise that their behaviour is errant and often recommend that they get specialised psychological treatment. By the age of 28, many people have forgotten the difference between right and wrong because they have been trained to have completely false values which benefit the social engineers, controllers and economic elite, or at the very least don't impede them in any way.

This is why the people who manned the Enola Gay and dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are completely unrepentant. It's why people continue to get very confused and willingly go off and slaughter countries full of little brown faced people and think they've done something worthwhile and expect to be called a hero for it. They're just suffering from a maladjusted psychological make-up. If they were 8 years-old, we'd recommend they seek treatment, but because they're 28 years-old and obediently fulfilling the societal role that has been designed for them to occupy, we don't.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Correct

And you can take that example to include many other scenarios, especially debt related ones
So much so that they never question why the wages are so shit in the first place, the 1% are quite happy to loan shitloads but you'll never see them pay decent wages.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
WUB i understand what your trying to say but what is the solution to that? So lets just admit these "particularly maladjusted" 18-21 year olds that are doing most of the killing in the middle east need to behave better. It's a small percentage of the population doing the majority of the killing and i will continue to blame their parents until someone can explain to me why they are making the personal choice to join the army and kill people for a pay check.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
One of the best posts I have seen on the net in a very long time.

Assad is an educated man and knows darn well probably that to use CW's would bring the wrath of the international community to his door...something no 'leader' wants. Also, my understanding is, militarily speaking, he has one of the largest and technologically advanced military in the region, hence the stalling for all these years of any external intervention...a case of 'biting off a little more than the west can chew'.


Jane

Britain says response to Syria chemical attack possible without unanimous UN backing

.......... wrote: There is no simple solution. The human race has apparently learnt nothing from centuries of corruption and slaughter. After Vietnam that should have been it. It's not as if the consequences and realities of Vietnam haven't been well documented even in popular culture. The armed forces, particularly in the US, should have been completely starved of people signing up, and should have automatically received zero support from the public from that moment on. Note that conscription has never been necessary.

I honestly have no idea how many lies people have to swallow before they start to understand reality. It should be profoundly obvious by now.angelchemuel wrote: Thank you, I hope you're well, Jane, it's good to see you back. I'm sure that Syria's allegiance with Russia has also played a part. Not that Russia are the good guys and NATO the bad guys, the situation is more nuanced than that.

But I'm just sick of people being killed. I'm sick of seeing little brown face people being slaughtered and the people doing the killing being revered as heroes. I’m sick of the buffet of lies that is pumped out every day. I’m sick of seeing people that don’t care, or are too ignorant to understand, but are consumed by utter trivia. And I’m particularly sick of it all happening for little green pieces of folding paper that don’t benefit anyone, apart from the people that print them. I’m sick of seeing billions living in abject poverty while a small echelon of elite people enjoy monumental wealth, and yet they can still get the great unwashed to queue up to do their killing for them.

You know, we're relatively lucky, I live my life comfortably, largely unimpeded by the consequences of the fascistic state of the world (at the moment). Can you imagine what it's like to live in Basra, or Kabul, or Hanoi, or Hiroshima, or any of the other myriad of places that have been bombed to shit for what are simply economic and monetary reasons? I can't.

It’s an utterly sick society, and if people can’t see it by now, they must be unwell. It’s as simple as that.

And yet another
I have never understood wars, civil or international...they are an anathema to me.......beam me back Scotty!


Jane

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I think you have got a very good point here, I would argue that the ages you stated are too old. If you look at young children from the time they are able to verbalise effectively you hear a lot of questions, mainly "WHY?", the other thing you seem to hear is "IT'S NOT FAIR!".

I think children are born Rational, seeking Universal Principles to base future expectations off of. They ask "WHY,WHYWHY?" instinctively looking for a pattern.
The reason you hear "IT'S NOT FAIR!" , is that Society does not provide Universal Principles in reality. I claims to; don't hit, lie, steal, (unless your from The Church/ Government or it's Corporations right).
I would say that by around 6 years old the reasoning ability of the child has been broken, in most cases, if not by the family, cultural and social environment then by the first year or two of schooling, this is the specific purpose of the global schooling system, based on the Prussian Model.





Universally Preferable Behaviour A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

UPB Audio

" if you [the rulers] suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves [and outlaws] and then punish them."
-Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), Utopia, Book 1

Reptired wrote:



I more or less said those words just the other night although in my opinion, it's the system that breaks them.... the family and social environment just all fall into place as part of the process.

Reptired wrote: Well, I just picked the age at random, really. But I believe that inherently an 8 year-old will understand that killing is wrong. Of course, a 28 year-old understands this too, but they have absorbed all the necessary propaganda and social programming to ensure that they react in the right way when it actually happens in a certain context (some manage to escape this, but all too few). If you show people images from Iraq of dead bodies, mangled children, birth deformities etc, people will almost without exception react in horror and find it completely unpalatable, so that shows that the basic recognition that this is wrong and morally repugnant is still intact. Just somehow people are unable to assess correctly when slaughter is justified to them in a certain way, in a certain context.

I would say as well that it’s particularly something in the male psyche that is being targeted. There has been some effort in the States to recruit women to the armed forces and even the front line, but I would be very surprised if this is ever extended seriously, because the percentage of women that are willing to shoot guns at people and drop bombs is incredibly trivial. So to give a slightly crass example, young boys often play with guns, they often have that basic aggression in them, whereas girls play with dolls. How often have you seen an 8 year-old girl express the desire to play with a gun, or to play fight? But even at that age, boys will still show remorse if someone gets hurt, but this basic instinct, which it could be argued served evolutionary purposes, can be exploited by people in positions of power.

Thus, the social programming simply works much better on a certain type of young men, many of whom later greatly regret what they’ve done when they’re forced to confront it in the cold light of day, and perhaps once their chemical make-up and balance has changed with time (ie. less testosterone, for example). There is a quotation in the video game GTA4, where the main character states that “war is when the young and stupid are tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other”. I wouldn’t say that’s entirely true, but thematically it is pretty accurate.

Thank you for posting the Gatto videos BTW, someone has recommended his books to me before, they're on my reading list.psketti wrote: And, of course, the family and social environment is a product of the same system, so the people that populate it don't realise that the values they're passing on are skewed. The authority figures and people that the child look up to have all been through the same process, so consequently they don't even recongise that anything is awry.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I think the sexes are certainly targeted by propaganda in a different way, the idea though of human nature based on sexes is quite slippery as far as I can tell. Males, primarily, are employed by The State to commit murder, I don't think this means they are more naturally prone to violent criminal behaviour, you can dig up some interesting statistics on female initiated violence , "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. " . Also, I don't think that higher Testosterone levels in males (or females) has been shown to increase aggression or unthinking behaviour. Testosterone Does Not Induce Aggression. Males on TRT for low levels of Test will generally feel much less aggressive. Orally ingested synthetic androgens will often times be converted to oestrogen's which can lead to aggression, which perhaps is where this idea came from originally, in part anyway. If you were a tax farmer looking to take over another hive it makes perfect sense to use the chattel who are more physically capable, males are, on average, taller with something like 40% more upper body strength even when adjusted for body mass, I think this is likely the main reason males are used for Warfare.

I have to agree with most of what you've said and I'd recommend very strongly that everyone watch The Ultimate History Lesson with John Taylor Gatto, it's 5hrs or so and there is another 10 hrs of commentary on the peace revolution podcast and that was by far the most educational 30hrs I have ever spent, having listened to it twice.

Reptired wrote: Generally speaking, I think nurture is more important than nature, but I personally would struggle to satisfactorily explain why, as I suggested, boys playfight and girls play with dolls. I don’t believe that a societal explanation is satisfactory to account for this. It's definitely true that men are suited to being soldiers owing to physical strength, but there's no reason why many military roles couldn't be occupied equally by men and women (drone bomber pilots, for example). But I would assert now that this will never be the case. I think there is part of the male psyche that is fundamentally more drawn to conflict and competition.

I could go on about this at great length, but I’m not going to! I have given it a lot of thought, and my views are by no means politically correct, nor accepted by the majority of psychologists / scientists.

In terms of testosterone, I'm not an expert on that, I just think there is something about the biological make-up of young males that makes them more prone to violence and acting impulsively than older males. The wisdom of experience may play a part, a heightened awareness of your own mortality may play a part, but I don't think this is enough to explain it, I think it is something more fundamental.

I will definitely try to watch / read some Gatto stuff at some point, I’m sure I would share many of his views.