>
> your view is that peaceful human condition is based on the necessity of
> contention and domination, white domination it seems. [If this is a straw
> man argument, I apologize]. I do not see this as true.
no, i'm saying that survival for animals depended on being alert to
dangers and predators. 'love' within mother and her offprings or
within a pack increased the chance of survival for species since they
could bond together against other animals. much the same could be said
for early man. this wouldn't be necessary if OTHER organisms were
nice, but most other organism wanted to attack you. so, it was to
your advantage if you had a common bond that shielded your side by the
power of cooperation and numbers.
as this has been the root of animal survival--and humans are
animals--, there is some of this that still matters to us.
>
> All modern wars of the white man are wars waged by the state for reasons
> of the state. They are not as basic as soil but due to interconnected and
> self-interested economics. 'Self', here, being separate from a common
> need or want. This may serve as an "inner dynamic" but it does not serve
> as a human universal outside of the power to control which is, as I see
> it, the basis of your argument.
all states belong to a nation or people. and, there cannot be modern
society without the state. there would only be anarchy. it's the
state that holds us together. because a state is rooted to a
territory and serves a people, it cannot be separated from humanity.
also, the economic interests of the state are linked to our interests.
this is especially true in nations where people have power and
influence. we want our government to serve our economic interests.
>
> It is this 'power to control' or 'need to control' which always, ALWAYS
> flips to greed, corruption and internal destruction; and is the primary
> reason why all 'great powers' collapse. Not unlike today.
'greed', 'corruption', and such are all human characters. it exists
within the soul of every human being. more powerful the state,
greater the manifestation of 'greed' and 'powerlust'. it's not a
matter of evil state oppressing saintly masses.
>
> The world is moving on. Not because of this power but despite it, no
> matter how much war and violence is being the injected into popular
> corporate US culture.
the world is moving on because the great wars have been fought and
land issues settled. US is peaceful now because the wars of the past
have united this vast land and put in under the rule of central
authority. the union was maintained in the Civil War thru bloodshed
and violence. WWII settled bitter disputes for all time in many
places.
>
> All in all, logical conclusion to your position is the need for perpetual
> war and the need to dominate all others. 'Others' being a constantly
> increasing pool of people. Control and domination then comes, not from a
> need, but from the mere ability to do so. This is where you are going
> with this, or where you are being taking by it.
we should try to tolerate and accept other people, but usually such
attempts only lead to new wars.
communism tried to create a one world order united under its idea of
'brotherhood of man' and 'social justice'. to do this, it used
subversion and waged wars on non-communist peoples.
in order to create vast democratic and free US, great deal of blood
had to be spilt.
meanwhile, people who only care about their own blood and soil rarely
attack other people. burmese never wanted to conquer the world, unite
the world, or whatever. So, burmes
--though nasty to one another--have
never been a threat to other peoples. It was the people with the most
advanced and progressive ideals--christianity, democracy, communism,
etc--who did most to wage wars in order to bring light to all the
world. much of it was successful but also very bloody.
