I am with you bro. We had no right taking on Japan in WWII. Japan had valid issues with America and had America simply allowed Japanese expansion into China and SE Asia then there would be no Peal Harbor. Same too with Germany. Not America's business. If Germany and Russia wanted to carve up Eurasia then that's their business. If they wanted to kill every man, woman and child then that's not our business. We are a great nation. And if I lived in Texas, any attack on California is not my business either. And if I live in Dallas then an attack on Austin is nothing to do with me. I will defend my own house, no more than that, because I am a great person who is mindful of my responsibilities as a human.
If you look at figures for hunter gatherer societies you will find that about 25-30% of all young males died of war trauma. War isn't about "statism", war is embedded in human genes. It's why Homo sapiens rule, and not the many other human-like species.
The error is yours to make, but then again, you have plenty of company. The error: I see the human being as a thinking entity; you see a human being as an instinctual animal.
You are correct. One theory on the evolution of humans is that war was a key figure in developing altruism. That sounds contradictory - but conflict drives co-operation, planning, allocation of resources, better tool use, communication etc.. If you didn't have those then you would be the target of other groups. So certainly, there's lots of thinking when it comes to war. War can be won, war can be just, war can save your family, land and culture etc.. There's one group of people who were not permitted to have their own army for nearly 2,000 years - and that's the Jews. Read up on the holocaust, pogroms, genocides, Crusades etc against these essentially defenseless people. That all changed in 1948 when the Jews formed their first army in two millennium.
Anyone who imagines that 'reason, logic" had a single birthplace is believing in dogmatic thinking devoid of knowledge or reason. Human beings are part of an evolutionary story, even if this story doesn't proceed in simple linear terms. All civilizations have borrowed and learned from their surroundings and what has been achieved by other civilizations whose ideas they have been in contact with directly or indirectly. That applies to the ancient Greeks, whose systematic thoughts on philosophical issues were nonetheless commendable and indeed helped lay the foundations for many of the ideas that charted the path to the European renaissance, the scientific method, the enlightenment and more. As for so-called 'mystics' taking over the world in competition against the attempt to focus attention on the material world which is associated in Western ideology with Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of ancient Greece was not Aristotle. It was indeed Plato, his teacher and someone who Aristotle could have learned a lot from if he was as intelligent as imagined himself to be. Much of (western) philosophy is indeed still a simple footnote to what Plato wrote. Aristotle, on the other hand, while being right on some things and useful for others, was wrong about so many other things that it still remains the case that the quest for knowledge has suffered as much (if not more) from Aristotle's errors as it has been helped by it. Here are a few things for you to begin, hopefully, you true education in intellectual history, philosophy and more, starting with what you agree and going to places which you might not even understand: 1- There is no better methodology for learning the material world than the scientific method, which itself has various and competing philosophical conceptions. But regardless of those conceptions, if you (more or less) accept Thomas Kuhn's ideas about the actual way scientific theories emerge, along with the Popperian falsification principle as the best exponent of what constitutes a scientific theory, then we both agree on the correct understanding of the scientific method and what it entails and what it doesn't entail. 2- Reason is a key faculty in humans that helps chart the path towards knowledge and enlightenment, but which by itself cannot accomplish more to prove anything than what Descartes mentioned when he said: "I think therefore I am" and when David Hume said: "you can't derive an ought from an is". In fact, the principle utility of reason is help strike down fallacies and falsehoods. 3- The material world, which is visible and whose laws and rules might be discerned through the scientific method, is akin to the visible and discernible form of things. As a scientific matter, the material world and its rules and laws are a small part of the larger universe. 70% of the universe is composed of an invisible force, which we understand only because it negates the rules of the material world, and which scientists call "Dark Energy". Another 20% is composed of a slightly better understood element which isn't part of the material world either, which scientists call "Dark Matter". 4- Communicating knowledge using any form of communication, including language, involves using symbols and other forms to make an invisible essence accessible through our sense. Those forms aren't the 'essence' of the knowledge being conveyed. A physicist cannot teach a 10 year old quantum physics or the laws of relativity except by simplifying the underlying essence of what he wants to convey though an understandable narrative. And that applies to all levels and all ages: understanding things (the essence of them) involves the limitations of our own mind and the limitations of the mind of those who we are trying to impart knowledge to. All we can do is to use forms and symbols; the actual essence of knowledge is not in the words or symbols that are used to describe or capture them. 5- Mystics who taught love of knowledge and search for truth for its own sake, and not simply as a mere instrument to material advancement, helped knowledge advance. Those who went overboard and taught for people to turn their back on the material world, or to ignore its rules, hurt the quest for knowledge. Actual knowledge of even that which is not within the grasp of the "material world" and its "forms" (which philosophers may call the 'essence' of things), can never progress far without mastery of the rules of the material world as well as sufficient societal advancement in the material things which are needed to take human knowledge to levels beyond even our planet. 6- Materialists who taught us to be 'skeptical' of narratives of tales about the essence of things, and who directed our attention to the laws of the material world and what we could learn from observation, experimentation, and through the scientific method, helped the advancement of knowledge. But those who imagine they can elevate human selfishness and greed (part of the real material world) into Gods to worship, are implicitly also laying the foundations for the demise of much of the architecture of knowledge they helped erect. 7- The true foundations of learning come from a tradition that you aren't familiar with. Those foundations were severely damaged and almost destroyed by chauvinists in the camp you want to elevate. Subsequently, much of what remained of that foundation was covered by lies and corruption. While it is possible to get to the right path by following the best of Western intellectual traditions, at the end of the day, if you need something more than the nihilism that arises from that tradition (and its various horrific manifestations in the secular ideologies which have gained currency in the West outside the liberal humanistic tradition that cannot by itself withstand the force of its skeptics), you will need to expand your horizons. Not to take any tradition as a prophet to follow, but to learn from all of the traditions that can help you become enlightened. But in your case, my admonition may be too late: you seem to have found your "prophet" in the hack, Ayn Rand and even the worse hacks who propagate her views, including among certain neo-Nazi Zionist circles.
Too many words with no actual value. You have buried yourself in the superficial and the trivial. But, hell, your life. Bye. (Ayn Rand is no more a prophet that Aristotle, Carnegie, Einstein, Jobs, Gates, Musk, or Bezos--just thinkers with excellent ideas, and the skill and ability to act upon them).
Cause and effect backwards: it is altruism, or the sacrifice of the the one to the many, that cause wars, not the other way around. The the path of civilization is the privatization of the life of the individual against the tyranny of the group, tribe, society, and gangs. To end wars, end the doctrine of human sacrifices.
We could've colonized mars for what we've spent just in Afghanistan. We're really holding ourselves back with this crap.
So when your neighboring tribe comes over the hill to take your land and your wife, what do YOU do? Contemplate whether defending them is all about doctrines of altruism, doctrines of privatization? doctrines about violence and greed? Or do you just go and fight?
When troops are deployed doing constant tours and theirs casualties, try telling them and their families its not combat. We need to stop and have Europe and Nato step up and do their share
As a last resort, and only in self-defense, war is moral, just as killing someone who wants to murder you. Ayn Rand: “. Let all those who are actually concerned with peace—those who do love man and do care about his survival—realize that if war is ever to be outlawed, it is the use of force that has to be outlawed.”—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/peace_movements.html
So, maybe not getting you here. If you are an American "peace" activist who succeeds in disarming the nation - no nukes, no army, no air force and no navy. Have you made the world a safer place? Instead of the two gulf wars we have Iraqi wars instead. Instead of the "nuclear umbrella" over SE Asia we have every Asian state now nuclear armed. Instead of naval patrols of the straits of Taiwan and the gulf we have China and Iran now ruling these water and threatening our allies. Instead of negotiations over weapons and forces with Russia we now have lots of finger crossing at what Russia could do to us. No, the issue for me with war is "WHO IS WAGING IT" If its a liberal democratic state at war with someone then I am more comfortable than having a war waged by a dictatorship. So I was fine with the First Gulf War and not so fine with Iraq invading Kuwait.
Fight for peace; be prepared for war if neccessary, but only as an act of self-defense. As for Russia? A bear cub pretending to be a snarling mother grizzly—about as scary as that hilarious It clown.
Don't dismiss the capabilities or intentions or those who hate you. And that applies to the Russian govt, as well as China, Iran and Nth Korea. Remember, it was Russia AND Germany who started WWII, and it was Lenin who hoped to start WWII himself, but his nation wasn't prepared, and he died too soon. It's strange how the Left will laugh at the military capabilities of Russia, and go into meltdown over nuclear power (pardon the pun) or GM food because of some obscure "precautionary principle."
I based my conclusions of centuries of Russian failures, stupidity, and dullness. Lysenko, Chernobyl, and most recently, Nyonoksa. Russian workers are not the most brilliant nor most productive in the world.
Scarcely a mention of Communism. Fascism and Communism are near sister ideologies, and sister ideologies fight the most. Fascism controlled business, Communism owned the businesses. Mussolini was a Marxist, and supported by Lenin. Hitler was a Socialist. Fascism was about society as an organism, moving in lockstep, the "common good" etc ... words perfectly at home in your local uni art faculties. The Nazis took a lot of their racist political ideas direct from the American Democrats. And as you probably have never been taught - slavery, Klu Klux, Jim Crowe and Segregation are purely Democrat ideas. So yeah, sometimes we have to fight. And the fight might have to be against your own fellow citizens.
Well, that's what a lot of people believe.. The Nazis hunted down socialists and communists. Even in the first wave they were attacked in the streets and imprisoned at Dachau. The Fascists also blamed the Communists and Socialists for all their economic ills. Both Nazism and Fascism were conservative and authoritarian. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini nationalized industries to state ownership. Hitler courted the German industrialists and provided them with free labor from those in concentration camps. Why not watch the video or do some reading on the subject? Its a shame that American education is so poor.
Fascism was progressive, not conservative. The real battle you speak of is about differing views of Socialism. This is downplayed. Stalin "owned" the industries, making himself the richest man in the world at the time. The Fascists controlled the industries - as progressives seek to do today, as well as the education system. Yes, American education is incredibly poor - the FACTS about the role of the Democrats in American racism are almost 100% not known. Even today many Americans admire the Russians fighting the Nazis. I knew one of the merchant seaman sent to Russia, now 97. He feared for his life more being in Russia, helping them, than facing the U-boats. So no-one talks about Russia starting WWII with Germany. I am sure the Fins, the Poles and the Baltic states can teach Americans that.
Fascism was very conservative and first embraced by Italian conservatives. Mussolini may have started out as a socialist, but the ideology he went on to create was nothing like Marxism. Fascism demands the individual's absolute obedience and loyalty to the state - it suppresses conflict between business and labour through this combined loyalty to the state. Were Hitler and Mussolini Socialists? - The History Forum www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30139
Did Soviet Communism, with its slave labor and absolute obedience to the state, conform to Marxism? Both forms of Socialism went off the rails - as they will because the rails are set in the direction of power concentration. The Left distances itself from the role of Socialism in Fascism, just as it distances itself from its role in racism and slavery in America - and in both cases blames the conservatives. This is super-rich because conservatives fought Fascists and Northern -Southern Democrats in the Civil War.
EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism 2. Disdain for human rights 3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause 4. Rampant sexism 5. Controlled mass media 6. Obsession with national security 7. Religion and government intertwined 8. Corporate power protected 9. Labor power suppressed 10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts 11. Obsession with crime and punishment 12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Socialism sacrifices the individual to society; fascism sacrifices the individual to the nation. Both use mass slaughter justified by altruism, in the name of the common good, enforced by the secret police, with midnight knocks at the door to arrest the socially deplorable and send them to interment camps, concentration camps, and gulags with no regard to rights or objectivity, and both control the economy either by regulation or direct ownership by the state, and both are ruled by psychopathic monsters. They are two sides of the same coin, collectivism. Both are vile, evil, mass slaughtering machines built on a pure hatred of the independent soul. And both need to be outlawed.
