Winter Patriot Community Blog

Previous Part 2 here

Part 3. UNDERSTANDING the VICTIMS (that's you and me)

This is a big one, folks. There's a lot of links and a couple of exercises to do. Should keep you off the streets for a while! Sorry about the length but there is a lot of ground to cover and I don't think I could make it any shorter and do it any sort of justice. Take your time, particularly if this stuff is new to you. It will be unsettling. Be warned, I am trying to turn your view of your world upside-down or perhaps right-side-up! So let's into it-

Our psychopathic leaders and opinion shapers like to blame us for all the damage to the world and for the state that it is in, which is nice given that they are in control and we are not; that the actions that are popularly supported are never included in the managed “two-party” debate that substitutes for choice and voter control. Never-the-less, they are right in one sense. We may be being lied to and we may realise this to varying degrees but we go along with it. Why? This is what I hope to answer, at least in part, in the following essay. Once we understand what the problem is in our society and in ourselves and who is really causing it and why, we are halfway to the solution.

If you have grown up in any “civilised” society, i.e. non-tribal, that I can think of, you will suffer from two related afflictions caused by the preceding generation watering the seed that lies within them and, indeed, within us all. This seed, the desire for power over things we simply are not given power over, principally other people, leads to damaging consequences and psychopathy in some. The two afflictions affecting us all to varying degrees are Learned Obedience and Learned Helplessness. Both lead to a restricted life through a very stunted view of our own autonomy and to a very distorted view of God, if you happen to be spiritually minded.

For my understanding of Learned Obedience, I am greatly indebted to Alice Miller . . (and here) for her writings which have so illuminated my understanding of the human condition as we find it today. While there was much I was aware of before I came to her books, it was Miller's words that lined all the ducks up in a row, so to speak, and gave them a context. A context that showed the dynamic relationship between the desire to love and be loved, the desire to please and to physically survive in the child on the one hand together with the parents' and authorities' desire for control out of their own insecurities, on the other hand, in a way that came alive for me.

I am also greatly indebted to Arthur Silber for not only introducing me to Miller's books through his own writings but also for expounding them and emphasising the need for acceptance and belonging that bedevils us all and makes tools and fools of us so much of the time. I can thoroughly recommend Arthur's Tribalism series and his essays on Alice Miller's work. You might also consider reading these two very valusable essays here and here

(If you read his essays and find them valuable, please consider supporting him and his writing via the Paypal botton on his site!).

This insistence on unthinking, unquestioning obedience by all those in authority over us as children causes untold damage not only at the time but also later throughout our lives and all too often into the next generation. The damage and methods are elegantly explained by Arthur Silber so I wont repeat them here. But suffice it to say that we are blamed and shamed into thinking that we are defective human beings and can only win back acceptance and acceptability and avoid physical and emotional pain through dutifully following orders. This mental conditioning not only sets us up to be manipulated later by authority figures and con artists (which will necessarily have a large proportion of psychopaths amongst them) but will also colour how we view our fellow human beings both within our own tribe (us) and those outside (them). What is ironic is that our psychopathic leaders are always presenting themselves as part of “us” when, in fact, they constitute the entirety of “them”. The people we have been taught to see as “them” are really part of “us”. This is the mother of all “bait and switch” scams. This is the fundamental misperception held by people in our society that leads to wars, exploitation and an untold amount of generalised, non-specific fear that permeates our lives. It's the psychopaths in every society against the rest of us. We accept an enormous amount of restriction in exchange for perceived safety from perceived dangers and enemies all enumerated by our “betters” and “authorities” who are most often psychopathic but always exploitative. We do it reflexively and on demand now.

If you want to know how much you do this (and scare everyone else around you), spend one whole day saying “no” to every “request”, “suggestion” and direction. See if you don't cause some problems for all involved! I'm serious. Try it (that's an order!).
“Just say no” and don't explain it. You don't have to explain yourself. You don't need their permission to say “no”. You're autonomous, remember. (OK, it might not be prudent if you work in an hierarchy to tell your “superior” no. But you might consider asking why. Do a little questioning. Push back. Push the norms.)

If you have a reflex to explain yourself, it will go back to this following orders conditioning and the attendent notion that it is what “good” people do. And being “good” is a moral injunction and morals are to do with God (supposedly). So when you say “no” and refuse to explain it, a little person inside you is going to get scared because you are rebelling against God and everybody knows that God will get you for doing that. Either that or Santa won't bring you anything at Christmas (depending on your particular upbringing). I'm being a little flippant here but most people will find there is validity in what I say if they observe their own feelings when not complying with others. This inbuilt monitor will inhibit our freedom both in what we don't do for ourselves and in what we comply with which often further restricts us.

If anyone thinks it is right to comply with the wishes of those who presume authority over us and that to rebel against them is to rebel against God's order, then they can explain to me why God gave us all freewill. Patriarchal Christians are fond of quoting Romans 13:1-2 saying that God ordains all governments and authorities.

(Romans 13:1-2 NKJV – “Let every soul be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is not authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God and those that resist will bring judgement on themselves”).

Not only does this offend common sense (think various Georges) but it is a very wrong translation of the original Greek scripture. “Governing Authorities” in the NKJV translation and others has been extrapolated from the words “higher powers” (presumably to sound like “powers that be”) and "power" which is one interpretation of the Greek word “exousia” used in the original. But even then it is a partial translation because to be correct it should read “power to choose”. The word “exousia” is elsewhere in the New Testament (and by the same author, Paul) translated as “liberty” and “freedom to choose”. So this should read that the authority is from God to ourselves over ourselves and only over ourselves To assume authority over others is to invite God's judgement on us.

This now makes sense of God giving us freewill for without it we can't be ultimately accountable nor can we freely choose God's Way. Without freewill, there is no way we could be described as being “made in the likeness of God”. We would be little better than robots. Having authority over ourselves rather than by our governments is also in accordance with Jesus saying that Satan is the ruler of this world. Now if this is so, whom is he going to rule through? Well, those with power over others. This is the reverse of what we have been taught by our “Authorities” and you can readily see why. And we know what having power over others does to the human mind. Power corrupts, period. We have a bit more internal consistency now. Have you ever wondered why a king would commission an “Authorized” version of the Bible?

I could go on further with supporting quotes from the New Testament but I don't want to turn this into a theology lecture. I also don't want to restrict this to Christians, so called or otherwise. I mention the New and Old Testaments as much as I do because they are extremely influential over our thinking (even over those whom have never read it!) whether we realise it or not. They have been used (misused) to give authority to the leaders and remove it from the led of this predatory western culture with its long and bloody history of exploitation. This is particularly true today in America and Israel. Our world view is largely a product of our culture so these two books are extremely relevant to our discussion, I believe.

Let us now consider Learned Helplessness. I think it would be fair to say that most people have considered the fact that they would not survive for long outside our society i.e. “in the wild”. We are fond of describing self sufficient tribal people as “primitive” which is code for “stupid”. Yet, they are masters of their own lives in their physical environment. We, in comparison are helpless, totally helpless and we know it. This is what a specialised society does to you. It makes you dependent on the organisers, the go-betweens, the controllers, the psychopaths that control our food distribution and our energy supplies to mention just two areas. (When this same process is foisted on whole nations it is called Globalism.) How are you feeling? Secure? This is relatively real helplessness. What is more troubling ironically, I believe, is the unreal helplessness; the stuff that doesn't exist in the real world; the stuff that has been programmed into our brains to make us feel helpless and hopeless over things that are very much under our control, or could be.

Learned Helplessness is far more insidious in its implantation and its outcome than Learned Obedience which is taught through constant application of “Do this or Else” (to quote Silber). Helplessness comes from conditioning that impresses on you that you are powerless over your circumstances; that no matter what you do or decide it will not work or will not be right, whatever that is. The object is for you to give up your autonomy, your freewill and follow whatever you are told as in Learned Obedience. But you are much more likely to do so willingly because you will believe you need help. So, if the prison door is left open, you will stay because you wont believe you will survive “out there”. You become your own jailer. It doesn't always work, of course. This is what the Israelis are attempting to do to the Palestinians and have been for many years but it is not working as evidenced by the tunnels for smuggling past the prison walls and the skyrockets they are firing over the prison walls. This is what is infuriating the Israelis and this is what I suspect is the meaning of the skyrockets to the Palestinians (at least to those firing them).

But it is very hard to resist the programming when you are young and there is no one to encourage you to resist. How is it done, this programming? It is accomplished often unwittingly by parents who push their children to do things they are clearly not ready to try. The child fails and often, of course. This imprints the failure of their efforts into their mind. Our culture encourages us to “throw them in at the deep end”. The parents, of course, are quite used to doing things they are instructed to do without all the information they need; to do better; to “strive for excellence” whether capable or not; mostly not. They have normalised all this and so see nothing wrong with behaving in like manner to their children. This “swimming in the dark” links fear with learning and accomplishing. We, as children, no longer want to learn or if we do we are constantly battling fear which makes everything that much harder. In Australian Aboriginal culture, the child is free to watch the adult do something for as long as it likes and the child chooses when it will attempt the task for itself, if at all. There is no pressure. The child is respected and granted freedom and autonomy. Certainly in this regard, at least. This culture was sustainable for thousands and thousands of years and was doing fine until interfered with by Western culture which is a relative infant and is looking for all the world as very unsustainable and is far more worthy of the derisive use of the word “primitive”.

Our culture constantly praises competition. But competition creates one temporary winner and a lot of losers. We are also constantly presented with exceptional athletes and artists as models to emulate. Not much chance of that, speaking for myself! The News is full of stories of disasters or atrocities we can do little about particularly as they never identify the causes. At the end of all this, you may feel like you should apologise for taking up space on earth. Many do.

The next level of Learned Helplessness comes when parents, and subsequently any other “authorities”, act erratically and without explanation (because you are just supposed to obey). With inconsistent behaviour comes confusion for the child. How are you supposed to know what the “right” thing to do is when the “right “ thing is always changing? This is a very common cause of children “acting out”. It is very distressing. Eventually, one way to ease the distress is to simply stop trying to work it out whatever it is and just give up and do what you are told and suffer any consequences. The more erratic and inconsistent the parents' or caregivers' behaviour, the worse it is for the child. This is then repeated and reinforced later in life through the behaviour of police, courts, governments and corporations. How often do you hear, “What can I do? It's just the way it is”!

Addictions in the parents amplify inconsistency immeasurably. Children of alcoholics, for instance, suffer a myriad of problems such as Complex PTSD and Dissociation but also this Learned Helplessness. Drug addiction is at epidemic proportions. It is both an effect and a cause of this pervasive helplessness. It's self fuelling.

Children grow up thinking the world is as it is because of their behaviour. They literally see themselves as the “centre of the universe”. So they attempt (or think they should attempt) to do things to stop the bad consequences of their parents' behaviour. When the behaviour and the consequences don't change they blame themselves and feel helpless. Nothing they do is right, nothing works. And because this stress is attended by pain and fear, and lots of it, it gets ingrained very deeply. (Incidentally, that is what torture is all about). So when later in life some cop or other fearful authority figure who can inflict pain starts ranting and raving, many of us are frozen with fear or behave in a way that will placate the bully. I believe this is one explanation for the reception of silence through to nervous laughter that Bush got after his infamous speech about extrajudicial killings around the world - “Lets just say, they're not a problem any more”!
Or the boss starts yelling at you and in front of your co-workers. What are the chances of you shooting back reflexively, “You fucking insolent prick. How dare you insult me in this outrageous manner. Now go to your office and think about what you have done and don't come out until you are ready to apologise”!
The chances would be pretty close to zero of that happening, I guess. Yet, by my reading of Romans ch13, it would be far closer to what God would have us do than being struck dumb and cowering.

I would like to insert into this now an example of what I believe is learned helplessness from our own recent history and the importance of knowing the truth of history not some alternate history. In 2002 there were popular demonstrations around the world against the then impending invasion of Iraq. The invasion went ahead and demonstrations faded away. People had high hopes but were left feeling helpless after thinking they could make an impact against war. The confusion, I believe, was built on the confusion suffered and internalised from their childhood. It all got triggered again. If you suffer from learned helplessness then it is extremely important to find out the truth of your situation to avoid reinforcement through repetition of failure which is inevitable if your plan is not based on reality. The Vietnam war ended not because of citizen demonstrations as is popularly believed but because the United States Army could no longer fight it. There were widespread mutinies taking place within its ranks. Officers were being killed through “fragging” wholesale. The hierarchy had broken down. This has further lesson for us later on.

I have been listing ways that learned helplessness had affected almost all people. The list takes a decidedly dark turn now. For some children and also some adults the programming is done through brutalisation. Many children are sexually assaulted. The figures are one in three girls before the age of eighteen and one in six boys. That's a quarter of our population. For many the abuse is systematic and prolonged. Sexual abuse leaves the victim feeling helpless because they weren't able to stop it and also to blame, which is the other side of this helpless coin, by again not stopping it. They become their own judge, jury and jailers. This state of mind leaves victims open to, and indeed attracts, further abusers. This is not good for the victims and survivors, of course, but it is also not good for the whole society (though good for the controllers) when you have this high number of citizens battling this level of Learned Helpessness. While this abuse is across the whole spectrum of our society, it is more prevalent in environments where there is patriarchal and domineering control such as in religious and state environments.

From here we go deeper again into the world of torture, terror and mind control sponsored throughout the last few hundred years through to the present day by some religions and governments. Though it only directly affects a small minority, it indirectly affects the whole society by adding to the pervasive sense of fear and helplessness. It corrupts the torturers who are then placed in positions of authority over many people. It is where organised paedophilia, torture, the making of psychopaths, learned obedience and helplessness, World Wars (against the “rest of us”), religions, cults, security agencies and the TeeVee come together (whew!). I am not looking forward to writing about this. So this might be a good point to leave off, I think.

Perhaps before I do finish here, though, I will leave you with one more challenge. Earlier in this Part, I suggested that you practise saying “no” to everybody for a day and to be alert to your own and others' reactions of fear. If you are up for it (but not on the same day!), you can also ask yourself whenever a thought occurs about something you think you know to be true, ”Is this something I have just accepted unthinkingly?” And, ”How do I know, in fact, that this is true?” I think you will be surprised at how little you actually KNOW to be true. It might be worthwhile to carry a notebook and jot down the thoughts when they occur to you for a more lenghty consideration later when you might have the time.

This has all been bad news so far, I'm sorry. But there is some good news coming, I promise! But first, Part 4.

Peace, James.

Part 4a here

Previous Part 1 here

Part 2. UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY

In Part 1 I spoke about the enemy being the psychopaths. The term “psychopath” is outmoded in the psychological and psychiatric communities as a diagnostic term and has been replaced with “sociopath”. I don't use “sociopath” because it doesn't convey the same meaning both popularly and medically. In my reading of psychiatric literature, sociopathy tends to look at behaviour that is obviously antisocial in that it is a rejection of or a disregard for society's laws and mores. It tends not to cover those people who shape society's laws and thinking for their own malevolent interests. “Psychopath”, I think, conveys this generalised malevolence better and so I use it for preference.

Psychopathy is all about power, power over others. Psychopaths make up about five percent of our population and given that they are attracted to power, they end up in our governments and professions such as law, police, medicine, religions, military and media. In short, anywhere there is money, status and power. They have a huge influence in shaping and running our (Western) society. In fact, if psychopaths could design a society, this is pretty much what it would look like! We have a society whereby we all as individuals find ourselves competing with each other in nearly every aspect of our lives. We have a society that is based on hierarchies as the organising principle. Hierarchies are designed to abuse. Hierarchies take power and autonomy away from everyone but the leader. Those at the higher levels are compensated by being given some power over those below but they still lose their autonomy.

It behooves us, then, to understand and identify these malevolent actors. No change of any lasting benefit is going to happen without this knowledge, I believe.

Psychopaths have no conscience or, at least, have irretrievably buried it. They have no feelings of empathy for anyone else on this planet, though they can mimic empathy quite well, but not perfectly. They are incapable of making real friends. They see other people only as resources to be used and they consider it their right to use everyone. All antagonism towards them or non co-operation with them is viewed as unreasonable, even outrageous. They lie and deceive consantly. They see nothing wrong with it for two reasons.
Firstly, they don't really understand the difference between right and wrong, only what's right and wrong for them and that is intimately connected to what they want. They are unable to self-reflect. (I read once that “a psychopath doesn't know who he is. He only knows what he wants”. I think this is very accurate and accords with my regretably extensive personal experience.)
Secondly, they do not understand what “truth” is. That may sound bizarre but it's true (no pun intended!). “Truth” is about what is real, what exists, what is factual. Given a chance, psychopaths behave as if they were God; that they create reality. When they lie, they are creating an alternate reality, they believe. And all too often, for a while, it may appear that they have, provided they can convince enough people, that is (think 911/War on Terror). But reality, Truth, sooner or later makes itself felt. Insanity is being disconnected from reality. In this sense, psychopaths are insane. They are highly functioning, yet insane.

So, because of this reality disconnect, not only will they use and abuse us at every opportunity, they will also lead us and themselves into disaster. Even if you are in the priviledged inner circle, disaster awaits you because you are following someone whose map doesn't reflect reality. It doesn't reflect the truth and while ever you (or a nation) can't see the truth for yourself, not seeing the world as it actually is, you will suffer. Hence, “and the truth will make you free”! (Truer words never spoken. Couldn't resist it, sorry!). I think it is worth while to pause for a moment here to consider, again, the authors and adherents of religious scriptures that call for war and genocide.

The sad part is that because we have all grown up in a society that may as well have been designed by psychopaths, we can't see the truth for all the layers of lies and misconceptions we have been fed since birth and we pass them on unwittingly. And we suffer and we cause suffering. We are like fish who cannot perceive water even though it is all around us. We don't have a point of comparison. We have always been in it. Anyway that's the subject for another part. This part is about understanding the perpertrators rather than the victims. I have been debating with myself whether it is worthwhile discussing how psychopaths get to be the way they are. We'll see. But one thing that is definitely worthwhile discussing before I leave this part is the difference between fighting and war.

Everybody fights but only psychopaths wage war. Fighting is short term “argy-bargy” whether it is a punch-up in the local pub on Saturday night or tribes going on raids and indulging in a little raping and pillaging. But it is short term and the aggressor leaves (albeit with a few slaves, maybe). War is far more serious. It's total. The aggressor does not leave unless he is taking everything of value or has firmly emplaced a comprador class to do its bidding (20th century colonialisim, Israel excepted). There's no possibility of a return stoush next Saturday night. War is designed to destroy a whole culture; to subsume it; to enslave it; to squash the life out of it. To illustrate the difference, The American government waged war on Vietnam but they were, through it, fighting (indirectly) the Russians first and then the Chinese who were supporting North Vietnam. Only Vietnam was at risk of not surviving. Only Vietnam was suffering from war. This has significance further down in the essay. Again, only psychopaths wage war. They are the only ones who have the insatiable need. They are the only ones disconnected enough from reality and from any feelings for fellow human beings to dismiss the appalling consequences for others and even themselves. They are the only ones with no sense of proportion. To slaughter a whole people to have even more money when they couldn't spend in ten lifetimes what they have already. You can only order around a certain number of servants. You can only wear one pair of shoes at a time. (Where are you Imelda?)

Colonialism was war waged by psychopathic European (and American) rulers against indigenous peoples all over the world. The indigenous peoples were defeated often in cases where they needn't have been because they didn't understand that the Europeans meant to exterminate them. They responded to the Europeans as they did to their neighbours when they fought with them and presumed they were just being muscled for a bit of territory, not the whole lot. They made treaties with the Europeans and gave more weight to what they said rather than to what they did. Basic mistake. Psychopaths lie and there is absolutely no advantage or point in making deals with a liar.

These indigenous peoples didn't fight genocidal wars with each other because had one tribe done so it would have found itself fighting all the neighbouring tribes. They would have had to combine to preserve themselves against this people that opted for extermination. They didn't realise that the European invader was waging war on them and that they would have to respond accordingly to survive (or perhaps they were just hoping against the evidence, as happens all too often). Had they done so they would have combined to fight together. The North American Indians eventually did this but by then it was too late. If they had combined much earlier, they would likely have prevailed. This is why the Europeans, then the Americans and now the Israelis place so much effort into setting one tribe or faction against another and the central role of false flag attacks in facilitating this. They do this same thing but on a psychological level with their own domestic populations (911/London/Madrid notwithstanding) and for the same reason. Because if we could see them for what they are and combine we could easily throw them out.

This has a direct implication for the coming war against Iran. When Bush (or more correctly, his puppet masters) declared war on Afghanistan and then Iraq, to those that could see, he was actually declaring war on the whole planet. If Russia and China can see this, that they are next, that the people behind US/UK/Israel aim to be the world's masters, then you can expect them to attack with full force the moment Iran is bombed. They will see that their survival is at stake and that moment will be their best chance. If that is what they are planning, then I would expect them to remain relatively quiet and not be issuing belicose warnings to the US/Israel so as to maximise the surprise factor when they do attack in response. And that is, indeed, how it is playing out. I would also expect that Russia and China would see that these wouldbe world masters are disconnected from reality and would therefore promote similarly disconnected types into positions of power and would be nowhere near as formidable as they present themselves to be. Recent exampes of this incompetence and hubris are Lebanon 2006 and Georgia 2008.

Up till now, the US and the UK have been playing “argy-bargy” with Russia and China through so called proxy wars such as Vietnam. These were about markets and political influence. They weren't about survival. At least, not for Russia and China or the US. But all that has changed with the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. This is about access to oil and strategic positioning for “First Strike” capability. This is about survival. And both Russia and China are very experienced at surviving.
So the psychopaths in and behind the US/UK/Israel governments are leading us all off the cliff thinking they will be all right because they can fly. Reality is about to teach them (and everybody else) a hard lesson.

This may seem an overly pessimistic conclusion to some but when the stakes are high and the downside is great, it is prudent to be pessimistic rather than optimistic. Besides it accords with reality. And the reality is that psychopaths are driven on their destructive paths and they never change. Hoping they will have a change of heart is worse than a waste of time. Negotiating with them is similarly pointless. They will never understand our point of view, our world view. Their condition is irreversible. This makes their motives and goals (our exploitation if not destruction) and to some extent, their methods (fear, threats and violence) very predictable. Certainly, if a strategy has worked for them in the past, they will repeat it.

Actually, there are three basic strategies that are used. First they try the charming lies routine. Then if this doesn't get them what they want, they use threats and violence. And finally if overcome by the victim or confronted by others, they play the victim. This holds true for both governments such as Israel and for individuals such as your average wifebeater and/or child abuser. The constant throughout is lying.

The only effective strategy is to accept that they are as they are (liars and destroyers) and to deal with them. I'll get to dealing with them after the next part, Understanding the Victims (that's you and me).

Next part here

Seeing that there isn't a whole lot going on here at the moment, I thought I'd take the opportunity to write some more on things not covered in my previous essay. I'll do it in parts.

Part 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ENEMY
(Or as the Rolling Stones would have it, “Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name”!

It has been said that all wars throughout history are waged by the elite against the ordinary citizen. It may appear that it is one nation against another and that is the sum total of it. But the wars are always started and supported by the elite on both sides and are paid for by the citizenry on both sides (whom have no argument with each other) in lives, health, housing , infrastructure and taxes. Let us not forget the taxes. They pay the armaments and equipment manufacturers for their deadly production that is then totally destroyed and taking with it the wealth accumulated from previous years production. All wasted. Jobs in the Military/Industrial Complex are jobs creating poverty. Fully half of the worlds scientists and 90% of the worlds physicists work directly or indirectly for war, for violence, for destruction. Unbelievable! Think of the problems that could be solved if all this effort were to be redirected.

And then there are the bankers who finance this carnage and destruction. The same people win no matter who “wins” and who “loses” because waging war is profitable. While ever a nation has privately owned banks and privatley owned for profit armaments manufacturers, it will have wars. No question about it.

These same war manufacturers have taken over the government. They have the money and they have a need. They need to orient the economy and the education system towards war (I doubt there's a university in America that doesn't get a grant from the Dept of Defence, for instance, and there isn't a State or Congressional electorate in the United States that doesn't have a “Defence” industry). For all the details, history and likely future see this article from researcher Brian Bogart
They also need a front to hide behind because the average citizen, though very imperfect morally, is not committed to doing evil as the war manufacturers are and so would reject them if they knew this agenda of destruction; this agenda of violence. Most people are committed to creation though they may not consciously realise it or express it that way.

So this is how the lines are drawn; the overwelming majority committed to creative endeavours and the minority to destructive ones. Another way to describe this is the basically good versus the decidedly evil. Or, the people versus the psychopaths.

The psychopaths cannot profit from destruction if there first isn't wealth creation. Creation doesn't need destruction but destruction needs creation. One can exist by itself, the other cannot. Destruction is parasitical and therefore the destroyers, the violent, are parasites. We have seen these parasites deceive with every move they make, lie with every word they utter. They are committed to war with us, to our destruction. If these destroyers worship a god or are acting on behalf of a god, then this god must also be a parasitical god (which is an oxymoron) and dependent on a creative God. They cannot be the same God, or parts of the same God, because God cannot be at war with itself. It cannot have two natures and not be two Gods. And if this is so then only one is sustainable, the other is not. They are far from equal and only one can be God. So if you want to devote yourself to the cause of destruction or violence, then you are also commiting yourself to destruction. You are following a Being (or behaviour, at least) that calls for your destruction, too. How dumb is that? How insane is that? This is the reality of violence.

A real world example of this nonsense is the theology of Freemasonry. In the lower rungs (or initiations, as they call them) the fledgling Mason is led to believe that the God they worship is the Christian God, Jesus. Further up they are told that there are two gods, Jesus and Lucifer, Light and Dark. This is otherwise know as Dualism. Then finally Lucifer is presented as transcendent. Of course, by changing the theology so dramaticaly they are telling the neophyte that they have lied to him along the way. Why does he now continue to follow people who lie to him? More on this later.

Whether you, the reader, believe in a personalised Evil Being and/or God or not, I don't think it matters to the reasoning and logic of my essay. The opposing spiritual forces represent opposing principles and we follow one or the other, by and large, whether we like it or not. Either way, I find this “cosmic” overview very helpful in sorting out the cacophany of confusing voices and problems in the world which is the subject of the next part. Perhaps this apocalyptic approach (Good Vs Evil) is my way of going to the “source” and working my way back from there. Whatever, thanks for reading this far. Comments and feedback welcomed.

Next part here

It's a lot like an Agatha Christie novel, figuring out this Armageddon thing. We have a crime, the bombing of Gaza. We have victims, the Palestinians. We even have the culprits, the people running the Israeli government. But are they the principal actors here? We have accomplices, the people running the US and UK governments. But, again, are they the primary motivators?

I think it is worthwhile when trying to understand a long running situation to look behind the stage props, the actors, the details of the plot and dialogue to inquire into the motivations of the writers, producers and directors of the “show”. To look for the source.

What do we know about Israeli history, culture and people? Are they autonomous or are they dependent on others or act on others instructions? We know that the Rothschild family has been heavily involved in the formation and growth of Israel; that they have provided a lot of the initial funding and have used their political clout to further the cause of Israel. It is highly unlikely that their influence over Israeli policy has waned over the years. International bankers tend to do things as a group. There are other Jewish banking families and I think it is entirely reasonable to believe they are involved with the Israel enterprise as well. When these banking families get involved in something, they like to control it and they treat everything as an investment. They have a purpose and they want a return. It's business ..... the business of the pursuit of evermore wealth and power.

The history of Israel has been one of violence from the start; a seemingly unending series of terrorist attacks and oppression against the Palestinians interspersed with wars. The Israelis have started all these wars bar one, the 1973 “Yom Kippur War”. We might conclude that they are belligerent and extremely aggressive and wont hesitate to start a war to further their interests. Why do they behave like this? The Israelis themselves have more land than they need to live in peacefully; always have. This can be simply demonstrated by the fact that they have had to aggressively promote immigration to Palestine to Jews living all over the world to populate the place. Indeed, the Israelis had to engage in “false flag” terror campaigns against the Sephardic (Oriental or Semitic) Jews living in other Middle East countries to drive them into Israel. Many claim much the same thing happened to the Ashkenazi (non-Oriental, non-Semitic) Jews in Europe through the oppression caused by the Nazis together with support from the Zionists. Historically, Jews have shown a marked resistence to immigrating during the twentieth century to Palestine as it was known prior to 1948 and to Israel as it is now known. Recently, the Israeli government has been offering large inducements to Iranian Jews to emmigrate to Israel. These have not been taken up.

Obviously there is another agenda at play here. As mentioned earlier, the principal actors here are likely to be the “International Bankers” and, if so, it is their agenda we are witnessing being played out. But first, let us return to the Israelis. How is it possible for these Jews, who have lived peacefully amongst, and as part of, a large number of other nations, to suddenly become this belligerent and warlike people?

If we look at their culture, we find it is built on ancient texts, The Hebrew Bible otherwise known as the Old Testament and the Talmud. Both these texts are exclusivist i.e. they promote the Jews as being separate from and superior to the rest of humanity. They are “God's Chosen People” which makes the rest of humanity “God's Rejected or God's Scorned or God's Enemy” and thereby the Jews' enemy. This notion of “God's Chosen” sets them up in contention with the world and if God has rejected the rest of humanity and they are now his enemy then if the Israelis attack and kill any of these same people they are doing God's work. There is no getting around this inescapable conclusion.

This world view of choseness and separateness is inculcated in Jews through their culture from birth if they happen to grow up and mix in a Jewish religious community. This is inevitable.

There are many calls for mercy and justice in the Old Testament but many of these are directed towards the disenfranchised in their own community and even when they are directed towards the benefit of the stranger it becomes confusing, contradictory. What this then requires is a sort of schizophrenic approach to these scriptures which alternatively call for mercy (Micah 6.8 ) and war (Micah 4:13) and genocide (Joshua 6:17-24). This doesn't make for a peaceful and balanced mindset. Indeed, it calls for a “splitness” in the mind to be able to function with this internal contradiction. This internal contradiction must create conflict, first internal conflict and then later external conflict

For the same reason, Christians suffer from exactly the same complaint, if not more so, as the calls for mercy and justice are even more pronounced in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus specifically rejected the priest class and its attendent legalism (the myriad of laws which, in the end, sanction wrongdoing), and the culture of violence and revenge that is such a part of the Old Testament. (See John ch8: 31-44. Jesus accuses the Judeans, known at the time as the Jews as opposed to the Israelites from Israel, as being murderers and followers of Satan. It was the Judeans who had “The Law”, the Torah, the first five books of what is now the Old Testament which called for genocide).
The answer to this mental conflict for Christians and Jews alike is to either follow the way of violence and exclusiveness or the way of mercy and inclusiveness ..... or have two minds, to split.

This cultural programming for both Jews and Christians alike lies relatively dormant until it is triggered through propaganda usually attending some crisis (also usually manufactured) and a target or victim and the means for acting out this violent disposition is provided i.e. wars against “the other”. A large number of both Christians and Jews have shown themselves quite capable of exploitation of the each other. Both groups share the Old Testament and its sentiments and both claim the title of “God's Chosen People”. Despite this competition for God's favour, many Christians and Jews have managed to unite. They have united to persecute a third group, the Muslims, specifically the Palestinians. Some very vocal Christian and Jewish leaders would have us believe that the Palestinians are not only their enemy but everybody's enemy and even God's enemy because they are resisting God's will that Palestine belongs to the Jews as outlined in the Old Testament alongside calls to genocide (See both the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua).

As noted earlier, large sections of the populace of both countries are predisposed to violence through religious training, or programming if you like, in large part authorised and validated by leaders pointing to passages in the Old Testament. It is not only violence being advocated but a particular kind of violence: war, slavery and genocide. This is not only sanctioned by the God of much of the Old Testament, but demanded by him. This “god” cannot be the God who created the Universe and all in it because he would be at war with his own creation; at war with himself. This is not possible. If it were possible then this God would have a split mind and as God is mind/spirit without a body this means a split nature which means two Gods; a creator God and a destroyer God; a good God and an evil God. Which God was Joshua listening to when he was told to kill every living thing, man, woman, child and beast in Canaan?
(The Christian God though a three part God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all of the same nature. Jesus said, “You see me and you see the Father”).

A further argument that this god of genocide is not the God that created the Universe and all in it is this; if this god was the Creator God and wanted to eliminate an entire people, he could simply withdraw their life from them, he being the source of all life. This would have a huge advantage for his “Chosen Ones” in that they would not now have to murder men, women and children and be dead or uffering from injuries and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and nightmares and the ongoing deliterious effects of the resultant bloodlust infecting the present and subsequent generations. To command they be murderers is hardly nurturing your “Chosen People”. Once a people visit violence upon an enemy, they bring this same spirit of violence back into their own community when they return. It is now in their psyches and being denied it will fester to erupt against perceived internal and external enemies later on. The only God that would do this is one who wanted the destruction of ALL people, perpertrator and victim alike. Yet this genocidal god can't destroy by itself, it needs to employ humans to do it. If it needs help to destroy then it couldn't possibly create by itself; the defining quality that makes God God. This genocidal god, if it exists at all, is not God but some sort of other being and so should not be given any credence or authority let alone worshipped and followed.

You see the problem here? If you choose war and genocide, you are either obeying an evil, destructive being who wants to destroy you, too, or you are deluded/insane and hearing voices or just straight out evil yourself. What you cannot be is following a loving creator God.

Let us turn to the “accomplices”. Successive US and UK governments have provided taxpayer funds, armaments and political cover for Israel over many years. Both of these countries' governments have been happy to “give” the Israelis a land that belonged to neither of them. Such arrogance! Both the United Kingdom and the United States are “Christian” countries led by “Christian” men (by and large). Both these countries have long and sordid histories of colonialism and empire building, of enslaving whole peoples. Their justification .... the New Testament (go preach the good news to all the nations) and the Old Testament (appropriating the “Chosen People” title) and their methods .... straight out of the Old Testament (war, plunder and genocide). Though it must be noted that “the Good News” which was once exclusively Christianity, is now joined by “Democracy” and “Our Way of Life” (materialism/hedonism) as the religious reasons for the non-religious.

Who are we really dealing with here? Are there actors or interests behind these governments controlling them? Those that know the mechanism of credit creation, the banking system, already know the answer to this. Bankers such as the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans (Christians, Jews and Calathumpians, whatever) control the country's economy by creating money they have just pulled out of thin air by extending credit (which is received as debt to the borrower). It also furnishes them with immense wealth and power over others, not the least of which are politicians and, in turn, the control of the education, legal, police and military systems. They dominate businesses including the media. Everything is channeled their way. If it is not, then they change it. They rule. They rule Britain, the US and also Israel. To see one country ruling another is to miss who is ruling them all.

However for all their power, these bankers and their attendant elite face two problems. One is that the lust for power and wealth is never satisfied. They always want more and so are always busy plotting the next expansion. As The Oracle in the film, “The Matrix” said, “What do men with power want? More Power”!
The second problem is that because their power is based ultimately on fraud, a lie, this may be discovered and then this powerbase will be taken from them.

The country's wealth that is the backing (or that which gives it value) for the bankers manufactured Money Supply belongs collectively to the citizens of the nation, not the bankers. The wealth that comes from the issuance of the Money Supply belongs to the peoples' governments. Should the truth become widely known, then these bankers risk losing all their power and perhaps even their heads. Certainly their heads were at risk when they were dealing in past years with functioning monarchies. The monarch was always liable to discover the truth to arrest them all with no notice. Monarchies were a problem for the bankers.

The First World War eliminated many of the monarchies and hobbled the rest. The First War was of great benefit to the bankers quite apart from the profits that came from providing the loans and armaments that made the war possible in the first place. But today they are still at risk of discovery and overthrow even with a non-functioning democracy. There is always the risk of it awakening and functioning as it should. So this is why totalitarian (but not hereditary) governments are prefered such as fascist and communist ones. (As an interesting aside, the only thing Marx found praiseworthy with Western capitalist countries was their banking system!)

This is the risk posed by the bankers' own fellow citizens . There is also a risk posed by any foreign government that does not use this private banking system. First it would show another system is possible and second, it would flourish. The answer to both these risks is to dominate the world to such an extent that rival countries and systems no longer exist and the populations are controlled to the point of total domination. "1984", in other words. No free thought can be allowed if the risk is to be totally negated. These people, these bankers imperfectly control, in large part, the so called Western world and somewhat more perfectly control the state of Israel. They need an increasingly police/fascist state in the West and the crushing and control of every country in the world presently outside their influence. The principle ones are Iran, Russia and China. This is the goal. All their efforts have and will be building towards this including, and especially, the creation and expansion of Israel. They need a place from which to rule. A place that is totally under their control and a place that holds significance and authority in the minds of people (including Muslims). What better place than Jerusalem?

So given all the above, I see further wars (but not their outcome) as inevitable in an attempt to hide the truth. Truth is their enemy and for good reason.
Another compelling reason (for them) to wage ever more wars is that these people have committed many many crimes. To survive prosecution and, indeed, to survive at all, they need to keep up the level of fear and preoccupation with survival for everyone else. Nothing does this better than ever more wars and terror.

So, we have two malevolent forces intent on war and both driven by power over others and both focusing on Jerusalem. One force are the adherents of a genocidal god who makes appearences throughout the Old Testament which was written some 2500 to 3000 years ago. Many of these adherents sit in churches and synagogues around the world. The other force is a financial elite of international bankers who first made their appearance on earth some 300 years ago. Both forces are being driven by the same people, the bankers, and they have launched a rollercoaster they are mentally incapable of stopping. We must put the brakes on by withdrawing our silent support.

Would we be more powerful and successful against this evil (and more at peace with ourselves) if we rejected violence and the notions of retaliation and punishment and promoted instead truth, inclusiveness, compassion and mercy as our weapons? If we acted this out by refusing employment that furthered warfare especially military service? If we helped others avoid having to do military service or manufacture weapons through poverty or the threat of poverty? By noncompliance in every form we can think of; by speaking truth at every opportunity? How else do you break this spell, that a violent God can be good, that has afflicted so many Christians and Jews alike?

If we challenged every Christian or Jew who utters exclusive, racist and violent things and asked instead, “Is this what you think your Creator God wants of you? The God who created us all?”

Or perhaps, “Why would your God want you to destroy someone he created; someone he could kill himself if he wanted to and spare you the blood on your hands and its attendant trauma?”

The Creator God cannot be violent without doing violence to himself, without splitting, as argued before. If we are made in God's image, do we then do violence to ourselves when we do violence to others? (By “violence” in this context, I mean that measure of physical force that in any way goes beyond that minimum necessary to restrain the violent from harming us.)

Can we bring violence to an end by refusing to participate in it; by refusing to support it wherever we find it being taught be it in our church, our synagogue, our club, our employment, our government?

In this essay, which needs to be relatively short, I have tried to simplify things without being simplistic. There is much else going on, of course, but I wanted to focus on something that is fundamental to this apocalyptic world situation that is not getting much attention. And also focus on where we might start to undo this situation without running the risk of exacerbating it through further violence.