New book: American Heart of Darkness

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

My first book did not get into the Obama administration, but I will be in vol. II. It appears that Obama fits seamlessly with the presidencies of the post JFK era. He has taken over the reins of every cowardly program started by previous presidents and added some of his own. This is a president that can tell the American people that he personally approves every drone strike and that "beyond a reasonable doubt" they are aimed only at terrorists. He can say this with the most sincere expression on his face when in fact he is lying and knows he is lying. Before and after every one of these shameless rationalizations Obama's drones are killing women, children, old men, and all sorts of people with no links to anything political much less terrorism. His drones are even deliberately waiting a few minutes for rescuers to show up and deliberately killing them. They even have a name for this, a "double tap." These are not only blatant war crimes by just plain sick. If not outright psychopathology, these are certainly acts performed by those completely devoid of character and integrity, beginning in the oval office. And we now have a president who seems to think this is all funny, publically making cracks about sending drones after anyone interested in his daughters. To top it all off his administration saves its harshest punishments for those such as Pvt. Manning who expose the above acts to the American people.
This president who received the Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing, also wants to show how tough he is by spying on the American people, apparently all of us. He has mustered up all of his courage to sent the NSA, CIA, FBI, and just about every known federal law enforcement or intelligence agency out to collect vast data banks of the most mundane events imaginable. Tell me what this has to do with "hope" and "change?" No wonder he spoke in incomplete sentences while campaigning -- "Yes we can...." Can what? Spy on little old ladies in tennis shoes calling their grandkids, or in the Mideast kill little old ladies attending weddings?
This president apparently has shown his true colors by actively pursuing the policies of torture, mass murder, fear, and intimidation put into motion by his predecessors. Perhaps we should have taken him at his word when he said he did "not want to look back" at what the previous administration did but wanted to "look forward...." And again we have another incomplete sentence. Must have meant that he was looking forward to exceeding past initiatives in spreading superpower death, destruction, and terrorism all over the world.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

This also brings up the question as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson, universally considered the author of the Declaration, meant "mankind" including all of humanity, or that he meant White males that owned property when he wrote "all men are created equal... My research led me to believe that Jefferson was a complex human being. He was considered by those closest to him to be courageous, inspirational, brilliant but also self-centered, insincere, and manipulative. A little known fact is that only about one-fourth of the colonists were in favor of independence from Great Britain much less willing to fight for it.

My take on it is that Jefferson was trying to rally all the people he could to fight the British. He meant by his words to inspire men, women, atheists, Christians, poor, rich, even slaves and Native Americans... to the cause, and he used expressions that were inclusive of everyone. Anyone who would support the cause was his target. No, I don't think he believed his own words, and I said so in by book. Having said that, it is also true that he created one of the most powerful documents of all-time. He used the word "self-evident" instead of the original "sacred" to leave any religious connotations out; actually I think it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested this.
Every word and every phrase was meant to be inclusive and inspire, and it was written in parallel style, with each grievance against the British king beginning with "He who..." to hammer home the idea that this was an oppressive, overbearing dictator that was trampling on "creator... endowed... unalienable... rights... This was a masterful piece of work that achieved its intended purpose. It is most unfortunate that Jefferson apparently did not believe his own words. Had he been sincere and acted on these words we might not be in the situation we are today. I did find several people around him that noticed his inaction, especially on slavery, with disappointment. This was one event along a critical path of many that led to the "Transformation of the American Republic into a Pathocracy."

Thomas Jefferson wrote those words as an ideological argument against the concept of the 'divine right of kings'. In effect, the declaration showed the British that the American opposition did not recognize the foundation of their moral high ground in the situation. It gave the Americans an ideological framework that justified their own position and at the same time negated the position of the king on moral and religious grounds. Even though most of the colonists prior to that point identified as British citizens, they identified more with their state and many of them already possessed anti-British sentiments. Therefore, getting support to fight against the British did not need an ideological underpinning. These sentiments go back to the original British colonists that came to America with a beef against the king. The Puritans held anti-British sentiments against the king stemming from the reign of king Charles I, and in fact from before that during the protestant reformation period. The Quakers also had issues with the British government because of religious discrimination. And the Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish also had anti-British sentiments stemming from centuries of conflicts with the British/English. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was far more effective in gaining support for the rebellion from the American population that Jefferson's ideals in the declaration. The American colonists did not actively seek support or inclusion from non-whites because it was not feasible, or necessary at the time. The inclusion of non-white males in the conflict was, at best, a marginal issue, because the Americans already had decent support among the population before the declaration was even written. The Native Americans largely supported the British in the war, which was a given anyway, and at best they would have been allies, not citizens, so there was no need to bring them on board ideologically. Good trade and land use agreements, which the British offered, would have worked better to win their support. Women largely reinforced the social norms of their time, so there was no large support for their suffrage either. And the African slaves were the property of their owners and emancipating them would have created opposition with slave owners. The real purpose and meaning of the declaration is evident in whom it was addressed to: the king and the British government. True, the declaration was circulated among the American population, but it's importance after the fact was largely incidental. Different Americans at the time had different views on what freedom and liberty meant and what their new government should be like. Many of them were loyal to their state, their home and kin and saw themselves as citizens of independent states united with other states in a struggle to end British rule. Thomas Jefferson was no Andrew Jackson and was not the rallying type. His words and arguments were geared towards his peers on both sides of the Atlantic and it was them that he sought to influence and inspire.

It was Martin Luther King Jr. who observed in his "Letter from the Birmingham" Jail that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..." By denying justice to African Americans, Native Americans, and many others, we Americans have lost our own. Further, the injustice we have exported has been returned to us, in spades. Malcolm X said it this way: "Chickens come home to roost."

Yeah, but it is also the same as saying that 'terrorism anywhere is a threat to security everywhere'. And one mans terrorist is another's freedom-fighter. It is all based on perspective. King George III believed in the divine right of kings, so the American victory in the War of Independence was an injustice to him and American patriots were British terrorists and insurgents. There will always be injustice because people will perceive things to be unjust that others do not. Bottom line is that the colonists back then perceived the Native Americans as being uncivilized and a threat to them. They also perceived them as being inferior, culturally, or racially depending on different views, based upon their observations of them. But not all did.

The early colonists and pioneers saw things different than we do today and their lives were much harder with higher mortality rates. The poor people in America today that have running water, bathrooms, heating and air conditioning, store-bought food and emergency rooms had it better than the well-to-do back then. The harsh living conditions back then greatly affected the worldviews of those who endured them. Plus, you have to consider the validity of their views based on the information they had before you apply modern moral standards to historical characters. A while back people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Even today we say that the sun rises and sets, but we know that is not true. We know that it is the earth that revolves around the sun and it is the spinning of the earth that gives the illusion that the sun is rising and setting. But, how were people back then to know this simple fact that we learn as children based upon their observations? Only a few that had the luxury to study the stars could have figured it out. But based upon what one observed, it was totally reasonable to believe that it was the sun that revolved around the earth.

The same thing goes for racist beliefs back then. Those that observed blacks and native Americans did not see what they considered to be civilized and advanced cultures. Where were the great cities like those in Europe? Where was the advanced architectural buildings and seafaring vessels? Where were the great painters, composers, other artisans and craftsmen? These were questions that they asked and based upon their observations they adopted theories of racial and cultural ideologies, which were supported by their religious views as well. But they were not as scientifically advanced as we are today and they did not know that the idea of racial superiority and inferiority is false according to scientific research. In fact, scientifically, race is not even a suitable sub-category of the human species, genetically speaking. Whatever appears to be racially inferior, or superior is only an illusion and has other causes and explanations. But they did not have this knowledge back then. What happened to the Native Americans and blacks was largely just another tragedy of ignorance in the course of history.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Yes, there are some things that Americans are really good at, but I think that the hidden racism and genocide, past and present, are festering wounds that cannot heal and will not heal until there is a full accounting of these horrific crimes. We are an extroverted people who are talkative and interactive. We have confidence in ourselves, and we are very innovative. Americans work together well and share information. We like to teach others what we know. We are impulsive and not afraid to try new things. I think we are also an entire nation with attention deficit disorder. I like us, but I think that the trail of blood we have left behind has damaged our national character. In destroying the souls of others we have also damaged our own. We need to own up to what we have done and what we are doing so that we can go forward and meet the challenges ahead. We have got to stop this. We are destroying ourselves and also the rest of the world.

What do you propose needs to be done to 'account' for past crimes? Are the perpetrators still alive? Are the victims still alive? If they are not, then how would you punish the dead, or compensate the dead?

You said, "I like us, but I think that the trail of blood we have left behind has damaged our national character." But what about those that don't see that the nation has a character? To them, like myself, the national character has not been damaged because it does not exist. I just see that there are those that believe in a national character, but what I see are many different views and opinions and therefore, many different characters. I don't know why you seem to grouping us collectively when you say that "In destroying the souls of others we have also damaged our own." I did not leave a trail of blood behind and I did not destroy the soul of another and I do not think my soul is damaged either and I can say the same for other people that I know. I honestly don't understand your reasoning in this regard.

 

[Laura]

Well, I do think that there is a general "national character". I probably wouldn't have thought so before I moved to France, but now, having lived here for over ten years I think it is true. Yes, Americans are composed of a lot of different types, ethnicities, etc, but they do generally fall into line with certain ideas/ideals - that's why they are there. But it's like the "nature of the crowd" thing - how Americans act in crowds based on the American Dream/Ideals. Same with France. And working on SOTT has contributes to this view.

I highly recommend Le Bon's book "The Crowd" to get a little background/insight on this. As Le Bon points out, when the dream dies, the masses return to barbarism.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Well, I do think that there is a general "national character". I probably wouldn't have thought so before I moved to France, but now, having lived here for over ten years I think it is true. Yes, Americans are composed of a lot of different types, ethnicities, etc, but they do generally fall into line with certain ideas/ideals - that's why they are there. But it's like the "nature of the crowd" thing - how Americans act in crowds based on the American Dream/Ideals. Same with France. And working on SOTT has contributes to this view.

I highly recommend Le Bon's book "The Crowd" to get a little background/insight on this. As Le Bon points out, when the dream dies, the masses return to barbarism.

Semantics and perspectives. We are probably not on the same page as to what the definition of national character is. What is your definition of national character?

 

[Laura]

National characters are basically the result of the programming you receive from your family and society as you grow up. It is mostly subconscious beliefs and attitudes. Since I've been here, I have been able to see it much more clearly because I can see it in the French and I can see it in Americans most particularly in contrast to the French. I think that schooling, advertising, all of that sort of thing have a lot to do with creating it. And in America, it is changing rapidly and dramatically.

 

[gdpetti]

"And in America, it is changing rapidly and dramatically. "

I really don't see the change, just the same 'dumbing down' process going into its final spin as the top sets to fall... seems the same analogy of the virus killing itself with its host... 'they know not what they do'... sure blame it on the psychos but the puppet masters' hands are all over the place and they seem to want us to reflect their self-centered sleep... their lack of desire to move forward.. the 'dumbing down' 'as above, so below'.
If your reference to 'rapid and dramatically' is to this spinning top losing the speed to maintain momentum, then perhaps so. It seems the same program since always... conquer the locals, with the pirates and then setup societies to herd the sheep with dreams of remianing 'wild and independent'... the ole evil magician analogy.... all the analogies seem to be revolving along with this top and spinning into the void as well. I wonder if this is an opposite reaction to the destruction of Kantek? So we swing from one extreme to the next... it only seems 'rapid and dramatic' up close, for from a distance, is seems inevitable and quite worthless and perhaps the Orion overseers of this project should be assessed for pruning as well as their herd? Where is the competition? You can't really have a champion without it... leaving just the bureaucracy that grinds on automatically without any apparent consciousness. It seems that what is spreading is the disease of 'as above, so below'.... train, program the herd to prefer the tame state, the dream state over the waking state.... and thereby limit your own kind's potential as well as your opponents. Sounds like fear... 'as above, so below' style... and the herd doesn't even share that fear... they are too ignorant and asleep to feel any fear, those half awake view the leaders as pathetic at best, so perhaps this is where the need for a return to barbarism comes in? A return to late stage 2d as Ra/Quo put it?... the need to reset with the wave... I do wonder how many chances this group of 4d Sts is going to get, as it seems they truly are their own worst enemies.... which reminds me of the situation of the NWO setup in Ukraine.... same process.... only it is the NWO that seems to reflect the last Reich of Nazi self-destruction.... 'they know not what they do'.... 'as above, so below'.

With that in mind, the 'rapid and dramatic' change seems just the same pattern, only the spinning top of society is losing momentum and should stop soon enough. Another case of bad parenting, bad imprinting and all that follows. The game is rigged just like all the other markets, only they think the top will spin on forever... as if the tree never needs pruning.

What was the name of that early Andy Griffith film about the media manipulation of the crowd? Has it ever changed? Or is it just more exposed to those paying attention? and capable of communicating with each other around the globe via the internet? So an echo effect seems to occur which the sheep never hear... as usual. It doesn't seem the fault of the herd so much as their 'dark shepherds'... who have been given another shot at the plate, yet seem to have struck out as usual. They need some catalyst... 'rapid and dramatic'... they need a challenge... a contest of wills... or they can never reach that illusive brass ring. The entire game is using the same tired playbook of putting the sheep to sleep. It sort of reminds me of the ole Roman crowd.... thumbs up or down? A bored audience is never friendly to the boring, snivelling scroundel who chooses to hide in the shadows and avoid a real fight.

Time to prune the tree.... must be spring? or is it fall? Depends where you are, right?

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

National characters are basically the result of the programming you receive from your family and society as you grow up. It is mostly subconscious beliefs and attitudes. Since I've been here, I have been able to see it much more clearly because I can see it in the French and I can see it in Americans most particularly in contrast to the French. I think that schooling, advertising, all of that sort of thing have a lot to do with creating it. And in America, it is changing rapidly and dramatically.

Okay. That is pretty much what I would refer to as culture. Yes, in that regard I would agree that such a thing could exist, but I honestly don't see a homogenous American culture. But I'll tell you what. If you read David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America," you can see these same distinct cultures in America today, details have changed, but the essences are the same. Well, they're not exactly the same, but if you read it, I'm sure you will know what I mean.

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Obama, along with all of the presidents after JFK does not address issues such as national character, vision, mission, national goals, objectives, purpose. The best these Kabuki actors have done is to throw out tired, worn out slogans and platitudes. Is it that they don't have any of these or is it that they can't tell you what the real story is. The American people are so desperate that they, or we, fell for Obama just mentioning meaningless words such as "change" "hope." Of the above issues I think that vision is the most powerful and also conspicuous by its absence today. I paid particular attention to JFK, MLK, and Thomas Jefferson when I wrote about this. I believe that Jefferson's words, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" pretty well painted a lasting picture that we could call a vision in the mind's eye of most Americans from colonial times to the Kennedy administration.
JFK's American University speech extended this vision to whole world and put the US and the USSR at the helm. It was wildly popular everywhere, and I believe that this was a major factor in JFK's head exploding in Dallas. Kennedy was talking about a lasting peace for the entire world. The kind of peace in which every human being could enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the thing that was so extraordinary about it was that Kennedy actually intended on doing exactly what he said. He always did, whereas Obama folds his hand when confronted with even the slightest resistance.
MLK's vision was best illustrated in his "I have a dream" speech. Listen to that and tell me that you cannot see it in your minds eye! This was also likely to actually happen had he lived, and so he also ended up with a bullet in him. No wonder we are lost. Everyone who would actually could lead us has been murdered, and so now we have what we have. A president throwing out pat phrases, hyperbole, and platitudes and we are so desperate that we pretend he means it. I believe the word delusional could apply to us.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

...Kennedy was talking about a lasting peace for the entire world. The kind of peace in which every human being could enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the thing that was so extraordinary about it was that Kennedy actually intended on doing exactly what he said. He always did, whereas Obama folds his hand when confronted with even the slightest resistance.
MLK's vision was best illustrated in his "I have a dream" speech. Listen to that and tell me that you cannot see it in your minds eye! This was also likely to actually happen had he lived, and so he also ended up with a bullet in him. No wonder we are lost. Everyone who would actually could lead us has been murdered, and so now we have what we have. A president throwing out pat phrases, hyperbole, and platitudes and we are so desperate that we pretend he means it. I believe the word delusional could apply to us.

Often when thinking about leaders (most countries), i'm reminded of what Woodrow Wilson said:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

He again said:

"American industry is not free, as once it was free; American enterprise is not free; the man with only a little capital is finding it harder to get into the field, more and more impossible to compete with the big fellow. Why? Because the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak" and "No country can afford to have its prosperity originated by a small controlling class."

Whatever Wilson was, in those his words, they speak exactly true today, osit; which is even more consolidated now. Each president must know these things going in; JFK certainly did, he knew these things and sought to start with the internal body of corruption via the intelligence apparatus - RFK took on the mafia (which was interlinked). Since, successive administrations seemed just to be owned, lock, stock and barrel - Obama is the latest, he does not even pretend - he says one thing and does the opposite (Canada, France, Britain etc. the same). The underlining things that Wilson describes seems to have no geopolitical boundaries now, perhaps they never really did (well Putin is trying to stand his ground and shine a light). Collectively in the world, humans are suffering the same things together, albeit in different languages and nationhood's, which economics just invades and then yokes. For many now, lies and believing lies has become a fabric of their lives - linked to their beliefs. The only other thing that might be a bit different now in our technological networking world, is that counter to the many that meshed their beliefs to those lies being promoted (media driven), there are many who, like JKF and Wilson, see exactly the naked reality of our controlled system - see the elephant in the room from a great many vantage point. The elephants are no longer able to hide and are getting desperate as more and more people are seeing their actions - their masks are being removed so they are doing what is in their nature to do, they are overtly collaring the masses, sending out their minion enforcers, changing laws at their whim, drugging people from here to Sunday or incarcerating whoever they feel is deserving. If not those things, they are inculcating food with toxins, incrementally holding back what people have generally always had, and far worse, they are pitting those who believe against those who no longer believe, and in this way, as they have always done, they think they can just step back until things realign for them.

Going back to what Wilson said, we may see the elephants, see their enforcers, yet as described: "there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive", yet they still cannot be named precisely, so when things fall apart, they just run back to the shadows while the masses seek out revenge and nasty things are done while forgetting even why.

I cannot say what it means to be American - to describe accurately that culture from outside. It seemed at least some time ago, for others looking in, that America was what was to be emulated as a means of success "to have freedom" - which was a well established global media program. Globally, it seems the media has lost much of its influence, they still have some leverage to be sure, yet people are having second thoughts - tuning out, switching - the media is smart though, they control the switching, too (many examples discussed on this forum). However, at least internally, from what can be seen of these dyed in the wool pseudo democracies now, the MSM are having to do double time; overtly lying in repeated echoed concert to maintain control. In that respect, they singularly seem to be the perfect tool for those of whom Wilson describes, yet never named.

 

[Minas Tirith]

National characters are basically the result of the programming you receive from your family and society as you grow up. It is mostly subconscious beliefs and attitudes. Since I've been here, I have been able to see it much more clearly because I can see it in the French and I can see it in Americans most particularly in contrast to the French. I think that schooling, advertising, all of that sort of thing have a lot to do with creating it. And in America, it is changing rapidly and dramatically.

Okay. That is pretty much what I would refer to as culture. Yes, in that regard I would agree that such a thing could exist, but I honestly don't see a homogenous American culture. But I'll tell you what. If you read David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America," you can see these same distinct cultures in America today, details have changed, but the essences are the same. Well, they're not exactly the same, but if you read it, I'm sure you will know what I mean.

I found this definition very helpful:

The term “national character” is used to describe the enduring personality characteristics and unique life styles found among the populations of particular national states. This behavior is sometimes considered on an abstract level, that is, as cultural behavior without actual reference to necessarily different personality modalities. It may also be considered as motivated by underlying psychological mechanisms characteristic of a given people.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/National_Character.aspx

So culture is a subset of national character which goes deeper and seems to be ingrained or programmed into people living in that particular region. Having lived in different countries for longer periods - and being kind of "estranged" from my native country as well, I think I know what Laura means. Of course, one has to be careful not to stereotype, but as an example to me, as a European, "Americans" seem to have this thing of being very "open" and "positive", but more "gullible" on the other side. This doesn't mean that EVERY American is like that, as much as not every German is "effective" and "efficient". However, if you have lived in Germany you will observe that a lot of attention is being put into "effectiveness" and "efficiency". It's like a hue that colors the country, but it doesn't mean that necessarily every native displays it in the same manner. My two cents.

M.T.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Everyone who would actually could lead us has been murdered, and so now we have what we have. A president throwing out pat phrases, hyperbole, and platitudes and we are so desperate that we pretend he means it. I believe the word delusional could apply to us.

One thing I have noticed, is how frequently people look to those leaders that have been assassinated and long for what could have been. But the truth is, we don't know what could have been. We can only know what is, or has been. Anything that they could have done would have been a tradeoff in some way, which would have caused reactions from others and there would have been adaptions to the changing environment and could have resulted in zero gain. Regardless of their intentions, there is no way to know if those leaders would have been successful, or even if we would be any better off today. Human beings are a part of nature just like any other organism, thus the laws of natural selection apply to us as well, genetically, economically, ideologically and culturally. Just as natural selection directs the struggle of other organisms in their adjustment to their environment, so too, does it direct the struggle of human beings. Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history. But, as history shows, there are episodes of fruitful peace before adjustments to the environment are made and conflict arises again. More than just monetary greed, it is the sense of injustice that prevents peace and acts as an agent for conflict. Not everyone will agree on what is just and unjust. As one ideology on the subject gains ascendency, others adapt to the intellectual environment and rise in opposition. The question for peace and prosperity is not ideological justice, but what is practical today. This may involve appeasing the sense of injustice of the angry people, or not when it may lead to open conflict with formidable opposition. The answer that keeps the peace and provides prosperity today, may not work tomorrow. The environment is continually changing and no one can step into the same stream twice.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Everyone who would actually could lead us has been murdered, and so now we have what we have. A president throwing out pat phrases, hyperbole, and platitudes and we are so desperate that we pretend he means it. I believe the word delusional could apply to us.

One thing I have noticed, is how frequently people look to those leaders that have been assassinated and long for what could have been. But the truth is, we don't know what could have been. We can only know what is, or has been. Anything that they could have done would have been a tradeoff in some way, which would have caused reactions from others and there would have been adaptions to the changing environment and could have resulted in zero gain. Regardless of their intentions, there is no way to know if those leaders would have been successful, or even if we would be any better off today. Human beings are a part of nature just like any other organism, thus the laws of natural selection apply to us as well, genetically, economically, ideologically and culturally. Just as natural selection directs the struggle of other organisms in their adjustment to their environment, so too, does it direct the struggle of human beings. Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history. But, as history shows, there are episodes of fruitful peace before adjustments to the environment are made and conflict arises again. More than just monetary greed, it is the sense of injustice that prevents peace and acts as an agent for conflict. Not everyone will agree on what is just and unjust. As one ideology on the subject gains ascendency, others adapt to the intellectual environment and rise in opposition. The question for peace and prosperity is not ideological justice, but what is practical today. This may involve appeasing the sense of injustice of the angry people, or not when it may lead to open conflict with formidable opposition. The answer that keeps the peace and provides prosperity today, may not work tomorrow. The environment is continually changing and no one can step into the same stream twice.

I'm not sure how useful it is to think of natural selection in this context. And I've found it helps to open the mind when it comes to what's possible. The problem with studying history a lot, and I speak from experience here, is that it limits the sense of what's possible. For one thing, what we know of history is only a small percentage of the times humans have been around. And if we are trapped in a 4D STS-controlled time loop, then just studying that loop alone may not be what we need to know to escape it. Same thing with studying nature, or natural selection, without thinking of higher levels. Studying nature and history are essential, but we should bring a higher perspective to it, I think.

Like one of the assassinated higher-level leaders, Bobby Kennedy, said,

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

Anyway, when I looked up the wording of that quote, I found a page of RFK quotes that are pretty good: _https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/robert_kennedy.html

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

I'm not sure how useful it is to think of natural selection in this context. And I've found it helps to open the mind when it comes to what's possible. The problem with studying history a lot, and I speak from experience here, is that it limits the sense of what's possible. For one thing, what we know of history is only a small percentage of the times humans have been around. And if we are trapped in a 4D STS-controlled time loop, then just studying that loop alone may not be what we need to know to escape it. Same thing with studying nature, or natural selection, without thinking of higher levels. Studying nature and history are essential, but we should bring a higher perspective to it, I think.l

Why would it not be useful to think of natural selection in this context? Keeping an open mind of what is possible and understanding what is probable based on information are two different things entirely and studying anything is not limiting as long as there is learning. And "if we are trapped in a 4D STS-controlled time loop" then the studying of that very thing would give the required knowledge to escape from it. It is a logical premise. And I honestly don't see any reason to suppose that nature is not a higher level in the first place and thus, so is natural selection, or God's laws, which ever you prefer.

 

[Joe]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history.

I'm not sure it's "human nature". Human nature is at work, but it seems it is being strongly influenced in a specific direction by other, ultimately non human, forces. Philosophizing on this topic to possibly the greatest extent, we arrive at the idea that even that manipulation ultimately provides learning opportunities for humans. And learning is just about all there is to human life (and perhaps all life).