METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
Megalomania
|
Megalomania |
|
|
Megalomania, Warmongering and Social DenialsMegalomania exposed, ancient attitudes of war and the alien sociologist
(4th edition - March 31, 2008) by A.O. Kime There has been much written about the various wars from the days of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus until modern times but as if a deep dark secret… man’s propensity for war is barely touched upon. It's not just his propensity for war that's ignored either, but nearly the whole concept from top to bottom. Whether it was about the American Civil War, World War I or World War II, or the highlights such as Gettysburg, trench-warfare or the D-Day invasion... that got the press, the nature of war didn't. Although it is common knowledge humans often wage war, practically expected to, that isn't a good reason to ignore the subject. The nature of war, of course, has many aspects... but when most go unaddressed it creates suspicion, raises curiosity. Is there a clandestine reason or are they just unspeakable subjects? While historians chronicle the details of a war such as who won, the major battles, the generals and the toll in lives and destruction, these particulars are only part of the story. To make the story complete the causes need to be addressed. While we know historians do, in fact, cite causes, this is the problem area for a couple of reasons. Not only are historians under extreme pressure to cite the reasons for war as the powers-that-be would have it, there is still something else missing. It's the unspoken aspects... of a delusionary nature. First though, we can probably safely assume historical truths are always slanted to favor the victors, especially if the victors are still around. If it concerned a war between two countries which no longer exist, then we might know the truth. In other words, if it concerned America, England, France or Russia of late, we can assume many truths are still hidden. Sometimes truths can remain hidden for centuries while failures of an ideology are likely swept under the rug for as long as it exists. Also, some revelations don't surface until everyone involved is dead or, as is the case within America, secret documents can remain secret (legally) for up to 75 years. While the victors can’t control what is written outside their borders, those history books are effectively banned... especially if they didn’t tell the same story. Since governments are a little more discrete these days, it normally wouldn’t be an ‘official’ ban but with the pressure applied… an effective ban. For these reasons it is doubtful any country sells many textbooks outside their borders nor is there an exchange program between the United States and Russia… Russian views about World War II being quite different for example. French and English accounts about WWII would also differ… meaning there are probably dozens of versions worldwide, including a Japanese, German and Italian version. For these three countries however, due to their unconditional surrender it is probably mandated they be 'politically correct' in their assessments. With that prefaced, what's really been missing in the historical accounts of wars are the unspoken truths. The horrors of war and the associated insanities have been rendered unspeakable because they threaten the established way of looking at things. Taking the cue from society we often delude ourselves about the same things. Of course, the detailed horrors of war, if revealed or spoken of, would threaten the revered status of 'glory'. The insanities, if known or spoken, would make all the participants look like idiots. This would threaten the ability to promote wars. It applies to the instigators as well. For example, contrary to the portrayed image of officials, primarily due to the impressions one gets when the truth goes 'unsaid', very few have their country's interests at heart but instead are seeking the gratification and perks from holding office. Or, more dangerously, the greater gratification one gets from changing the course of history. To this end, some will development an itching for a fight... a confrontation with another country. In the end, political positions are more about creating legacies. This too, of course, goes unsaid. While the danger of leaders being in office too long has been recognized for ages, seldom expanded upon are the psychological aspects... be it power lust or the infliction of megalomania. Of course, if one leader is accused, all are potentially exposed and the reason for the silence. Megalomania is psychologically classified as a 'delusional' mental disorder but it is actually pure wickedness. After all, there is nothing delusional about inflicting wholesale slaughter. The only delusional aspect is that they believe it is their fated right. Although perhaps forever beyond the scope of scientific abilities, neither is it said we should have a system to determine wickedness (beforehand). Also unsaid is that controlling the fate of millions is the ultimate 'high'. It must be true... why else the willingness to pay any price for control? Megalomaniacs (of any degree) are not only willing to pay whatever it takes in blood but are willing put in peril the country itself. The unwillingness to expose the unsaid is pretence and there is nothing innocent about pretence when applied to these war-related circumstances. Along with hypocrisy, both are responsible for most ills of society... primarily substance abuse. This, of course, also goes unsaid. Ancient attitudes about war perpetuatedThe reason governments purposely perpetuate the ancient practice of glorifying war goes unaddressed as well. Of course, war is glorified to keep a supply of eager recruits on hand... being a forbidden observation for centuries. Nor is the arbitrariness of 'hero' ever discussed... summarily applied these days. It is an insult to the status of real heroes. A prisoner of war, for example, is not a hero for that reason alone. While we all know a military is necessary in order to protect one’s country, a standing army being perfectly sound reasoning and logical throughout, we also know the logic for war is often irrational. Yet, instead, it is invariably rationalized by what is left unsaid. For example, there can be logical discussions concerning an insane asylum such as building a new wing or adding more staff without addressing the insanity within. Amid madness, it's as if sanity exists within a parentheses. When it comes to reporting on the events of war, attention is paid only to the logical atmosphere within the parenthesis. In other words, within the parenthesis are the facts and figures (reconcilable) whereas outside are the moral questions (irreconcilable). The irresolvable (metaphysical) aspects often generate irrational and thus insane actions (clearly explaining it is a problem of semantics). For whatever reason a war is fought, it is nearly impossible for citizens not to be proud of their soldiers however. Yet pride is what helps weave this web of madness. So does glory. It's easy to get caught up in the glory though... such as the naval battle at Midway (WW II) or most Civil War battles. They were magnificent. Magnificent? But how is this possible knowing thousands were killed, maimed or suffered excruciating pain? Did we misplace the horror these men endured? Is it unspeakable? Or is bloodlust unspeakable? Whether primordial, inherently human or evil, bloodlust will always exist but it's difficult to confront because it doesn't fit anywhere within a civilized mindset. It doesn't fit because it is a metaphysical (spiritual) matter. But for most of us, through movies, documentaries and war footage, it's the observer type of bloodlust. Another type of bloodlust is to actually kill and still another is to order it unnecessarily... as megalomaniacs often do. In short, there are three types of bloodlust. Or is it degrees? That question, of course, is a matter for one's spiritual soul to ponder. Our 'civilized' status shouldn't depend upon unspeakable delusions... a house of cards. Although civilization is based on pretence in many ways, it is really a traitorous saboteur. Alien sociologist to the rescue... points out our megalomaniac problemTo truly evaluate the logic for war and wholesale killing, we need to step back and look at ourselves as an alien sociologist from another world might. After all, it is necessary... seven millennia has proven we need professional help. So let’s see how this alien, this sociologist without borders, would ascertain the facts and what he would conclude. Despite what he sees transpiring today, this alien sociologist would want to research our history books to be sure it isn’t just an anomaly. For this purpose, let’s assume he’s learned all the necessary languages and has access to all records. He would, of course, start at the beginning of recorded history and work his way up. Already, for good reasons, we should be nervous about what he will find. Our pride in humanity is at stake. Immediately he would find numerous accounts of wars and that most leaders, in order to expand their influence and power, promote these wars by magically turning a flimsy or greedy reason into a great cause. He would also discover almost every leader waged at least one war and many waged more than one. Counting them all, he found hundreds of wars occurred in just the first 5-6 centuries. Confident however that picture would soon change, our good Samaritan believed humans would learn from their mistakes and quit following those types of leaders. As he read more and learned wars kept occurring, that people were still massively killing each other in wars, these curious orchestrated affairs, he paused to reflect on what he has learned so far. By now, he had read the history of the world up to about A.D. 1000. By then, of course, he had already discovered leaders often become megalomaniacs and the taste of blood is addictive. Of the few he found who were able to fight off this affliction, this megalomania, sadly they were usually the losers in any war. Generally it was because they didn’t properly prepare their country to fight a war… they got behind the times trying to get ahead of the times. Another pattern he found was the willingness of the citizens to sacrifice themselves for these megalomaniacs as if their lives had no greater purpose. His greatest surprise, however, was the shortage of commentary on these great curiosities... that the historians were focusing instead on the sane aspects (inside the parentheses) while largely ignoring the insane aspects. Arrows and spears no deterrentOur alien was very perplexed by all this and began to wonder about the intellect of humans. Before he began his study, it was his assumption humans were the most intelligent creatures on earth so this didn’t make any sense. In observing animals, he noticed none of them fight for idiotic reasons. Nor would animals purposely become fodder for a hail of arrows. Wondering about that, he soon learned it was considered honorable for soldiers to sacrifice themselves under a hail of arrows. Spears were not to be a deterrent either. He also discovered this type of 'honor' was something leaders defined and taught the soldiers. Then there was all the killing for religious reasons... the ultimate oxymoron. Our alien was also troubled to learn the destructive nature of war continued to grow. Curious, he thought, for a race of creatures who claim to be civilized. He was perplexed why humans needed wars just to kill a few ringleaders but then he realized ancient civilizations had no air force. To get at and destroy the leadership, there was often no choice but for armies to plow through other armies. And, as a numbers game, armies kept getting bigger. Unfamiliar with the ways of humans, our alien also did some research on how humans conduct themselves in peacetime for comparative purposes. He wondered how police might deal with someone disruptive, say, a killer on the loose. Comparing it with the logic of war, he was left wondering why the police didn’t bomb the killer's neighborhood. Uniform ideology... or else war!To put his investigation into some order, he thought the concept for war should be looked at first and then, secondly, the reasons for wars. Since he could not find when the first war occurred as a way to settle matters, he surmised the concept must have developed in the Stone Age prior to the times of recorded history. He was left therefore to conclude some ancient leader must have invented it to limit his own exposure. Or, because it is human nature to find someone else to do the dirty work. By now, of course, our alien knew of human gullibility too… but was having trouble separating it from man’s definition of stupidity. Aside from freedom issues, he found most wars are caused by leaders who want something more, usually territory, riches or control. Sometimes it’s just because leaders want a uniform ideology in the area… for convenience. In this, shared values seemed more important than life itself. While our alien knew of evil men from his own world and understood maleficence happens when bad men get in a position of power, he is perplexed why this occurs so much on earth. It must reflect then, he thinks, the nature of most people on earth otherwise the odds of that happening so often are nearly impossible. So he asks himself, are the citizens eager to kill if asked or must they be conditioned into being eager? In this, our alien could find no straight answers in the historical accounts. Strange it was never chronicled, he thought, but nonetheless it had to be one or the other, perhaps both. Either humans like to kill or are easily persuaded to. While it would seem possible some men could be persuaded to kill, even if it wasn’t in their nature, huge standing armies suggests it is. Our alien concludes it is simply not possible to persuade millions into doing something they aren’t already inclined to do. Our alien also wondered why killing is only legal, moral and noble during war... otherwise considered illegal, immoral and evil in peacetime. There seemed to be no middle ground he noticed. He also wondered why so many have to die for matters of less value than life, when most governments, through their noble-sounding proclamations, claim life is the most cherished commodity. Comparing barbarianism to civilized warfareOur alien then ponders the meaning of what humans call ‘civilization’ and how that, a seemingly noble idea, is applied to and during war. What was gained by civilized societies, he asks himself, over the barbarian ways? While he could see the daily threat of being killed is largely eliminated, he also saw wars can quickly wipe out whatever good was gained. He even wondered if anarchy could cause as much death and destruction as civilized warfare. Realizing it would be naïve for humans to consider disarming with compliance by potential enemies a concern, he then knew mankind would only know an endless parade of wars, progressively devastating. Not only are armies thought necessary for defense but also to be ever-ready to exploit a situation if it presented itself. Also strange, he thought, amid the logic of war dueling is considered uncivilized. Our alien sociologist, trying to be helpful to us earthlings, still could not ascertain some facts about how humans rationalize civilized warfare so he would likely email us the following questions. While fair questions for an outsider to ask, they are otherwise unfair in the unspoken language of political correctness. Twenty questions from an alienHow do you define your enemies… is it all
the inhabitants within the country you are in conflict with? Targeting leaders and a case for freedomTo the extent these questions and his observations make us reevaluate ourselves, our alien sociologist failed to appreciate war can actually be rationalized… and that is to acquire or maintain freedoms. For soldiers, freedom is the only justifiable reason to risk death in war, however anarchic it may be. Neither did our alien understand that in order to 'fix' civilization sometimes anarchy (war) is needed. Anarchy is the fallback point... civilization can always rely on anarchy to solve its major problems. Since the very beginning, war was seen as the primary way to settle matters (if negotiations failed) but recent events reveal a landmark change… the United States, however maligned by the world for the numerous wars it has engaged itself following Vietnam, has been demonstrating a new way in which they should be fought. Whether it was Haiti, Panama, Yugoslavia or Iraq… it was the leadership structure which was the initial target, and rightly so. Considering the fewer casualties as a result, it seems to overshadow the question whether America had the legal right to dispose of these despicable megalomaniacs or whether America had ulterior motives. Also, it seems to overshadow whether or not America sufficiently followed up in victory, that is, whether or not these liberated countries were left to flounder. Importantly, we’re now seeing wars can be fought, justifiably or not, without subjecting either side to massive loss of life. Iraq, of course, is the exception. As to the righteousness of American involvement, postwar facts can often settle the matter. Except for resistance coming from those who would benefit from a dictatorship, if the average man-on-the-street did not resist says something mighty grand. Significant resistance, of course, says something else. However, forever unsettled is whether or not the country will be better off in the long run. A traveled trail, after all, cannot be compared to an un-traveled trail. With the technology available today, finally, at last, full-scale war need only occur if dangerous megalomaniacs cannot be removed less aggressively... whether a dictator, monarch or elected leader. Elections, after all, do not make a leader immune to megalomania. The Iraq warWhile a surgical exercise was the initial idea for Iraq as well, it is evident now the surgeons ended up gutting too much. While hindsight, one might still wonder if it was due to stupidity or arrogance (or both). One might also wonder whether the ongoing disaster can be attributed to warmongering. However, we have to take into account the pressure to respond to 9-11 in some dramatic fashion was surely felt. Perhaps, in part, Afghanistan alone wasn't seen as sufficiently dramatic. After all, a grand statement of American resolve and capacity for revenge was surely thought necessary. Well, it may only be partially right. Conveniently positioned, and the fact nobody liked Saddam anyway, made Iraq the perfect candidate to set-up as complicit. It was also a case of commingling murderers without regard for who did what. Yet, it's still not the whole story. While the foregoing assessments surely played a role to some extent, there's the bigger picture to consider. Along with trying to atone for 9-11 (Afghanistan), it also became a matter of positioning to contain Islamic fanaticism (Iraq). Serving two purposes, it became two distinctly different wars... although related. It seems apparent the deceitfulness surrounding Iraq was an attempt to mask the second purpose. While a justifiable war as well (in principle), deceit took the noble out of its nobleness. Yet, tiptoeing through the minefield of semantics is how diplomats keep wars from escalating. Although deceit always comes back to haunt, untruths may often be necessary to avert, delay or keep World War III from getting worse. If this is true, then diplomatic protocol (deceit) was forced upon the Bush administration... at least to some extent. This protocol of deceit is what hampers a fair assessment. Yet, Bush would be far less maligned if he would admit to the war's true nature. Besides, the charade isn't fooling Muslims. While megalomania can be ruled out as the reason for the invasion, any warmongering within the Bush administration can be rationalized since the situation appears to call for it. After all, warmongering isn't always necessarily bad. Considering our inevitable confrontation with the religious fanaticism, a clear threat to freedom far worse than Nazism, 'zest for action' would seem prudent. But is not war insane? Must we further endure the unspeakable aspects? Well, the quest to obtain or protect freedoms has a way of making war entirely sane. The reason is quite simple actually, it's because freedom is a spiritual matter and thus reconcilable with the logic of subconsciousness. And, unlike lesser reasons, contending with the horrors won't jeopardize it. As acts intended to avenge and protect America's long-term interests, loyal and noble responses, but since Iraq was born of deceitfulness, a political necessity or not, deceit will likely drag down the Afghanistan campaign with it in failure. It is virtually assured when micromanaged by Washington. The chance blown, it's likely too late for limited warfare now. The atmosphere for lightning success has evaporated. Having gutted too much of Iraq's social and political infrastructure, unlike Haiti, Panama or Yugoslavia, it is now open warfare which can't be fought with a 'limited warfare' frame-of-mind. It is the lesson learned from Korea and Vietnam. Retreat, of course, is an option... perhaps we're not ready yet to face the inevitable. While deceit may mask a war, only truth and the support it generates can win it. We're not fighting just for Iraq, we're fighting to eliminate this intense threat to freedoms... Iraq just happens to be the chosen battleground. A.O. Kime
Check out our wide variety of articles within These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
for information on
'renting' this article, see 
