April 9, 2009
prefer a highly stratified society to egalitarian? Then human sacrifice might be a way to get there.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
Realistically is there any difference between Human Sacrifice and War? Seriously war is little more than Human Sacrifice to Mars/Aries god of war and to Pluto/Hades god of power, wealth, and death. Innocents are sacrificed and Volunteers willing go out to enact sacrifices and be sacrificed because authorities tell them to. Religious Leaders or Political Leaders calling the shots the murder and reasoning are often the same. In Roman times there was no separation of church and state and people believed the economy was dependent on adhering strictly to religious practices, they truly believed if one didn't pray correctly or do the required sacrifices the economy would collapse. Isn't that pretty much what war is really about making the required Human Sacrifices to ensure a flow of goods or labor that benefits the aggressor nation's economy?
April 9, 2009
I think that might depend on the country and its motives, the leaders, what kind of government, if people are in a free society, or one of oppression,and what era of time. I will agree in one respect many modern battles took into consideration, what expected casualies were going to be, even in our case (the USA). They knew they were sending men to horrible deaths, but is that the same as a human sacrafice? Was the invasion of Normandy just a human sacrafice, I'm not so sure about that, even knowing they would suffer thousands of deaths. I some periods of time, animal and human sacrafice was done on alters, clearly involuntary. We use to have the draft, which also was pretty involuntary, but at the same time we had voluntary enlistments, I'm not too sure how many voluntary enlistments you ever had for a human sacrafice on an alter. Closest thing today might be suicide bombings or Kamakazi missions of WW2.
April 9, 2009
I'm afraid even WWII & Normandy still fall into the category of Human Sacrifice, the stated motives mean very little. The question eventually might boil down to asking is this action a immediate (and I stress immediate as in self defense) issue of kill or be killed survival or is this a much different issue where one is put in a kill or be killed by social, political, or religious events and leaders decisions. If it is the second then it is Human Sacrifice, if it is the first it is more organic.
If we look at WWII Hitler's moves were ones of aggression and thusly Human Sacrifice, as were Hirohito's. But the allies did not have their hands clean in this, the USA did not have to join in, Pearl Harbor could have been avoided by lifting the steel and coal embargo. But it wasn't the USA had put various pressures on Japan that led to WWII and among them was the American Volunteer Group's planned bombing raids that would have likely started in February 1942. Japan was the back door into fighting Hitler, and with it the spoils of war (Pluto). The fact that Hitler's war spoils were already being used to pay off Germany's debt to the US and its allies through the Bank of International Settlements is an indication that money was already a large motivator (Pluto). We get to a total war footing and suddenly the entire auto-industry and most of the US industry is now under lucrative government contracts for everything and the government takes out huge loans (Pluto.). Then of course there is the Atomic Bombs and the February-March fire bombings of 1941 what bigger example of Human Sacrifice is there? The Atomic Bombings did not have to take place, Japan had offered surrender with one condition that Hirohito remain Emperor, but US stated policy was only unconditional surrender thusly Human Sacrifice to remain true to a policy rather than give a single concession which they US let them have after WWII anyway (Mars).
It's a tricky thing to navigate but it important to remember that All War Is A Racket/Scam to enrich somebodies coffers (Pluto).
April 9, 2009
Totally disagree! Are you seeing a difference between the agressor, who could care less that he sacrifices innocent civilians, in a sneak attack of pearl harbor, launching random V-2's on London, or flying airliners into a building, vs training men for battle, for the purpose of defense?
Seems to me that we are not just sending men and women into suicide missions for human sacrifice, but my perspective is as I see the USA, not many wars and times, when what you say may be true. The fact people die in war, does not equate to human sacrifice as you may see it. Yes people die, but they are not layed on an alter and murdered. Clearly that is differnet than battle plans that predict casualites, with no choice but to engage in battle. Having no battle plan, weapons, or tools to wage war, is human sacrifice when there is no chance of winning.
I also do not see Hiroshima or Nagasaki our fault, when Japan had not surendered, was doing kamakazi attacks on our ships, and a mainland battle would have been countless lives and time.
April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
I'm going to start at the last thing first since it's a bit controversial. As I pointed out the A-bombing of Japan was unnecessary and only carried out as matter of policy, The Y-day invasion of Japan had it happened would also have been just as unnecessary if we the USA had agreed to the single surrender condition. When the USA refused the single condition it committed an act of Human Sacrifice, it did not matter if it was in explosion or in millions of gunshots and bombings it was sacrificing lives for policy (Mars), lives for power (Pluto).
War is not a necessity, war is not organic, war is a Human choice and thusly it is a social artifice. That artifice requires Human blood Human lives to achieve specific goals chosen by Humans with command & desires and is born of their beliefs. Being the defender does not mean one is not engaging in Human Sacrifice when sending in fighters, surrender is always an option. When people refuse to surrender and choose violent resistance they choose to participate in the ritual and rites of warfare. The people chose to accept the logic arguments of the social artifice. Just as many Aztec's willing went to the top of the pyramids to have their hearts cut out because they believed in the societies social artifice that promoted Human Sacrifice. I admit it can seem to bizarre to us that War and Human Sacrifice are essentially the same thing, but I doubt that past civilizations that engaged in Human Sacrifice would find the argument too disagreeable because they lived with Human Sacrifice, I would hypothesize we find it disagreeable because we have largely rejected Human Sacrifice with only a few exceptions War, Execution, Extrajudicial Murder which our society finds just as acceptable as previous civilizations did of their actions and which we also find reasons. and excuses to defend in our cases. As I have been pointing out the main way we can see the difference between Human Sacrifice and simple Killing is whether or not it happened in an organic way or not, if it is not organic it is Human Sacrifice period.
Example 1: A Man tries to rape a Woman she struggles to break free and in the struggle smashes the Man in the head with a rock killing him. That is organic, there is no clear intent of other than the animalistic fight response to violence in attempt at flight.
Example 2: A Man and a woman attempt to steal from a bank, in doing so they spot a guard and shoot the guard so they can successfully rob the bank. This is not organic it is clear premeditated choice to engage in act which sacrifice lives for monetary gain. Hence it is Human Sacrifice.
War is that second example. Even if the guard shoots the robbers, it was premeditated choice to be armed and engage in Human Sacrifice to protect a monetary asset. It's a non-organic issue. When a Field Marshal sends soldiers into a beach head to achieve a strategic point it is a non-organic choice, when the soldier chooses to obey that command to kill other Humans because of orders it is a non-organic choice it is a ritual, the priest has ordered the acolyte to sacrifice people or willingly die as disciple of the cause. Once upon a time soldiers refused to commit to the ritual and we ended up looking at the Christmas Truce, once upon a time some students said don't fight and the states used them as Human Sacrifice because they thought it was necessary to the maintain The Order of the state against the likes of the White Rose and Students at Kent State University because the ritual human sacrifice of War was/is a necessity in their world view. I know some people find this parallel or equality of Human Sacrifice and War to be disagreeable after all we have been taught and socialized to believe in War from birth for centuries on end that it is vital necessity, but the truth is it is not, its just choice and more often than not it is choice thrust upon us by the those with power and control over us and from whom we refuse to break our yokes.
April 9, 2009
"Being the defender does not mean one is not engaging in Human Sacrifice when sending in fighters, surrender is always an option. When people refuse to surrender and choose violent resistance they choose to participate in the ritual and rites of warfare. The people chose to accept the logic arguments of the social artifice."
How has this worked out for people in the WTC and the Pentagon who did no more than walk into work? How many did you watch live on Television surrender by jumping to their death to avoid burning to death? 6,000,000 jews surrendered to Hitler and were put to death. The USS Arizona still has the remains of the dead, who did nothing on a Sunday morning.
No offence but your examples 1 and 2, and whatever your logic of organic and not organic is, might sound wonderful in a philosophy class, but its nonsense. You seem to put agressors and defenders on the same par, with your logic of defending and protecting from the forces of evil on our society. The armed guard assessment and human sacrifice is ridiculeous.
Maybe you should look at the reality of this world, in the face of horrifying acts from terrorists, and the real bad guys of the world. I guess you are entitled to whatever dumb logic makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 2
Newest Members:atex fun, Pugzilla, john sweef, ieltsvass, Alex cane, Alex cane, David Hemsworth, TS, Peter Kay, Peter K
Administrators: John Greenewald: 608, blackvault: 1776