This is modern thinking about war, my friend. But it is the kind of exercise my history professor would toss us. In the end annihilation of a people isn’t war, unless hitler’s the model.
It’s never the solution, it would only circle back to more murder until no one is left standing.
I appreciate the reply. I am happy if this serves as the sort of exercise you describe.
Regarding this being a modern take on war, it seems to me that history is replete with similar thinking on this topic for millennia, for better or worse.
And though, as I mentioned, violence of any sort is not a "solution" I want or would advocate for, and I generally share your concern that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," I am not certain that annihilation here would end the way you describe. Definitionally, in the context of this thought experiment, it is one side annihilating another: no circling back, one side wins, one side is left standing. Again, not saying this a particularly pleasant proposition, but I would say there is abundant historical precedent for it.
One might also attempt to differentiate between an abhorrent genocide based on some group affiliation (racial, religious, etc...) and the annihilation of an opposing military force. Though the latter may indeed leave open the door for the circular violence you reference, not necessarily, as perhaps U.S. annihilation of imperial Japan in WW2, for example, may offer some insight into.
Some more questions that come to mind: can all conflict can be resolved peaceably? If not, what are we to do? Is one side winning and life moving forward, in some cold, Darwinian sense, preferable to eternal conflict? And in the case of something like the Israel-Palestine conflict, where we appear to see intractable, generational horror predicated on a piece of land that cannot be shared and trauma that cannot be undone, all propped up by external forces... what is the answer?
If it were a confrontation between nation states this argument you posit might stand (though we did not annihilate Japan at the end of the day - or Germany for that matter) our interests lay in helping the reconstruction of those former enemies. The lesson learned from WW1.
This battle would not be limited to warring states. It (literally) bleeds over into the biggest beast of warfare - religious warfare. Where would this particular ugly engagement end? It wouldnt.
I think the case could be made we effectively annihilated imperial Japan. Their entire military was not only defeated but eradicated (Article 9 prohibits it), along with basically their entire political system, by the constitution *we* wrote for them when "helping in their reconstruction." I agree Germany is a different beast though, and that it was a lesson learned from WW1.
As for religious war, also not a fan haha, but I think we see that they do end (or at least pause, as who knows the timelines we are dealing with here) the same as any war: a display of mutual might that inspires a truce or annihilation/subjugation of one side. I suppose there are other configurations (emergence of a larger, shared threat; mutual diminishment of interest/resources leading to de-escalation...), but those strike me as the most common historically speaking. Of course, the ideal is we just peaceably, mutually coexist and allow people the freedom to live and worship as they please like reasonable human beings; however, if we are working from the premise that a war has already developed for whatever reason, the aforementioned outcomes seem likely.
Which brings me back to my previous questions, e.g., what is the answer for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The answer may well be "Who knows!?"--clearly many leaders and scholars have failed to find a solution for the better part of a century now--so I'm not trying to pin the answer on you, just curious your thoughts.
Same here. Right now we the pause we have to wait as it unfolds. The participation of so many heads of state converging in Israel is extraordinary. Maybe what we’re watching is a new paradigm - becoming so tightly interconnected that no one ‘winning’ a war makes sense.
LeMay and Churchill were correct. You can ramp it up or scale it down, but if you are in a fight where your enemy intends to kill you, then you must decide whether you want to die or live. If it is die, then lay down your arms, bare you throat and wait. If it's live, then you had better kill your enemy.
Peace is wonderful, if you are faced with an adversary who thinks the same. The oft cited pacifist Gandhi was only successful because his opponent (the British Empire) had seen the writing on the wall in India and actually cared about the optics of the situation. In the end, Gandhi was more trouble than he or India was worth, at that point. Had Gandhi been faced with the SS, he would have quickly been disposed of, publicly and used as an example.
The other facet to the peace/war question is the MIIC. As I write this I am watching a clip of Victoria Newland happily announcing that the House passed the bill with among other wastes of your tax dollars...$60 Billion to Ukraine. She happily proclaimed that this aide will give Putin a very nice surprise this summer. Sound like peace mongers to you?? So, you may want peace, but your elected leaders - profiteers - have other ideas. Here's an idea, before you go pointing fingers and shouting "genocide" at two warring factions on the opposite side of the world (Israel/Hezbollah or Russia/Ukraine) how about getting your own house (that is full of murdering, war profiteers) in order.
On to Alexander and the conundrum of stepping between to of those warring factions. The knot is not the situation faced in the Mideast or Eastern Europe. Alexander was faced with a puzzle of opportunity, not a war.
Had there been two factions fighting over an infant (apparent heir), who shared royal blood from both factions and Alexander either
1) Rode in and cleaved the child in two
2) Annihilated one faction over the other and handed the child to the "winners"
...then the situations would be analogues.
Of course both those choices of action would come with their own, enormous problems, complications and responsibilities and there in lies your answer to "what stays the hand".
When the hand is usually loosed, as you are seeing with our government today, is when the trouble is perceived to be worth the gain. I continually tell people to ask, if there was peace between Russia and Ukraine who would stand to lose the most. And BTW, many have lost sight of the FACT, that early on Zelenskyy openly said he was willing to sit down and negotiate peace with Putin. Boris Johnson was immediately dispatched to Ukraine secretly and after his visit, Zelenskyy came out and said Ukraine would fight to the end. And since then tens of thousands of Ukrainians (troops/civilians) have died. And as if on cue, the media weaves the narrative that Putin is to blame. Again, there was a chance for peace early on and the West derailed it. The benefits out weighed the cost for them. After all it would be Ukrainians being killed, so that's a great ROI for the money and weapons, they would pour into the country.
Cost/benefit, drives much of the chaos you see in the world.
Back to your implied question: "Should we interfere in these conflicts, sometimes thousands of years old. And if so, how.
How - you have three obvious choices: Let them work it out, choose a side and fight to win, or negotiate peace. That last one seems like it's the "humane and sophisticated" choice, but usually does not last. You only have to look back over history for proof of that.
Trump was the latest to revisit this third way and made some very good progress. Had he been in office for a consecutive term, who knows what might have been built. However, you will always have radical opportunists, you will foment and support the undermining of that peace, for power, money or both. those backing them do it for the same payoffs.
Lastly, The Middle East has been a mess, for as long as the West has injected itself into their existence - for their resources. their factions and warring and even their ways of life worked well for them for thousands of years and and the exchanges of power and conflicts were and are common to their culture and tribal structure. Thought of in terms of forest fires, they are only a problem, when people populate and build domiciles in the middle of them. Before that they were a natural occurrence of that environment and no one described them as sinister, dangerous, hellish, or devastating.
Additionally, assuming you understand the historic or religious motivators that are unique to each faction is fool hardy. Many times the outsiders, assume all things are equal and more times than not they aren't...to include he word "peace'.
I encourage you to watch "Farwell to Israel" for a bit of insight into the problems any third party faces, who decides to try and cleave the baby in two. It's currently available on Tubi for free.
And lastly...what business do we have even thinking of solving the worlds problems (outside of long standing treaties and alliances) when we are being overrun by well over 15 MILIION invaders (many who are known to be from adversarial countries and who are know gang members and terrorists) and have no defensible border??? This would be akin to having a Blue castle who's walls are crumbled, barbarians are pouring over the rubble piles and murdering your citizens and saying, "we must go defend the Red castle, for it's walls are crumbling and it's citizenry are being defiled and killed, they cannot survive this most egregious attack, without our help".
Would that not be the Acme of stupidity, self destruction and lunacy???
Full scale nuclear war and total annihilation would definitely cause peace on Earth. Humans just wouldn’t be able to enjoy it, the animals that survive it would, after they’ve recovered.
Great article! Reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson. The only way to stop a war is to win it decisively, that was his opinion (citing the Peloponnesian and Punic Wars).
Thank you very much! I really appreciate the kind words. And great comparison! I'd agree that this view (at least where it concerns a war machine already in motion) is aligned with Hanson's.
I was referring to the 1993 film with Jeff Bridges who presents, at first, to be a normal family man. However, it turns out that his inward nature is no such thing. The appearance of good masking a heart of evil. A single individual who can manifest dueling natures, as you opined.
Ooooh I'll have to give that a watch. For some reason the film wasn't popping up when I was searching "The Vanishing" online. That does indeed sound very appropriate; I'll definitely check it out. Thanks!
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give it a read and for the kind words! As I often say, someone finding an article thought-provoking is the highest honor I can hope to receive, in my humble opinion. I'd be happy to hear any of those thoughts that may emerge, should you have the time and inclination : )
Let me think about it a bit and I'll give you my thoughts. You've been willing to wade into some dangerous waters and I commend you for doing so.
Moral and ethical considerations aside, there's no question that a lot of people are looking at the situation and wondering how much longer Israel had hold out when it's surrounded by enemies.
I personally believe that it's unlikely that the state of Israel will last another 30 years. Hell, it could be gone in 3. It depends on military aid from the U.S., and the U.S. is bankrupt. That's a big problem, and I think the rise of the ultra-fanatical Zionists has to do with a realization that it's "now or never" for building the Third Temple.
How I feel about that is pretty inconsequential. I could be wrong and I could be right. But what I think that it's important for those of us who are politically literate to do is insist upon the truth and an accurate framing of what has held to the current conflict.
the Zionists want the story to begin on October 7th so that they can pretend to be victims, but they've been victimizing the Arabs far too long for intellectually honest people to take that seriously. As David Rovics has noted, being afraid of being perceived as Anti-Jewish is keeping people from having a grown-up conversation, and it's got to end.
"You've been willing to wade into some dangerous waters and I commend you for doing so." Thank you for saying that! Perhaps I have to rescind my previous comment about being "thought-provoking" because receiving praise for wading into dangerous waters may be an even greater honor haha.
I actually had a conversation about that very thing with a friend just prior to publishing this, i.e., I was concerned that it was a really dark topic, and I worried whether or not I could convey what I wanted with an appropriate level of precision and nuance, and make it a compelling read in the process.
In the end I thought it was an important topic, and I want to create a Substack that is honest and unafraid (when I'm not just making lame jokes about pop culture) in unique ways because tugging on the thread of truth--wherever it may lead--is the only way to escape these intellectual labyrinths, as far as I can tell at least.
And to that end I commend you on the honesty and insight of your latest comment as well. You raise a lot of great points: the desperation that seems to be looming over the region now more than ever, the tendency of people to try and assign a "start date" to complex conflicts that portrays their side sympathetically, the necessity of (again, back to my earlier point!) unflinchingly and honestly discussing topics without immediately resorting to "Convo Breaker" (for the Killer Instinct fans out there) name-calling to dismiss inconvenient people or perspectives out of hand...
If we keep avoiding those grown-up conversations (either to avoid pain in the moment, or to perpetuate power and profit) I fear it only leads to exponentially increasing suffering in the future. And perhaps--perhaps--the Israel/Palestine conflict is something else that has "got to end," one way or another, and every second we convince ourselves otherwise we are only adding needless misery in the buildup to the inevitable reckoning that awaits regardless. Perhaps.
[Edit: adding that this is really just one example of a larger thought I was wrestling with concerning what I call the ability to resolve "forks," not the culinary type ha, but "forks" like a branching path in a road, a presentation of choices that require a single option be chosen--the alternative sacrificed, in a Robert Frost-y kinda way--and where an unwillingness to do so creates suffering. It is interesting because in many stories we are presented with a hero who rejects these propositions and instead "miraculously" finds a way to avoid the sacrifice, as it were, to save everyone. Much rejoicing ensues, roll credits. Is it a noble ideal to encourage people to always persist, like say Captain America, in fighting for an ideal solution where no one is sacrificed, everyone is saved, or is it a deleterious memetic notion that infantilizes people and generates far more misery in the world by encouraging them to reject the cycles of life and death, conflict and resolution, that we see all around us in the natural world? What do I know!? That's another reason why I'm glad I published this: I get valuable insights and perspectives from people like you!]
You speak of perversions, what makes you think evil is a perversion. Is human nature intrinsically good? I’d like to think so but I don’t think that’s the case.
That is a biiiiiiiig topic right there too, but you could most definitely be right. A lot of evidence for it. And there is no shortage of A-listers across the intellectual, philosophical, and theological landscape who share your sentiment :D
For my humble two cents, I suppose I think the annoying and perhaps rather unhelpful answer is that human nature is everything, and can manifest drastically differently across individuals, even within a single individual across time.
Ol' Moloch in the Middle, favorite game of middle-schoolers everywhere! ha
But yes, I can certainly appreciate the perspective that there is a demonic force (interpreted as one will) at the root of war. From the pride and wrath driving Cain to commit that first murder of his innocent brother, to envy and greed compelling modern nations to pillage resources from around the world, we certainly see no shortage of deadly sins motivating these atrocities.
I would like to think the answer to the hypothetical, Orwellian question posed in my title is, of course, no. However, I am less interested in what I want to be true than I am in what is. It could indeed be tautological that war begets war, peace begets peace. But is that what history, up to and including current events unfolding around us, indicate? But as you may be intimating, how much of these events are teaching us about actual human nature, and how much of these events are instead simply perversions of our nature by disturbed/unholy influences?
This gets back to that whole Hobbes vs. Rousseau view of human nature, I suppose, and that opens up a million more avenues of discussion, and I am already running out of steam.
I was however fascinated by the idea that--especially in this world of virtue signaling and vapid moralizing--jejune, milquetoast appeals by deluded, sheltered loons to vague buzzword versions of "love, peace, and acceptance" are only causing far, far more hate, war, and division than they could ever comprehend. It could well be that Nietzsche was correct in his grim assertion that religion had conflated cowardice and weakness with virtue. But it is really complicated and likely will require a hundred more articles haha
Slightly off-topic but I have heard another interpretation of the Gordian Knot story that I prefer because I always thought the standard one was basically Alexander cheating. Basically what I've heard was that it's not so much Alexander "solved" the puzzle by cutting the Knot. Instead, he realized that doing so would be impossible and he'd lose face to even try. So he destroyed it, preferring to make his own destiny without the help of some prophecy.
I'd weigh in on the actual matters you bring up except I too am just a silly pacifist who hates when people kill each other for any reason at all, and the world consistently assures me that this is a stupid and naive belief to have.
Ah yes, I am familiar with that alternative interpretation of the legend.
In fact, Callisthenes of Olynthus, Alexander's personal historian (who also died in prison after conspiring to murder him; historians were feistier back then) referred to this as the "Terminator 2: Judgment Day Interpretation," if memory serves. The following is purportedly an actual clip of Alex and Cal discussing the infamous knot: https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/20e7ec25-d851-4121-8115-aa95ad59f307/gif
This does also lend credence to my personal theory that Terminator was a documentary... and the events happened in real time! (I know you of all men get the reference, Jidas, but for those poor souls who don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3BezFmEZiE)
The real measure of a person, man or woman, is the capacity to inhibit acting out and refraining from normalizing violence. Which evolves from marrying truth and creativity. And becoming humble, open and discriminating where true life awaits.
This is modern thinking about war, my friend. But it is the kind of exercise my history professor would toss us. In the end annihilation of a people isn’t war, unless hitler’s the model.
It’s never the solution, it would only circle back to more murder until no one is left standing.
I appreciate the reply. I am happy if this serves as the sort of exercise you describe.
Regarding this being a modern take on war, it seems to me that history is replete with similar thinking on this topic for millennia, for better or worse.
And though, as I mentioned, violence of any sort is not a "solution" I want or would advocate for, and I generally share your concern that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," I am not certain that annihilation here would end the way you describe. Definitionally, in the context of this thought experiment, it is one side annihilating another: no circling back, one side wins, one side is left standing. Again, not saying this a particularly pleasant proposition, but I would say there is abundant historical precedent for it.
One might also attempt to differentiate between an abhorrent genocide based on some group affiliation (racial, religious, etc...) and the annihilation of an opposing military force. Though the latter may indeed leave open the door for the circular violence you reference, not necessarily, as perhaps U.S. annihilation of imperial Japan in WW2, for example, may offer some insight into.
Some more questions that come to mind: can all conflict can be resolved peaceably? If not, what are we to do? Is one side winning and life moving forward, in some cold, Darwinian sense, preferable to eternal conflict? And in the case of something like the Israel-Palestine conflict, where we appear to see intractable, generational horror predicated on a piece of land that cannot be shared and trauma that cannot be undone, all propped up by external forces... what is the answer?
If it were a confrontation between nation states this argument you posit might stand (though we did not annihilate Japan at the end of the day - or Germany for that matter) our interests lay in helping the reconstruction of those former enemies. The lesson learned from WW1.
This battle would not be limited to warring states. It (literally) bleeds over into the biggest beast of warfare - religious warfare. Where would this particular ugly engagement end? It wouldnt.
I think the case could be made we effectively annihilated imperial Japan. Their entire military was not only defeated but eradicated (Article 9 prohibits it), along with basically their entire political system, by the constitution *we* wrote for them when "helping in their reconstruction." I agree Germany is a different beast though, and that it was a lesson learned from WW1.
As for religious war, also not a fan haha, but I think we see that they do end (or at least pause, as who knows the timelines we are dealing with here) the same as any war: a display of mutual might that inspires a truce or annihilation/subjugation of one side. I suppose there are other configurations (emergence of a larger, shared threat; mutual diminishment of interest/resources leading to de-escalation...), but those strike me as the most common historically speaking. Of course, the ideal is we just peaceably, mutually coexist and allow people the freedom to live and worship as they please like reasonable human beings; however, if we are working from the premise that a war has already developed for whatever reason, the aforementioned outcomes seem likely.
Which brings me back to my previous questions, e.g., what is the answer for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The answer may well be "Who knows!?"--clearly many leaders and scholars have failed to find a solution for the better part of a century now--so I'm not trying to pin the answer on you, just curious your thoughts.
Same here. Right now we the pause we have to wait as it unfolds. The participation of so many heads of state converging in Israel is extraordinary. Maybe what we’re watching is a new paradigm - becoming so tightly interconnected that no one ‘winning’ a war makes sense.
Ask knot what your country can do for you— but what you absolutely WILL KNOT, blindly and unquestioningly, continue to do for your country!
Just as a side note, Stanley Kubrick stated that this was the scariest film he ever saw.
whoa really!? NOW you definitely have my attention. I love Kubrick and that man could make a damn disturbing film if he wanted to.
LeMay and Churchill were correct. You can ramp it up or scale it down, but if you are in a fight where your enemy intends to kill you, then you must decide whether you want to die or live. If it is die, then lay down your arms, bare you throat and wait. If it's live, then you had better kill your enemy.
Peace is wonderful, if you are faced with an adversary who thinks the same. The oft cited pacifist Gandhi was only successful because his opponent (the British Empire) had seen the writing on the wall in India and actually cared about the optics of the situation. In the end, Gandhi was more trouble than he or India was worth, at that point. Had Gandhi been faced with the SS, he would have quickly been disposed of, publicly and used as an example.
The other facet to the peace/war question is the MIIC. As I write this I am watching a clip of Victoria Newland happily announcing that the House passed the bill with among other wastes of your tax dollars...$60 Billion to Ukraine. She happily proclaimed that this aide will give Putin a very nice surprise this summer. Sound like peace mongers to you?? So, you may want peace, but your elected leaders - profiteers - have other ideas. Here's an idea, before you go pointing fingers and shouting "genocide" at two warring factions on the opposite side of the world (Israel/Hezbollah or Russia/Ukraine) how about getting your own house (that is full of murdering, war profiteers) in order.
On to Alexander and the conundrum of stepping between to of those warring factions. The knot is not the situation faced in the Mideast or Eastern Europe. Alexander was faced with a puzzle of opportunity, not a war.
Had there been two factions fighting over an infant (apparent heir), who shared royal blood from both factions and Alexander either
1) Rode in and cleaved the child in two
2) Annihilated one faction over the other and handed the child to the "winners"
...then the situations would be analogues.
Of course both those choices of action would come with their own, enormous problems, complications and responsibilities and there in lies your answer to "what stays the hand".
When the hand is usually loosed, as you are seeing with our government today, is when the trouble is perceived to be worth the gain. I continually tell people to ask, if there was peace between Russia and Ukraine who would stand to lose the most. And BTW, many have lost sight of the FACT, that early on Zelenskyy openly said he was willing to sit down and negotiate peace with Putin. Boris Johnson was immediately dispatched to Ukraine secretly and after his visit, Zelenskyy came out and said Ukraine would fight to the end. And since then tens of thousands of Ukrainians (troops/civilians) have died. And as if on cue, the media weaves the narrative that Putin is to blame. Again, there was a chance for peace early on and the West derailed it. The benefits out weighed the cost for them. After all it would be Ukrainians being killed, so that's a great ROI for the money and weapons, they would pour into the country.
Cost/benefit, drives much of the chaos you see in the world.
Back to your implied question: "Should we interfere in these conflicts, sometimes thousands of years old. And if so, how.
How - you have three obvious choices: Let them work it out, choose a side and fight to win, or negotiate peace. That last one seems like it's the "humane and sophisticated" choice, but usually does not last. You only have to look back over history for proof of that.
Trump was the latest to revisit this third way and made some very good progress. Had he been in office for a consecutive term, who knows what might have been built. However, you will always have radical opportunists, you will foment and support the undermining of that peace, for power, money or both. those backing them do it for the same payoffs.
Lastly, The Middle East has been a mess, for as long as the West has injected itself into their existence - for their resources. their factions and warring and even their ways of life worked well for them for thousands of years and and the exchanges of power and conflicts were and are common to their culture and tribal structure. Thought of in terms of forest fires, they are only a problem, when people populate and build domiciles in the middle of them. Before that they were a natural occurrence of that environment and no one described them as sinister, dangerous, hellish, or devastating.
Additionally, assuming you understand the historic or religious motivators that are unique to each faction is fool hardy. Many times the outsiders, assume all things are equal and more times than not they aren't...to include he word "peace'.
I encourage you to watch "Farwell to Israel" for a bit of insight into the problems any third party faces, who decides to try and cleave the baby in two. It's currently available on Tubi for free.
And lastly...what business do we have even thinking of solving the worlds problems (outside of long standing treaties and alliances) when we are being overrun by well over 15 MILIION invaders (many who are known to be from adversarial countries and who are know gang members and terrorists) and have no defensible border??? This would be akin to having a Blue castle who's walls are crumbled, barbarians are pouring over the rubble piles and murdering your citizens and saying, "we must go defend the Red castle, for it's walls are crumbling and it's citizenry are being defiled and killed, they cannot survive this most egregious attack, without our help".
Would that not be the Acme of stupidity, self destruction and lunacy???
Forgot the link to the Docu I mentioned above
https://farewellisrael.com/
Thank you for the read, the comment, and the link! I will definitely check it out.
Full scale nuclear war and total annihilation would definitely cause peace on Earth. Humans just wouldn’t be able to enjoy it, the animals that survive it would, after they’ve recovered.
True! It'd create a peaceful cockroach paradise haha!
Basically. Maybe some deep sea life would mutate and take over, hundreds of years later. Lol!
Great article! Reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson. The only way to stop a war is to win it decisively, that was his opinion (citing the Peloponnesian and Punic Wars).
Thank you very much! I really appreciate the kind words. And great comparison! I'd agree that this view (at least where it concerns a war machine already in motion) is aligned with Hanson's.
What a primitive concept . Killing. Acting out instead of learning how to be a wise human being.
What a jejune concept.
I was referring to the 1993 film with Jeff Bridges who presents, at first, to be a normal family man. However, it turns out that his inward nature is no such thing. The appearance of good masking a heart of evil. A single individual who can manifest dueling natures, as you opined.
Ooooh I'll have to give that a watch. For some reason the film wasn't popping up when I was searching "The Vanishing" online. That does indeed sound very appropriate; I'll definitely check it out. Thanks!
very, very interesting. You've given me a lot to think about.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give it a read and for the kind words! As I often say, someone finding an article thought-provoking is the highest honor I can hope to receive, in my humble opinion. I'd be happy to hear any of those thoughts that may emerge, should you have the time and inclination : )
Let me think about it a bit and I'll give you my thoughts. You've been willing to wade into some dangerous waters and I commend you for doing so.
Moral and ethical considerations aside, there's no question that a lot of people are looking at the situation and wondering how much longer Israel had hold out when it's surrounded by enemies.
I personally believe that it's unlikely that the state of Israel will last another 30 years. Hell, it could be gone in 3. It depends on military aid from the U.S., and the U.S. is bankrupt. That's a big problem, and I think the rise of the ultra-fanatical Zionists has to do with a realization that it's "now or never" for building the Third Temple.
How I feel about that is pretty inconsequential. I could be wrong and I could be right. But what I think that it's important for those of us who are politically literate to do is insist upon the truth and an accurate framing of what has held to the current conflict.
the Zionists want the story to begin on October 7th so that they can pretend to be victims, but they've been victimizing the Arabs far too long for intellectually honest people to take that seriously. As David Rovics has noted, being afraid of being perceived as Anti-Jewish is keeping people from having a grown-up conversation, and it's got to end.
"You've been willing to wade into some dangerous waters and I commend you for doing so." Thank you for saying that! Perhaps I have to rescind my previous comment about being "thought-provoking" because receiving praise for wading into dangerous waters may be an even greater honor haha.
I actually had a conversation about that very thing with a friend just prior to publishing this, i.e., I was concerned that it was a really dark topic, and I worried whether or not I could convey what I wanted with an appropriate level of precision and nuance, and make it a compelling read in the process.
In the end I thought it was an important topic, and I want to create a Substack that is honest and unafraid (when I'm not just making lame jokes about pop culture) in unique ways because tugging on the thread of truth--wherever it may lead--is the only way to escape these intellectual labyrinths, as far as I can tell at least.
And to that end I commend you on the honesty and insight of your latest comment as well. You raise a lot of great points: the desperation that seems to be looming over the region now more than ever, the tendency of people to try and assign a "start date" to complex conflicts that portrays their side sympathetically, the necessity of (again, back to my earlier point!) unflinchingly and honestly discussing topics without immediately resorting to "Convo Breaker" (for the Killer Instinct fans out there) name-calling to dismiss inconvenient people or perspectives out of hand...
If we keep avoiding those grown-up conversations (either to avoid pain in the moment, or to perpetuate power and profit) I fear it only leads to exponentially increasing suffering in the future. And perhaps--perhaps--the Israel/Palestine conflict is something else that has "got to end," one way or another, and every second we convince ourselves otherwise we are only adding needless misery in the buildup to the inevitable reckoning that awaits regardless. Perhaps.
[Edit: adding that this is really just one example of a larger thought I was wrestling with concerning what I call the ability to resolve "forks," not the culinary type ha, but "forks" like a branching path in a road, a presentation of choices that require a single option be chosen--the alternative sacrificed, in a Robert Frost-y kinda way--and where an unwillingness to do so creates suffering. It is interesting because in many stories we are presented with a hero who rejects these propositions and instead "miraculously" finds a way to avoid the sacrifice, as it were, to save everyone. Much rejoicing ensues, roll credits. Is it a noble ideal to encourage people to always persist, like say Captain America, in fighting for an ideal solution where no one is sacrificed, everyone is saved, or is it a deleterious memetic notion that infantilizes people and generates far more misery in the world by encouraging them to reject the cycles of life and death, conflict and resolution, that we see all around us in the natural world? What do I know!? That's another reason why I'm glad I published this: I get valuable insights and perspectives from people like you!]
Check out Watterson’s latest.
In the end, the mysteries live happily ever after.
I do need to check this out. Big fan of Bill. This has been my guiding star for years:
https://rb.gy/d81rh
Unblock me coward!
Wait what happened here?
Bro decided to spam anti-Semitic stuff at me. He can eat shit.
Ah I seeeeee
https://rb.gy/7yqu3
Go fuck yourself.
You speak of perversions, what makes you think evil is a perversion. Is human nature intrinsically good? I’d like to think so but I don’t think that’s the case.
A very good point indeed.
That is a biiiiiiiig topic right there too, but you could most definitely be right. A lot of evidence for it. And there is no shortage of A-listers across the intellectual, philosophical, and theological landscape who share your sentiment :D
For my humble two cents, I suppose I think the annoying and perhaps rather unhelpful answer is that human nature is everything, and can manifest drastically differently across individuals, even within a single individual across time.
Good question, I’ll point you in the direction of Moloch in the Middle seems like a good fit.
Ol' Moloch in the Middle, favorite game of middle-schoolers everywhere! ha
But yes, I can certainly appreciate the perspective that there is a demonic force (interpreted as one will) at the root of war. From the pride and wrath driving Cain to commit that first murder of his innocent brother, to envy and greed compelling modern nations to pillage resources from around the world, we certainly see no shortage of deadly sins motivating these atrocities.
I would like to think the answer to the hypothetical, Orwellian question posed in my title is, of course, no. However, I am less interested in what I want to be true than I am in what is. It could indeed be tautological that war begets war, peace begets peace. But is that what history, up to and including current events unfolding around us, indicate? But as you may be intimating, how much of these events are teaching us about actual human nature, and how much of these events are instead simply perversions of our nature by disturbed/unholy influences?
This gets back to that whole Hobbes vs. Rousseau view of human nature, I suppose, and that opens up a million more avenues of discussion, and I am already running out of steam.
I was however fascinated by the idea that--especially in this world of virtue signaling and vapid moralizing--jejune, milquetoast appeals by deluded, sheltered loons to vague buzzword versions of "love, peace, and acceptance" are only causing far, far more hate, war, and division than they could ever comprehend. It could well be that Nietzsche was correct in his grim assertion that religion had conflated cowardice and weakness with virtue. But it is really complicated and likely will require a hundred more articles haha
Slightly off-topic but I have heard another interpretation of the Gordian Knot story that I prefer because I always thought the standard one was basically Alexander cheating. Basically what I've heard was that it's not so much Alexander "solved" the puzzle by cutting the Knot. Instead, he realized that doing so would be impossible and he'd lose face to even try. So he destroyed it, preferring to make his own destiny without the help of some prophecy.
I'd weigh in on the actual matters you bring up except I too am just a silly pacifist who hates when people kill each other for any reason at all, and the world consistently assures me that this is a stupid and naive belief to have.
Ah yes, I am familiar with that alternative interpretation of the legend.
In fact, Callisthenes of Olynthus, Alexander's personal historian (who also died in prison after conspiring to murder him; historians were feistier back then) referred to this as the "Terminator 2: Judgment Day Interpretation," if memory serves. The following is purportedly an actual clip of Alex and Cal discussing the infamous knot: https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/20e7ec25-d851-4121-8115-aa95ad59f307/gif
This does also lend credence to my personal theory that Terminator was a documentary... and the events happened in real time! (I know you of all men get the reference, Jidas, but for those poor souls who don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3BezFmEZiE)
The real measure of a person, man or woman, is the capacity to inhibit acting out and refraining from normalizing violence. Which evolves from marrying truth and creativity. And becoming humble, open and discriminating where true life awaits.
A noble and meritorious, if Archetypal Feminine-calibrated, approach to be sure
Absolutely agree. Read “The Vanishing”. Read it once, never again.
I am easily confused by comment sections haha. What was this in reference to, Angela?