Anarcissie, March 25 2:09 pm - I think your well-stated taxonomy
to power is probably correct, but I don’t know as I am just a novice
at sociology. But I’ve read enough to say I have advanced at least to
apprentice level. I can’t tell if the more or less linear representation
really addresses necessary and sufficient acceptable qualifications for
mentors (teachers). 

As an illustration, though, it seems likely that it is in the nature
of humans to want more power, more wealth which would augment
power, social status, which is what power brings, and so forth, and it
seems most impractical to try for more than one is likely able to get. 
The logic sort of provides that conclusion. Seems right that the level of
individuality would take a subordinate place to the desire to provide our
children a decent life educated enough to help lead to that.

Ascending up the food chain, seems also natural for options to start
thinning out, there is less and less room going up the steps to the top. 
And yes, it also seems a natural progression towards individuality.  I
suppose pampering becomes desirable such as seen in the Roman
emperors, or any sovereign.  What I’ve learned of Nero leaped into my
mind.  Originally, mollycoddliing was formed from Molly (from Mary)
which was a derogatory name for an effeminate man, and coddle, one
who coddles or “pampers” himself, that is babies himself.

Individuals rise in social status would seem to want others to be in
their service, serfdom, unpaid serfdom, slavers, and definitely no “free”
thinkers! 

But it does seem a natural anabasis for those on the lower rungs of
the power spectrum, to covet the power of those above and to emulate
the higher ups, I guess in order to be “ready” to take over an ever
proceeding movement.  And indeed the notion of mollycoddling begins
at the baby age stage of life.  The mothers, and fathers as well though
not as frequently, I’ve seen that mollycoddle their treasures is often
disgusting.  It really handicaps a dedicated and top-notch teacher. 

With this as a fairly comprehensive ordering of the timeline of power,  to
get back to my original question, we still have to have some system that
can determine who is acceptable and? who is not to be the teachers?’

An example of what I mean by ‘mollycoddoling’, is everybodies art is ‘special’ and just as good as anyone elses.  Or, some kid can’t do phys-ed, so they get a special set of dumbed down requirements so they can get and ‘A’ and ‘feel good’.  Meanwhile, they’re still headed for type 2 diabetes by 30.  Or, we make up courses like ‘how to manage your finances’ as a math requirement.  This is probably the best example, dumbed down courses which make kids feel more accomplished than they are.  I’m not necessarily talking about physics classes offered without a calculus component.  Perhaps some of the earth science classes which are mindless and minimal memorization of useless geography facts, but it’s called ‘science’. 

These sorts of things and many more do have the benefit of filling time for the babysitting function of some schools, and they have the nasty effect of making the parents and kids feel they are accomplishing something with their time, but if we look at the racket of remedial courses at various universities, I think it shows these kids are getting screwed financially, but more to my point, the ‘kid glove’ approach to curriculum and delivery which inflates their ego’s well beyond what is justified for their real level of accomplishment, that they are sure to have a serious ‘let down’ later in life.  Perhaps sooner.  Depression anyone?

Some high power thinking, Ana, a superb sociological
account with Marxist undertones.

And just after I said this thread had exhausted
itself.  Do you want to make a liar out of me

Shenonymous, March 25 at 8:03 am:

‘Anarcissie, March 25 at 6:45 am – “That depends, of course, on who
‘we’ are. “  Seems true on the face of it.  But what would be the test
of “who we are?”  How shall we determine who is acceptable and
who is not to be the teachers?’

First ‘we’ must consider ‘our’ class position.  Almost everyone wants to increase their power, wealth, social status, repute, and so forth, but it is impractical to try for more than you are likely to be able to get. 

So if we are working-class, what we want for ourselves and our children is education leading to ‘good’ jobs in a stable economy and a political regime we can understand and deal with.  Development of one’s individuality as such is of secondary importance; in any case, it grows wild. 

As one goes up the social food chain, however, the options become more variegated, so that among the upper middle class, the ‘professionals’, and the minor wealthy, we begin to see more and more interest in the development of individuality as a product of education.  One might observe some mollycoddling. 

Finally, when one reaches the level of the bourgeoisie or ruling class, one begins to desire not only certain educational outcomes for oneself and one’s own, but for other people as well, since one has power over them and can view the community as a sort of farm or plantation where some crops (educational outcomes) are to be encouraged and others rooted out.  I would imagine that the ‘we’ that is composed of members of this class would want lots of workers, soldiers and consumers, and not too many artists and critical thinkers, although of course they would want elite, individualizing schools for their own progeny.

Since the ruling-class view dominates the present discussion about education, we observe a great deal of concern about Quality Assurance through product testing.

(One should note the common phenomenon of higher-class value introjection, that is, the tendency of people of a given social level to incorporate the values of those somewhat higher up on the pyramid, which somewhat blurs the class-interest picture I give; thus, we find some working-class parents desiring mollycoddling in the schools, and some upper-middle-class parents talking about the function of the whole industry just as if they had any power over it.)

very few people, if any, on these threads are bigoted against the religion of
Islam….

I would imagine that Islam is criticized as fairly as any religion here.

“I would guess that those “cultural values” are rooted in conditions of poverty and agricultural life… Girls were a drain on resources and could not labor as hard as sons.”

“As China and India rise from poverty, I expect that daughters will not be aborted.”
====================================================
Some pre-Islamic Arabians, under the burden of poverty and scarce resources used to bury their newly-born daughters alive.

Then came the civilizing laws of Islam, banning this practice and making it one of the few deadly sins in Islam, besides murder, adultery, usury, gambling, theft, and alcohol consumption.

Islam didn’t wait, like China and India, for all Arabs to rise from poverty and thus it didn’t connect this criminal savage act to material considerations, as materialist secularists would think the solution is.

It was just a couple of Qur’anic verses and after their revelation no one single savage act of girls’ killing was recorded.

This happened fourteen and half century ago when the whole world was steeped in ignorance, savagery and violations of basic human rights.

I am aware that the bigoted haters around these threads will continue to find fault with Islamic teachings, ignoring that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world; i.e. it is on its way to becoming the the majority-faith of all humanity.

Ana—- if you make your question overt, I’ll take a hack at answering.

heterochromatic, March 25 at 12:22 pm - Wrong.  The female children
are the ones to be exterminated first.
http://www.domesticviolenceservices.com/female-infanticide.html

She—— hetero - ?”and children are aborted in India and China if they ?exhibit
the “defect” of femininity.”  And what would you do to change
India’s and China’s cultural values? Don’t get me wrong, I think
their cultural values are inhuman.——-

I would guess that those “cultural values” are rooted in conditions of poverty and
agricultural life…... Girls were a drain on resources and could not labor as hard as
sons….

As China and India rise from poverty, I expect that daughters will not be aborted.

Hetero, I’d never deny that the containment of communism was a priority of our capitalist government. But, although I am always suspect about statements made by the agents of the system in Washington, I tend to believe them when they accidently say something that gives evidence of their criminality.

As far as I’m concerned, folks, this thread has
reached its natural, not so sudden death.

See ya later.

Sorry about those insidious question marks!  Mannnn they are
annoying when they show up not invited.  Just like trolls!

Yeowie Kazowie!

Anarcissie, March 25 at 6:45 am – “That depends, of course, on who
‘we’ are. “  Seems true on the face of it.  But what would be the test
of “who we are?”  How shall we determine who is acceptable and
who is not to be the teachers? 

hetero - ?”and children are aborted in India and China if they ?exhibit
the “defect” of femininity.”  And what would you do to change
India’s and China’s cultural values? Don’t get me wrong, I think
their cultural values are inhuman.

Even on the campuses and streets of protesters, the inclusive we is just
a comforting fallacy. It is really way too easy to hide oneself among a
fictional throng.

heterochromatic—I was talking, of course, about the scene in the United States, which I had assumed was the venue of the ‘mollycoddling’ John Best was on about.  Unlike you, I have very little knowledge of the educational situation in China or India.  It seems odd to regard abortion for being female as a pedagogical practice, however.

By the way, you never responded to my implied question in the ‘Nightmare in Toulouse’ convo (http://tinyurl.com/755cn3j).  It might fit in well with the subject of this one, too.

Of course you’re right in terms of historical
analysis, Ana, but I was expressing a(n) (preferable?)
ideological stance dating back even to Aristotle,
whereby the actual aims at the potential.

Lee—- fair enough…. my part of “we” was marching
through the campus and the street in opposition.

To repeat myself—I’ve read through a lot of documentation about the War in Vietnam, and while there are public statements about resources, we do not observe internal memoranda of the sort which would demonstrate concern about the resources.  Instead, the American ruling class seems generally to have believed in the mystical Domino Theory, and in war more or less for the preservation of ‘face’—influence and repute.  They also seem to have actually construed the Communist states and parties as a monolith, which if true was a remarkable failure of observation.  There is also war for the sake of war—proving to oneself one’s manhood, toughness, and other such sociopathy.

———Indeed, at present, industrial methods of quality
control—judging production-line workers by mechanical
testing of their products—have become something of a
particular fetish.———

and children are aborted in India and China if they
exhibit the “defect” of femininity.

Hetro,

Your intended point is well taken, but the copious amounts of the word ‘we’ almost feels like a Hedges article, as usual I find the word ‘we’ disturbing which may be the intent?

“we were just blindly opposing anybody that we
thought to be communist without understanding the
nationalistic component of their movement,”

Again it is not we, nor do I accept the word blindly for it was the usual intention to deceive and manipulate opinion just as the Republicans constantly do today for example, when they say Obama is a socialist.  Maybe changing the word to opportunist opposition aimed at anybody ignorant enough to accept the accused of being communist. Hence I am reminiscing about the disgusting ass holes of the times, like McCarty,.... not we!

Foucauldian, March 24 at 9:11 pm:

‘Of course all children are special, and we’re supposed
to encourage their uniqueness rather than thwart it.’

That depends, of course, on who ‘we’ are.  In pre-industrial, pre-liberal times, each person is largely defined as a nexus of social relations and obligations: one was mostly what one was born to.  In the modern era, the advance of industrial technology permitted individualism and its paradoxical twin collectivism to appear.  On the one hand, we are supposed to revere the individual (although no human is actually solely an individual); on the other hand, one is a worker, consumer, soldier, party member, one of a huge mass of similar beings subjugated by organizations and great leaders, the more similar the better.  Except for elites, and for elite practices sometimes brandished before the lower orders and then withdrawn, the education industry has largely followed the industrial order.  Indeed, at present, industrial methods of quality control—judging production-line workers by mechanical testing of their products—have become something of a particular fetish.

Hence I was interested in the notion of ‘mollycoddling’, but it seems we’re not even going to get isolated, undocumented anecdotes.  Can’t someone make some up?

Ed- Fear not…. I’m not sorry that we lost the war….
I spent several years opposing our involvement in it..

but that doesn’t channge the fact that we weren’t there
for tin, rice or rubber.

Hetero,  I hate to burst your bubble you seem to be living in, but ...are you sitting down? The US LOST the Vietnam War. The Commnnists kicked our ass out, and the loser of a war does not get to collect the spoils.

correction

——we made endless and enormous blunders but this one
was NOT about the natural resources.——

sorry about that.

true—- thanks for the list, but I think that what
the French were doing in vietnam was not quite the
same as what we blundered into.

the french had colonized the area and, having been
impoverished and humiliated by WWII, wished to hang
on to Vietnam.

we were just blindly opposing anybody that we
thought to be communist without understanding the
nationalistic component of their movemnet,

we made endless and enormous blunders but this one
was about the natural resources.

John Best asks, “What IS Progress”? March 24 6:15 pm – this is not
a true idea of what happens in the schools.  Perhaps you have not
been in the schools much since you graduated?  It is too easy to
demonize teachers and schools.  Criticisms need to have evidence
pointed out. 

There is much more to education than letting the children know they
are special, and they are special and must be made to know that, how
else are they to learn to feel it is worthwhile to be a living creature? We
certainly don’t need any more depressed people than already exists, do
we?  Along with all the academic stuff you know, like read’n rite’n and
‘rithmatic, georgraphy, music, art, social studies, history, etc etc etc.,
they need to learn they live in a society and that society has rules of
conduct so that they can live together peacefully.  To do that they need
to be taught evaluation skills so they can assess whether what they learn
is on terra firma.

Of course all children are special, and we’re supposed  
to encourage their uniqueness rather than thwart it. 
If children dumb down as they come of age, they have
only the adults to thank.

Teachers being afraid to discipline kids.  Continuously telling kids they’re
‘special’.

Two entirely different subjects. Children are special, everyone of them. Yes, some teacher perhaps do not disciple as much as they should. Both subjects have nothing to do with killers that have been mentioned. I have posted link after link about the atrocities committed by our troops, not just Bales. From your posts I doubt that you even read them John Let it Rest No Progress There. This is not a Right or Left wing thing you are discussing, involving stable people or otherwise. It’s a matter of identity. Which flag do you identify with or feel loyal to? Perhaps a religious symbol. If such a symbol is part of you, then many atrocities can be committed for that cause. Such is the case with Bales. Also such actions as those committed by Bales may have been indirectly encouraged as a way to keep the Afghan people in check. Who knows? It is known that night raids were not uncommon although this one seems to have been on a larger scale. The murder of two American soldiers may have sparked the reason for such atrocities as those committed by Bales and company.* Could it be that our government indirectly condones the murder of children and women as a way of winning the war?  Perhaps that is the question you should be asking and discussing rather than indulging in 101 psychology, if you will pardon me. 

*I am convinced he was not alone, too many Afghans have made such comments, right from the beginning.

Re: By heterochromatic, March 24 at 5:43 pm

heterochromatic wrote:
“There was NOT a damn thing in Vietnam that we were out to exploit capitalistically….”
——————————————————————
multi_different_colours,

If that was the case, then what the French were doing there for more than a hundred year and why they fought a bloody war suffering heavy losses to stay there?!
Here are a list of Vietnam’s natural resources from the CIA own facebook page:
phosphate, coal, managanese, rare earth elements, bauxite, chromium, offshore oil&gas;, hydroelectric power and timber.
I think they forgot to list rubber or that rubber is not produced in significant quantities anymore!

You guys ought to have walked away. instead of coming
for more.  In any case, I hope that little affair is
over and done with.

Ana, Rousseau? Let them ‘discover’, it seems somehow the root of pedagogy over content.  ‘mollycoddling’?  Teachers being afraid to discipline kids.  Continuously telling kids they’re ‘special’.  I suppose that’s not entirely from the left. 

OM, I’ve been thinking the obvious, that these three killed people who were not one of their own.  I don’t want to end up pointing fingers and making anybody defensive.  This worlds in sad shape and I’m sick of petty politics. 

Foucaldian, that little battle needed fought.  Junk science really disturbs me.  The ethanol fiasco is still bleeding common people.  Every day that scam re-distributes wealth without regard to merit.  Don’t get me started, OK?

Ed _ Eisenhower and his admin weren’t there to spread democracy and they
weren’t there for the resources.  You’re misinterpreting Lodge’s
statement…...which wasn’t an honest one in the first place.

Ike and the Lodge brothers were militant anti-communists and that resource
shit was offered as part of the domino theory.

There was NOT a damn thing in Vietnam that we were out to exploit
capitalistically….

You can’t name a thing and the afore-mentioned tin ad rubber and rice were
what we were after…..we sure as hell didn’t need any rice ans we got tin and
rubber elsewhere…....

Malasia was the closest supplier for those in SE Asia but we really didn’t need
them…...We didn’t get any of either from Malaysia during WWII when we most
needed them…..

ER,

You’ve already abused your insanity ad infinitum, you
and your sidekick, John B, on the “Occupy Draws
Strength ...” thread, due to incessant rambling—so
much so in fact I don’t think it’s possible to push
the envelope any further.  So I wouldn’t worry about
losing your sanity or reputation now if I were you.

Might as well keep on going and keep us entertained.

Hetero, God forgive me for abusing my own sanity by answering you, but I already posted what Eisenhower and the ambassador to Vietnam said was the reason for American involvement in Vietnam. He was the President of this country at the time wasn’t he ? If you believe that the concern of this nation was to spread “democracy”...if you really believe that, please stop addressing messages to me.

Ed—it was you who posted that stuff about how we were in Vieetnam for the
natural resources….so it’s really up to you to explain the shit.

Congratulations to Glenn Greenwald on being Truthdigger of the week. I just copied excerpts from his excellent column. Evidence points to the fact that Bales did not act alone. Yet, our msm has not pressed on that, nor on other negative findings as to Bales.  We can all see when this is going, unfortunately.

An excerpt from the link provided below:

“Further distrust of the American prosecution of Bales is fed by statements from Afghan villagers that contradict the Pentagon’s claim that the massacre was the work of a lone “rogue” soldier. This was the view expressed to the Wall Street
Journal by Mohammed Wazir, who lost his wife, four daughters, two sons, his mother, his brother, sister-in-law and a nephew in the massacre.Wazir said that he did not believe a single soldier could have carried out the killings and stacked all of the bodies into a pile to burn them. The bereaved father said that he believes his two-year-old daughter, Palwasha, was burned alive. “I checked her body, and there were no bullet marks,” he said. Villagers have testified that they saw several soldiers raiding the houses. They were convinced that it was another “night raid,” the hated practice of US special operations troops in Afghanistan of targeting the homes of suspected supporters and sympathizers of the resistance to the occupation, as well as assaults in the early morning hours that often end in killings.
The Karzai government has publicly asked for an end to this tactic because of the popular outrage it provokes. The US high command, however, has rebuffed this demand, insisting that it is essential to its counterinsurgency strategy. The Pentagon claims to have killed at least 4,000 “insurgents” in these raids.”

Amazing that Wall Street Journal had the above comments included in their column. Equally astounding is the fact that there is nary a peep from the American people as to these goings-on. Of course, most of msm has toned down the actual facts.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/bale-m24.shtml

Heteromaniac,  Care to explain what the hell that has to do with the justifications given by the legal
Mafia for intervening in Vietnam….or for later dropping bombs, naplam and other defoiliants on the two neutral countries of Laos and Cambodia ?

Romano——You care to show how much rubber, tin and rice the US EVER
imported from Viet-nam or Thailand ?

Somehow it seems in this country we have the educational goal of making everyone feel ‘special’, these self-esteem issues.  It may not exactly explain the French Algerian, but I don’t know how they address that molly-coddling tendency we have in the USA these days.  That’s always bugged me.  Perhaps these three felt they were entitled to some fantastic lifestyle of the rich and famous, and they hit the real world and damn, it takes real work, and nobody cares a damn about you.  I’m guessing that is a hell of a shock for a lot of kids these days.

 
This project is dicey because I dont understand what you mean right from the start, and at the other end of the matter we dont know the killers very well either. It is hard to connect so many unknowns. Also, any time you explain why someone else did something, it is extremely controversial even if you do know all the details.

Back to the three, what about this theory…..that they somehow felt that they would feel better after killing someone they blamed for their frustrations?  Would that be fair?

It makes some sense, and maybe it is related to your first theory. You have an incredible project: trying to understand someone’s motivations for an evil action, all the way from what they were thinking at the time to how they were raised as a child, and it is not a pleasant task. It is disturbing.

Merely attempting such a project will make you a target. “Who do you think you are?” will be the unspoken but motivating factor against you. As you push forward you will be taking fire from both flanks. Your reputation on Truthdig would be in tatters. 

Anyway, here on Truthdig it would be impossible to complete such a project. Quick tempers, defensiveness, hidden agendas, prejudice, and double standards are so plentiful. Brainstorming is when we freely and creatively propose theories and meanings. You cant do that here on this sort of subject, since everything you write has to be as correct as it can be, or it will be used against you later.

Even if we completed this project together, and lets suppose we traced the killer’s motivation to be the result of a Leftist educational policy of(or a Rightist one… or whatever) it would not prove that the policy was bad but it certainly would be perfect ammunition. No one here could resist using it. Including me.

Here is a good idea: we could talk about your project in a superficial way. There are some people here who are very good at that, although I am not and neither are you.

Here is a better idea: we could do what i have done this whole post… talk very seriously about how we could talk about it. Thats safe.

Elisa, regarding your post of 6:19 a.m….thank you.

“It is true that American soldiers accused of
commiting crimes are not legally subject to the
Afghan judicial system, but that does not mean that
their trials cannot take place in Afghanistan, thus
ensuring the inclusion of Afghans in the
investigation and the subsequent attempts to bring
justice to those who deserve it.”  EL

Things would be different if the present Afghan
regime insisted on that from the get-go.  But it’s
too corrupt and we’re enabling its corruption.

Case in point.  Once the Iraqis insisted on
exclusive jurisdiction concerning potential war
crimes perpetrated by our personnel, we ran out of
there like mangy dogs with tails between our legs. 
A similar move on the part of the Afghan government,
if it musters the gumption, would have the same
effect and put an end to our imperialistic ventures
in that part of the world.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/ironies_in_american_justice_and_political_cheerleading/singleton/

Excerpt from Truthdigger of the week Glenn Greenwald article in Salon -(link provided)

“An ABC News article back when Manning was transferred to Fort Leavenworth included these details:

The 150 inmates at the facility — including eight who are awaiting trial — are allowed three hours of recreation a day, she said, and three meals a day in a dining area.That likely means that there will be some substantial interaction between Bales and Manning. Think about that: if you expose to the world previously unknown evidence of widespread wanton killing of civilians (as Manning allegedly did), then you will end up in the same place as someone who actually engages in the mass wanton killing of civilians (as Bales allegedly did), except that the one who committed atrocities will receive better treatment than the one who exposed them.That’s a nice reflection of our government’s value system (similar to the way that high government officials who commit egregious crimes are immunized, while those who expose them are aggressively prosecuted). If the chat logs are to be believed, Manning decided to leak those documents because they revealed heinous war crimes that he could no longer in good conscience allow to be concealed, and he will now find himself next to a soldier who is accused of committing heinous war crimes.
 
(4) I have an Op-Ed in The Guardian on the quick removal of Bales from Afghanistan and the resulting exclusion of Afghans from the investigation into what happened. Today, The New York Times explains the serious difficulties this could pose to Bales’ prosecution:

The case could founder in the courtroom on questions of evidence collected under difficult conditions thousands of miles away, . . . .Gathering evidence and securing the cooperation of witnesses can be bedeviling in far-flung places, and contributed to the collapse of the prosecutions against Marines linked to
the killings of 24 men, women and children in the Iraqi city of Haditha. Charges were dropped against most of the Marines who were tried in that case.Perhaps trying him in Afghanistan would have solved those problems. It is true that American soldiers accused of commiting crimes are not legally subject to the Afghan judicial system, but that does not mean that their trials cannot take place in Afghanistan, thus ensuring the inclusion of Afghans in the investigation and the subsequent attempts to bring justice to those who deserve it.

John Best asks, “What IS Progress”?, March 23 at 8:02 pm:

‘... I’ll give an example.  Somehow it seems in this country we have the educational goal of making everyone feel ‘special’, these self-esteem issues.  It may not exactly explain the French Algerian, but I don’t know how they address that molly-coddling tendency we have in the USA these days.  That’s always bugged me. ...’

Perhaps you should be more specific, since you think this educational goal is a ‘leftist’ policy which has proved destructive.  We would want not only to know what you meant, exactly, by ‘mollycoddling’ but a good depiction of its application to the material world—that is, where it’s happening, who’s doing it, where its effects can be observed.

John Best asks, “What IS Progress”?, March 23 12:05 pm – FYI:
Truthdig has been having technical web problems.  The message
you got I did also as did another truthdipper I know. I copied/saved
it and if it happens again, I will send it to the webmaster as he
requested that I do so.  There has also been two other messages on
occasion, more than once, one that the server was not working, and
the other a browser message said Truthdig was not responding. 

I wrote to the webmaster after not being able to access for about half
a day as I wasn’t sure if it was my browser or on their side and I was
working and could not spend the time checking on and off.  He
graciously wrote back that they indeed were having problems and said
they were in the process of fixing them.  I was able to log in not too long
after that,  so I knew it had been fixed.  I wonder if there isn’t a hacker
about as this has happened to others and a couple of times in the last
month.  The site was down for about a day once as well not too long ago. 

Are we slaves to our technosphere?

Blame society?  Not lay all of it there, no.  Why didn’t they just walk away?  They decided to shoot and kill.  Others didn’t.  They have some responsibility.  But do we somehow turn more of these ‘unstable?’ people out than we should?  I don’t know.  Are they the tip of some iceberg?  Unfortunately, I think so. 

OM, I am going to ignore the right wing blame game for now.  I’d rather not get into left-right.  Along those lines though, it’s certainly possible various ‘leftist’ (hate that term) ‘policies’ have contributed. 

I’ll give an example.  Somehow it seems in this country we have the educational goal of making everyone feel ‘special’, these self-esteem issues.  It may not exactly explain the French Algerian, but I don’t know how they address that molly-coddling tendency we have in the USA these days.  That’s always bugged me.  Perhaps these three felt they were entitled to some fantastic lifestyle of the rich and famous, and they hit the real world and damn, it takes real work, and nobody cares a damn about you.  I’m guessing that is a hell of a shock for a lot of kids these days. 

Is that a ‘leftist’ or ‘rightist’ thing?  I don’t know.  Who cares? 

Back to the three, what about this theory…..that they somehow felt that they would feel better after killing someone they blamed for their frustrations?  Would that be fair?

It would be easy for either lefties or righties to point fingers at each other and say this policy or that was the problem, but then there;s that darn French Algerian.  That’s what i like about this hypothetical question.

and one sees them all three(Mohammed Merah, Robert Bales, and George Zimmerman) lumped together in the news, it made me wonder.  If I had a dartboard and could pick truly randomly, I’d add other folks who ‘seemed to lose it’ and ask the same question.  That’s how I’m categorizing the three at the moment…they all lost their inhibition?

I am not sure they all suddenly lost inhibition. Perhaps some were heading towards trouble for a long time? Each one in their own way, on their individual path for their individual reasons, some of which might be less rational than others. Maybe you are right about one or more of them: that he was fine until he suddenly snapped.

The only way to make a substantial connection between them is to blame society for what they did. That is where we are heading yes? If you blame society for all of them, lets be transparent about this and admit that it really means blaming the Right. Its a simple game and we have played it before. The result is that some of your hated enemy groups can be scapegoated, and any of the scapegoat’s political agenda can be shamed into silence. Remember “Fundamentalism Kills”?

That is the well-travelled Leftist pathway, and I wouldnt be surprised if Hedges or some other Truthdig article links some or all the killers in just that way.

John Best, before you say that i am paranoid please read this transcript of some analysis on MSNBC or you can watch it below:

http://freebeacon.com/dem-operative-links-fla-shooting-to-koch-brothers/

Who was the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak? Try not to be surprised. It’s the usual suspects: the Koch brothers, the NRA, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Clinton vets, remember the Scaife family? Oh, yeah. These are the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point who funded and ghost write these laws and others that have become a core of the conservative agenda that is being implemented across our country. It’s the same group that also wrote the voter I.D. laws which threaten to disenfranchise some 5 million american voters, many of them African-American.

Those of us who support voter I.D. laws(i am one of those people) find ourselves tied to the killer, now we have blood on our hands. We are also spreaders of a plague, just like Typhoid Mary. Maybe we need to be quarantined, politically silenced so we dont infect everyone else. What is the long range goal of talking like that? 

Back on topic. I cant think of a way to make a real connection between the killers. I anticipate that Truthdig will, not that i am looking forward to it. I certainly dont enjoy the process where I must defend myself against the scapegoating, and although i will ask repeatedly, none of the accusers dare explain where all this constant blood guilt is supposed to lead.

I am very calm and sense of humor intact.

Aw hell, TD screwed up, gave me some kind of error message and asked for my IP address, so I though the post didn’t go through,  so, I re-wrote the post to OM…...sorry folks.

OM, I don’t have any thought forming really.  The three all happened so close together (bad things come in threes) they sort of stood out.  I probably do have some notions I’ve formed about human behavior and so forth, but hell, what do I know? 

I keep thinking the three were all cute little innocent babies at one point, and I tend to think they had some common influences as they grew.  But again, what do I know?  Do you or I or any of us have those same commonalities, whatever they are?  I think if I ‘snapped’, I wouldn’t go killing people.  I’d grab my rucksack and go off and be a hermit, whittling and whistling my days away.  But these three? 

I respect your opinion.  Sure, you go party line sometimes, that’s understandable, but we all do to some degree.  If your reply goes to some dogma or ideological answer, I’ll call you on it, you’ll tell me go jump in the lake, and no harm no foul.

Seems a fair question, I swear I don’t have an answer.  I have preconceptions, but they’re not fact, they’re my ever-changing opinion. 

So, give it a shot, I won’t try to pull any BS on you.  I might lead you this way or that to see how different ideas stand up, but there is no winner or loser in this.  It’s worth understanding I think.  So, “Do you care to speculate if there is anything in common about Mohammed Merah, Robert Bales, and George Zimmerman prior to the trigger pulling?  In their hearts and minds I mean.”

Still scratching my head.

OM, I have some thoughts rolling around in there, klink-klanking against the inside of my empty skull.  Nothing serious is forming yet.

It seems like an arbitrary grouping, but they all happened so close in time, and one sees them all three lumped together in the news, it made me wonder.  If I had a dartboard and could pick truly randomly, I’d add other folks who ‘seemed to lose it’ and ask the same question.  That’s how I’m categorizing the three at the moment…they all lost their inhibition?  I don’t really know, but you might fancy yourself as a ‘conservative’, but you’re not a ‘true conservative’ in the same way an abortion clinic bomber might describe themselves.  You might call yourself a ‘true conservative’, and that’s fine, but I think you’re one of those old-fashioned reasonable Republicans from back when things weren’t so polarized.  Am I right?  Perhaps my memory fades, and I’m sure too lazy to look over your old posts, but that’s the impression I like.  Resonable. 

That said, you do revert to the party line on occasion, but that is understandable.

Bottom line, I don’t dismiss what you say.  There are ‘lefties’ here who are far more left than you are right.  In the ‘rightie’ sense of course, not the right-wrong sense, so with all that buttering up, what do you think about those three individuals?

Report this

It is always so grown up to take things said out of context and then take a flaming swat at the one who said it.  Really righteousness at work.  Now was that hit and run comment a genetic redisposition
for violence working or some nurtured behavior?

Its actually a called: “a sense of humor”. The current post you called ‘violence’ was a joke at your expense. My previous post was a joke at my own expense.

I reserve the right to make fun of others, myself, and even you. Try to stay calm.

Hi Ozark!  Do you care to speculate if there is anything in common about Mohammed Merah, Robert Bales, and George Zimmerman prior to the trigger pulling?  In their hearts and minds I mean.  I’m scratching my head on this.

I am not sure since i hadnt thought of it until you asked. I suspect that the question occured to you for a reason. You probably have an answer at the back of your mind somewhere.

None, not one of the climate change denier’s arguments hold any water whatsoever. The standard should be, that if ANYONE is suffering from the effects of pollution, their right should reasonably supersede all others’ rights in correcting the wrong. That should be the standard.

Corporations can take their personhood and stick it where the sun don’t shine. When they get laid off after their company goes south, take our surplus tax revenue and put them all to work cleaning up the mess, working on farms, or implementing green technologies. This would require rolling up the sleeves and getting the hands dirty. No doubt, this would go a long way in eliminating the class structures, which is essential.

Though I don’t see any positive change taking place without some bloodletting. We are a stubborn nation.

Per JDmysicDJ, “Some believe that altruism is just a genetic anomaly.” —I would say it’s a whole lot easier to be altruistic if you don’t have to compete like a rat for every nickle.  When the experience in the average life is gained after a conditioning that it’s all about competing, it might influence feeling toward their fellow human beings, and sense of altruism.

Can we collectively take a deep breath and realize we can relax and enjoy life, then live and let live?  Noooooooo, that doesn’t serve ‘concentrated power’.

I don’t know whether I should take that as a
compliment, JD, that’s about the size of it:  behavior
does affect physiology, especially if it’s willful.

As to it being commonplace, I have no doubt, but it
still needs reiterating now and then, if only to
offset our exorbitant faith in science which is so
emblematic of our day and age.

Man still is the measure of all things.

The history of mankind has been recorded but the future is a clear slate.

Can soldiers clear the slate as to what they have experienced?  The deeds of the past are but ingredients of the future.  The intellect may not be the road to understanding that the slate can never be cleared. Thus the wheel of life.

By Wernerlll,

“as long as polluting the air is free, man will pollute.”

In order to pollute on the scale that cripples the environment, power must be concentrated into a few hands. This predicament underlies the one you presented.

” it is the way of all flesh,”

Now, THAT"S encouraging !

Your entire paragraph here presumes that, if all those who abuse power were eliminated from the earth today, there is only one path “man” would gravitate towards. And that would be right back to where we are right now.

Could it be that if “man” could start over today with a clean slate(environment), he would have not learned a lesson from this mess?

I would argue that what is needed all around is a concerted successful effort to dismantle and eliminate all present and future concentrations of power not agreed upon by national hand written votes. Each issue could be re-voted upon periodically depending upon consensus. And the two prerequisites to be eligible should be a minimum age and a finger print.

  Surely, this would be a monumental task, but I see no alternative considering the present state of the environment.

When I first saw ‘ka-ching’ or one of its variants, I thought not of the drawer of a cash register being slammed shut, but somebody closing the breech of an assault rifle or a shotgun after loading it.  Maybe there’s not that much difference.  Mechanism….  the guillotine probably makes a similar sound.

RE: Foucauldian, March 22 at 10:14 am

I appreciate your comment. If I may, without wishing to appear arrogant, I’ll offer my humble “opinion” that your comment here is an intellectually superior one. Behavior affecting physiology is common place in nature.

Conveying complex thoughts is difficult and that conveyance may give the appearance of being too abstract or, “spacey,” if you will, to those less intellectually gifted.

My literary skills are limited and I am seldom satisfied with my attempts to convey thoughts concerning theoretical concepts. I avoid concepts metaphysical but contemplating metaphysics can be fascinating.

Going way out on a fragile limb I’ll comment that I sometimes wonder about the connection between the consciousness of soul and the physical body. Now setting to work with a pruning saw on the wrong side of that fragile limb I’ll comment that I once experienced a rather disconcerting out of body experience. Dream? Hallucination? No substances were involved, controlled or otherwise.  I remember thinking just prior to the event, “I wish I were dead.” Oops! I just cut through the limb.

Damn! How am I going to shake off the impression that I’m “Beaucoup bien cai dau,” no merci about it. I fear Luca Grazzi, Grasi, Brazzi, Brasi, whatever. Luca is in reality, merci-less in spite of claims to the contrary.

**************************************************************

Contemplating The magnitude of injustice, suffering, and dying is something other than fascinating but it is an existential necessity. Without a dialogue concerning such what would be our fate? The history of mankind has been recorded but the future is a clear slate. We will be those who determine what will be recorded in the future. Will we submit to compassionless tyranny or will we endeavor to build a better world thus staving off an otherwise unfettered rush to catastrophic folly? Pity the poor humanitarian endlessly fighting against the odds, but without him or her where would we be and what would be our fate? It is that future those poor humanitarians will never see that they fight for; altruism for the sake of mankind and altruism for the sake of altruism, (Some believe that altruism is just a genetic anomaly.)

@ Leefeller

cha-CHING !!!

Thank you WernerIII. At last some objective voice.
It is refreshing to read your opinion. There have been too many “omniscient” and “self-important” comments here. Why is it always about the ego?

Interesting discussions, however, there are solutions available through matured technology and processes.  The problem is passing on the cost of doing the right thing to the user and as long as polluting the air is free, man will pollute.  Yes, empires come and go, our turn is now and at the present pace, we have less than 100 years to go, lest Mother Nature get us first.  Man becomes incoherent in a setting of constant death and atrocities notwithstanding, it is the way of all flesh, man is just more brutal than other species and it is man that presents the greatest threat to him and civilization.

I’m just saying that I have not seen an internal memorandum of the sort that says, ‘We may lose control of Vietnam; in that case, what are we going to do for our molybdenum?’  (Or whatever they have in Vietnam.)

Anacisse, The Enemy, What Every American Should Know About Imperialism ( paperback edition ) Pg. 108…
 
  Eisenhower, August 4, 1953
    We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurence of something that would be of the most terrible significane to the United States of America, our security , our power and ability to get certain things that we need from the riches in Indo Chinese territory and from Southeast Asia.
 
U.S. News and World Report April 4, 1954
  One of the richest areas is open to the winner of Indo-China, That’s behind the growing U.S. concern….tin, rubber, rice, strategic raw materials are what the war is really about. U.S. sees it as a place to hold at any cost.

  Henry Cabot Lodge a U.S. Ambnassador to Vietnam and head of the U.S. delegation to the Paris peace talls.
Speech in Cambridge , MassFeb.28 1965 reported in the Boston Globe.
  Vietnam does not exist in a geograhpical vacumn - from it large store houses of wealth and population can be influenced and undermined.
    I have a more complete version of Eisenhower’s speech… in which he specifically mentioned such resources as oil, manganese, rice and I think it was tugsten in a book somehwhere…haven’t been able to find it yet….. But I not only have it in a book ...I remember when it was reported. And certainly it was said that it was important to contain communism. How else could they get the initial support of the public? Would we expect them to say they were interested because they wanted to loot that nation?
I was the editor on a monthly mag that tried to explain the war as it concerned working people. I remember a picture we published of a U.S. tank rolling down a street in Saigon. In the background was a billboard with a sign that read -You Have A Friend At Chase Manhattan. That picture summed it up for me….. Let me say that I’m not trying to persuade you of disuade you of anything.,,,  but I’d like to say ... please believe without any rancor whatsoever…. that just because you never came across any"specifics” doesn’t mean they didn’t and don’t exist, or that I am manufacturing charges that have no basis in fact. Keep plugging.

Anarcessie, Eisenhower also warned against the military industrious complex for all of what it was worth? When I watch puff working (I do not know if they still use puff) every round is a dollar sign and I hear the bell soundf an old cash register. ‘Ca a-cheeng!’ Geeze, I cannot spell cacheeng?

As I recall, Eisenhower publicly alleged three reasons for giving aid to the French: (1) Preventing the supposed resources of Vietnam from falling into the hands of the Communists (supposed to be a monolithic empire) and being thus lost to the ‘Free World’; (2) A moral requirement to save people from Communism (although Western colonialism was all right) and (3) Preventing the Domino Effect, whereby all of South Asia would fall to the Communist Monolith should Vietnam be lost.  However, in all my reading, I never came across the specifics of (1); that is, the crucial resources were never identified.  I take it, then, that (1) and probably (2) were shams offered to a financially recalcitrant public.  I could be dissuaded from this view by finding an internal paper discussing the specific resources, including their volume and value, but I haven’t seen one.

Back in the day, I remember people scouring atlases and other reference materials trying to figure out what the resources were, sure that there had to be a big oil reserve under the South China Sea, or something, to excite the capitalist ruling class.  But I don’t think anyone came up with much.

Hi Ozark!  Do you care to speculate if there is anything in common about Mohammed Merah, Robert Bales, and George Zimmerman prior to the trigger pulling?  In their hearts and minds I mean.  I’m scratching my head on this.

Prozac is peace.

Oh! Paxil really means peace too!

It is always so grown up to take things said out of context and then
take a flaming swat at the one who said it.  Really righteousness
at work.  Now was that hit and run comment a genetic predisposition
for violence working or some nurtured behavior? 

Oh yeah…peace and only peace

Anacisse, I remember the Friends Service Committe bring opposed to the war very early on. I was community organizer for the committee. Eisenhower’s speech to the Congress stated that our interest in Vietnam was that the natural resources and riches of the region could not be allowed to escape capitalist hands. The resosurces of Vietnam may have been “insignificant” but the stupid bastards in government didn’t think so. They committed billions of dollars to the effort and they didn’t do it to “bring democracy to the Vietnamese people”, Eisenhower’s imperialistc speech got the fur flying on the left….I know because I was one tearing the fur ... all this was before we actually had a Military presence in the area. Of course, the CIA had been operating in the country for some time…..My interest is NOT who may or may not have been the earliest dissenters, or whether or not the conflict could have been avoided if we had some folks in Washington who were not nit wits. And I am not trying to one up anyone here. I have lived a long life, and paid some small price for my opposition to this government….and I have only one abiding interest left ......to see the end of this piratic, murderous, enemy of humanity.

“… it is my thesis, and most anthropologists as well that physical evidence has shown that low levels of serotonin (an organic compound and powerful vasoconstrictor occurring in blood serum) is one basis of aggression and, hence cellular, hence genetic, natural.”

Prozac is peace.

Oh! Paxil really means peace too!

JDmysticDJ, March 22 at 10:08 am:

‘... Anarcissie says that I am doing nothing to end war but I am doing all that I can do. The battle for hearts and minds is won one heart and mind at a time. I will continue to do my best to “Nurture” people away from believing that war is “Natural” to mankind and that wars are necessary. ...’

If all you can do is post theories on an obscure leftish website, then I would like to see a better theory in this case.  Specifically, your theory needs to account for the near-ubiquity of war in time and space.  If human beings are actually genetically predisposed to organize wars, then the measures necessary to inhibit the practice are going to be different, and probably much more difficult, than if there is simply some kind of social error going on, which can be easily cured by the right arrangements, somehow inadvertently missed all these years.  Merely beating up on Shenonymous or me or Doris Lessing for having the wrong opinions is not going to alleviate your theoretical problem.

OK, my bad.  ‘Environment’ is applied so many ways.  I mean the social-pressure environment.  Upbringing in a family, town, with surrounding pressures.  Some people seem tougher and able to avoid being forced to conform, (which is a sort of brain re-wiring, yes?) and imerse themselves in violence, etc. 

yes, this is way into the nurture, but we nurture this way easily, and I will look into the variance of this pre-disposition.

John, sorry if I did, but Foucauldian is observant.  It is Godwin’s Law
of Nazi analogies, and I just invoked it on another forum, how funny. 
Godwin is mighty popular, and them Nazis.  hahaha.  They seem
to creep in with the nightshade.

But I was able to decipher what you said.  Yes I think “the general
argument is we all have a gene (most of us) for eyes or navels, but
expression of some genes is absolute, others is not.” that you read
me almost correctly there, but not “absolutely.”  The expression of
genes for our physical attributes is absolute unless some deformity
accidentally happens. But it would be only for one individual.  To
affect the entire population the deformity would then be called a
mutation and natural selection would distribute it into the population
as a ‘natural’ trait.  Genes for predispositions for mental attitudes
are not accidental, as it is the gene for survival but not exactly absolute
forever in the sense that it can be modulated (affected by nurturing-
thank you again balkas), but if one human has it then the population
in effect has it too.  If the population is an old one and had been around
for many millennia, then the capacity for indoctrination (also genetic in
origin) kicks in and we learn from our mentors.  I would say that some
genetic disposition does occur from environmental effects but those
effects have to be for a long long time as it has to permeate most of
the reproducing members of the society to allow natural selection to
occur.  With epigenetics, there is no change in the underlying DNA
sequence of the organism as it is an effect external to the cell, and
while may last for a generation or two eventually works it way out of
the genetic code.  Do read Adrian Bird’s “Perceptions of epigenetics.” 

While epigenetics can affect cells, it is temporary and lasts over a
generation or two but disappears and some biologists think this
precludes hard-wiring, but it is also shown that there are some
genes that are hard-wired but can be affected after birth and these
also have to go through the natural selection progression for the new,
say, altruistic, gene to encode.  That does not mean altruistic genes
are not also predispositional.  What it means is that until the DNA is
modified, the genetic predisposition in individuals can be overridden and
they can be trained to to behaviors not genetically driven either towards
being kindly or towards violence.  I hope I expressed this clearly enough.

katsteevns,

Your analysis presumes some kind of innocence which does not exist and which goes a long way towards keeping us in the dark place.

Yes sadly you’re right.  I was speaking of the American ideals found on mainstreet not the realities forced upon us by wallstreet.

John B, you seem to loose yourself in your own syntax.

It’s really hard to follow you.

Shenonymous, you mis-read my post.  I will have to call Goodwins law on you, and, if you refer to the sentiment of the sentence on epigenetics I think it says, and the general argument is we all have a gene (most of us) for eyes or navels, but expression of some genes is absolute, others is not.  Some gene expression is environmentally dependant.  WE all have the violent foundation, but the degree of actual genetic expression based on epigenetics and the brain development which results from our life experience is overlaid.

JDmysticDJ, March 22 10:08 - I just had to go back and read your two
posts and by gum I’m beginning to like seeing my name so many times
in lights! 

Again…Grazie (thatseyetalian for merci beaucoup)

Yes, YOU is a no no in the Leefeller dictionary of linguini!

As I stated; ‘You’ as a word, is something I prefer not to use, following is my theses or my opinion for not using the word “YOU”

As the Drill Instructor was yelling at the recruits about something they where not doing correctly which was usually just about anything most of the time.

Yelling in particular at one recruits by name, the Drill Instructor yells out; “Private numnuts what the hell are you doing?”  (This is a set up) The green recruit reply’s; “You told me to do it this way sir!”

“YOU”...“YOU”....“F..y…” .... A EWE is a female sheep, are you calling me a female sheep private!”

“No..Sir!’

Me indoctrination of a pronoun complements of USMC!

JDmysticDJ - thank you for the long press!  I did it once but you
have reinforced my excellent posts.  Merci beaucoup.

I can see how indoctrination, or lack of proper discipline can even affect the constant wrong usage of the language pronouns by some posters here!

Geeze, if me old Drill Instructor had only heard “My thesis” instead of “my opinion”, wonder how he would have responded?

For those slow learners the Drill Instructor would respond in his usual DI booming voice;....after herding a sniveling opinion about unfairness or any other unpleasant thing which is dolled out during boot camp from the unwary recruit, .... “opinions are like ass holes private, everybody has one!”  I wonder how the DI would respond to “Its my thesis?”

As it was asked of the troop handler during regiment training, “when where you in Vietnam”... Bunky?

To this day, I prefer not using the word ‘you’ when talking to someone because of indoctrination from me old DI!

JDMystic,

One thing to consider is that the relationship
between neural evens and observable human behavior
is not as straightforward as many people may
suppose.  It’s even arguable whether it’s a causal
relationship.  The direction of causality may well
run both ways, in that “states of mind” may be said
to produce certain neural events, and vice versa, of
course.

In short, neurophilosophy and cognitive sciences are
still forms of “scientism” at this early stage, and
the mind-brain identity postulate remains a
questionable thesis.

Shenonymous writes:

“DmysticDJ is conspicuously wrong.  I did not exactly say that war is
natural to the human psyche and that people cannot be nurtured away
from accepting war.  To the contrary, I said scientists, anthropologists
and archaeologists have hard evidence there is a predisposition for
aggressive behavior and that there also is evidence of a capacity to be
nurtured for altruism.  I also said I believed there is both nature and
nurture involved.  In his perennial insecurity, JD would concoct any lie to
try to slander me.”

The essence of Shenonymous’ arguments here and elsewhere has been that war is “Natural,” that mankind has a genetic predisposition for war; the not so logical conclusion of this kind of thinking is that war is unavoidable. From her defense of a war mongering Sam Harris up until the present that has been her dialectic. What irks me about Shenonymous is her obvious animosity towards Chris Hedges because Hedges quite rightly criticized her atheist hero Sam Harris and because Hedges has made arguments referencing spiritual concepts. The truth, as I perceive it, is that Shenonymous is more concerned with advancing her atheist agenda than she is with ending the horrors of war. That is what I believe and there-for I am not lying. If I am guilty of slandering Shenonymous then she is also guilty of slandering herself with her own utterances.

Anarcissie says that I am doing nothing to end war but I am doing all that I can do. The battle for hearts and minds is won one heart and mind at a time. I will continue to do my best to “Nurture” people away from believing that war is “Natural” to mankind and that wars are necessary. There is a distinct difference between believing that war is monstrous but unavoidable and an advocacy to end wars. What is the purpose of Hedges’ writing here? It is clearly an advocacy to end war[s] and Shenonymous’ picayune comments are not helpful in that respect.

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 4:00 am

“War is not created in a hell.  It is created by humans in this world and has been with us since there were primitive clans about 200,000 years ago.”

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 5:28 am

“What evidence is there except the voices on blogs and a few journalists, some scientists, that ending humankind’s warring is more than a passing thought, if even that?”

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 7:52 am

“…war has to be looked at in the abstract so that thinking about it is in a direct trajectory, toward reality and does not remain defused in chaos, for if chaotic,  no strategy for eliminating it in our society can even begin to be drawn up. It is a defeatist view. “

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 9:47 am

“As to our penchant for war, I’ve already said I think acts of aggression are genetic as well as learned.”

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 9:50 am

“… it is my thesis, and most anthropologists as well that physical evidence has shown that low levels of serotonin (an organic compound and powerful vasoconstrictor occurring in blood serum) is one basis of aggression and, hence cellular, hence genetic, natural.”

By Shenonymous, March 19 at 12:38 pm

“I believe there is nothing about evolution that insists on a god’s will.  Quite the opposite. “

By Shenonymous, March 20 at 6:00 pm

“… if you would read my post carefully you would see that I had given several websites for anyone not too lazy to scout them out to gain some bona fide scientific proof of the theory that
there is a human warring gene and that we come into this world with a genetic disposition for combat.”

(More below)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here but….

“spiritual influence” ?!? No, When one country sees their neighbor’s people being fed on a large scale along with other egalitarian measures, as also happened in China and Russia, they take notice and realize that it is possible for them too. Then they act against whatever forces get in the way, including capitalism.

Nothing spiritual about it.

(Continued from above)

By Shenonymous, March 20 at 6:57 pm

“What we are now is a function of our history and reinstrumentation is not so easy for large living things and certainly not like overnight.”

By Shenonymous, March 22 at 7:03 am

I must disagree with your notion that not each and everyone of us are not hard-wired towards violence.  For exactly which warrior genes do not show up in every individual?

(Before I continue I’ll point out that the above is not “real science” it is opinion reinforced by other scientific “opinion.”

“Evolutionary psychology” - the discipline that attempts to explain much of human behavior as a creation of natural selection that operated during our hunter-gatherer past - “is dead but doesn`t seem to know it yet,” Stanford University evolutionist Paul R. Ehrlich told the annual meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) in Arlington, Va., on March 26.

‘Genetic evolution did not determine most of how we act or provide us all with a pre-programmed `human nature,’ he added. ‘For instance, there is no reason to believe that human beings are either innately violent or innately peaceful, instinctively disposed to wreck their environments or to be conservationists, or born genetically gay or genetically straight.’”

Also, toddlers react to external stimuli and there is no proof that acts of aggression exhibited by toddlers is innate or inherent. Not all toddlers act aggressively. My “opinion” is that toddlers react according to their nurturing. Neglect, acts of cruelty perpetrated by siblings or others, corporal punishment, etc. are all aspects of a child’s nurturing that might be responsible for aggression. Where responsible nurturing is available to toddlers they are easily nurtured away from being violently aggressive.)

Yes I am critical of Shenonymous. I believe that she is fundamentally wrong headed and I find certain aspects of her character repulsive, but if I were to say that I have no interest in winning her heart and her mind, then, I would be lying. Genetic mutation is not a necessity in order to change human behavior influencing philosophy and psychology, all that is necessary, is an epiphany.

Finally, currently our nation does not require military service; a person needs to be willing to sign enlistment papers. Becoming a soldier willing to take human life requires making a choice, compound that willingness with military training to nurture violent behavior and the result is “some of the [worst] people I have ever known.” The best that can be said of them is that they are hapless victims of their own ignorance and that their ignorance is a result of poor nurturing.

Cool analysis, Ana.  Had no idea that Ho Chi Min goes
that far back.  But then again, this has been the
usual response of imperialistic powers towards newly-
formed states which aimed to run on different economic
principles.  The all-out-effort on the part of the
West to bring the Soviets to their knees, since 1917,
is a perfect example.

Your allotment of genes is reminiscent of the German argument for
sterilization of the Jews, John Best.  Predisposition of a warring
gene is not the same as having genes for certain kinds of eyeballs or
ears.  There is more than a predisposition of having certain kinds
eyeballs or ears, it is a genetic physical trait.  And while it is true that
some people’s eyeballs have a toady look, and may have inherited that
shape from their parents, they do not function as toads’ eyeballs do. 
We could give a similar analogy with toady tongues, some people may
have extra long tongues that are remindful of toads.  But…and you
know where the logic goes on that one.  I’m afraid you do have to do
more research on genetics and the human genome as it looks like you
have not taken the time to do your homework, even if some references
were provided.  Okay.  And John Best I do give you credit when
you said,

“I’m saying is we all have a predisposition to violent
programming, (the degree of predisposition probably
varies a bit), and the environment builds a more or
less violent individual on that foundation.”

Looks like you have just reiterated what I’ve said, except I would add,
to make balkas feel a little better, nurturing and postnatal indoctrination
also goes into that violence of humans equation.  I also said we humans
are responsible for our actions.  But, why do you act as though you are
the first to say it.  You do go an inch farther about violent behavior
being unforgivable.  To what degree then would you unforgive, that is,
take revenge on, someone who has been violent?  And would all those
who are violent deserve the same punishment?  Are there degrees of
being violent and would that mean some of the genetic material is
weaker than in some in individuals than others?  And exactly how would
you go about determining the degree of culpability?  Isn’t that what our
justice system is “supposed” to do and really does do for the most part,
unless the racist genes come up and kills young black boys in Florida,
and we have to demonstrate and publicly protest for justice!  If we don’t
find out about these things, can there be any hope of changing
humanity?

truedigger3, March 22 at 8:51 am:

‘... Who told you that the North Vietnamese could be bought!! ...’

Ho Chi Minh.  In 1919, as leader of a Vietnamese nationalist group, he appealed to U.S. President Wilson for recognition (which was refused).  In 1945, having run the Japanese out of the country, he again appealed for American recognition.  Truman ignored him.

Suppose the American ruling class had been a little smarter?  Their deal would obviously have been recognition in exchange for political neutrality or alliance, and business opportunity.  The Vietnamese leadership would certainly have gone for it, and the U.S. would probably have had a potent ally in the middle of a troubled region.  Instead they chose to back two failing empires (the French Union and the Republic of China, another of Vietnam’s enemies).

Like all trooping territorial primates, human beings urgently want to get any invaders off their territory.  Once that happens they may become reasonable and even engage in trade and other cooperative behaviors.

As for capitalism, Lenin said that ‘the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with’, but then in turns out you may want more rope to hang somebody else, so you keep the capitalist around, and after awhile you’re both in the rope business.  That’s the way it’s supposed to work, anyway. 

This is why the business in Vietnam is something of anomaly when analyzed materialistically, and requires resort to theories of spiritual influence and the like—or to a straightforward look at the human propensity for warfare.

Shenon….just look at the differences between the sexes. 

This is not racial at all…..you’ll accept a distribution of intelligences within each race, caused by the variance of our common genetics.  Remember, some huge percentage of the genes are common, so let’s just put this race stuff aside. 

As there is a distribution of intelligences, earlobe shapes, belly-button shapes, etc, why is it not possible to imagine a distribution of ‘war-likeness’  Everybody has a belly-button, but not everybody is an ‘outie’.  Genetic pre-disposition is another thing.  I can’t really get into a nature-nurture discussion, but look at those damn monkies!  Apparently there are similar films of children being violent. 

Anyway, I am not saying we are born with the violent gene or not.  It’s probably not like eye color, or baldness, certain to develop in a particular way.  I suppose what I’m saying is we all have a predisposition to violent programming, (the degree of predisposition probably varies a bit), and the environment builds a more or less violent individual on that foundation. 

Here again, how many individuals manifest the violent tendency in a given society at a given time may even be dependent on epigenitic factors.  Would a larger number of violent individuals help or hurt a population who’s gestating mothers are hungry? 

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an inverse relationship between successful programming for violence and IQ, but that might be a difficult one to interpret if it does exist.

Anyway, I don;t think we can say some babies are born with a horrible evil soul and others are perfect and nice.  Individuals have to take responsibility for their actions, yes, but we should not ignore that it is unforgivable for a so-called modern society to not try and minimize the pressures which cause such extreme, extreme manifestations of wanton violence.  There are a lot of soldiers I am sure, who just fell on to a path that lead them to a really bad place, and we shouldn’t let the system, our military and support systems, as a money making tool by some aggregation of greedy bastards.

Re: By Anarcissie, March 22 at 7:12 am

Anarcissie wrote:
“One of the difficulties attending the analysis of the War in Vietnam as a capitalist adventure is that, unlike Iraq, no substantial resources were in dispute.  In theory, capitalists should make war to acquire and defend resources and markets, but in this regard Vietnam was insignificant, and could have been bought out anyway”
——————————————————————-
Anarcissie,

You forgot the basic fact that the Vietnam war was a part of the bigger struggle between the US and Soviet Union at that time.
A Victory for the North Vietnamese would have meant that more people and resources were added to the Soviets and a forward location to “infect” neighbouring countries.
The US couldn’t just walk away at the first sign of trouble and abandon the South Vietnamese. That would have sent a very negative message to all US “friends” around the world.
Although the Vietnam war was costly to the US, it was VERY VERY costly to the Soviet Union and crippled its economic development and perhaps set the stage for its collapse.
When the US withdrew from Vietnam, it left it completely crippled with completely destroyed infrastructure, destroyed factories and poisened soil from Agent Orange which in short the US left Vietnam is state where it was good for nothing for a long time.!
Who told you that the North Vietnamese could be bought!!
I am not defending the Vietnam war but I am just trying to shed some light on some of the thinking and reasoning of the ruling elites at that time.
Definitly there were many other ways to handle that conflict at that time.

katsteevns, March 22 at 7:48 am:

”  In theory, capitalists should make war to acquire and defend resources and markets, but in this regard Vietnam was insignificant,”

‘Not the way I see it. Vietnam was a war against Communism because it threatened the very core of capitalism. If Vietnam was left to its own devices, it would have spread rapidly to other countries.’

The Domino Theory, in which some sort of spiritual influence is supposed to waft mysteriously from one community to another?  Not very materialistic, and therefore, not very Marxistic, to say the least.  And this theory was put forward by the same people, our beloved ruling class of yesteryear, who buddied up to Communist Yugoslavia in the 1950s and Communist China in the 1970s, so apparently they didn’t believe in it themselves.  I would not rely on it.

If you ask me: first the war, then the reasons for the war.  And then more reasons for the war, after the first set wear out but the war is still going.

”  In theory, capitalists should make war to acquire and defend resources and markets, but in this regard Vietnam was insignificant,”

Not the way I see it. Vietnam was a war against Communism because it threatened the very core of capitalism. If Vietnam was left to its own devices, it would have spread rapidly to other countries.

This does not sit well with those who want to protect their self ordained right to accumulate infinite wealth and who happen to have ruled this country since its inception. The same was true in many other countries who tried to chart their own course: Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Philippines, Panama, Libya today, Iraq, Russia in 1918, Haiti…just to name a few.

So, Vietnam and all the rest are offensives against the future markets and resources of U.S. imperialism. And the citizenry here just goes along for the ride because we all benefit in some way or another. Only the misguided and less fortunate citizens get to see the bloody mess. Divine providence allows us to feel good about crapping on the red, yellow, and brown peoples of the world.

Thanks for looking at my latest piece, Hetero. 

By way of clarification, I’m still using Hobbes as a
crutch, to get me to where I want to.  I believe a
more accurate view will emerge in time.  Meanwhile,
I’m suppressing certain elements of his thought
(e.g., his statement to the effect we all desire
commodious living) in order to posit my argument in
sharp relief.  Fine tuning will come later.

Burke and Hayek provide a useful lens as well.  I
suspect there is a much greater convergence here
than meets the eye, which would place Hobbes in the
category of “conservative” thinkers (in the best
possible sense, of course).

Perhaps we might kick an idea or two via TD’s email
facility rather than having to post atopical remarks
on this or any other thread.  You think?

Looks like that old religion called “liberalism,” Ed
Romano, is more difficult to put away than you may
have supposed.  In spite of your recantations, you’re
still a believer, as per Ana’s last comment.

You have to see the state as the prime mover, at least
from conceptual standpoint.

“Are you ready for some football?”

Ed—- it would be nicer if you tried to confirm your opinion with some evidence
that would give weight to the opinion.

Ed Romano, March 21 at 6:47 pm:

‘Anarcisse, Nothing was learned for the Vietnam fiasco because the anti war movement was taken over by liberals. The early opponents said the war was what it was….a capitalist adventure. ...’

The first activists to oppose the war in the streets (that I can remember) were the Quakers and Women Strike For Peace, neither of whom put forward a particularly anti-capitalist argument.  Those were the days of the opposition between the Old Left and the New Left, and the Old Left, it seemed to me then, were rather sluggish about supporting the New Left and the non-Marxist anti-war movements, if they did so at all.  The people who first opposed the war did so because they thought it was immoral, ugly, and stupid, in other words, intuitively rather than as the result of analysis.

One of the difficulties attending the analysis of the War in Vietnam as a capitalist adventure is that, unlike Iraq, no substantial resources were in dispute.  In theory, capitalists should make war to acquire and defend resources and markets, but in this regard Vietnam was insignificant, and could have been bought out anyway, so this sort of analysis is not very compelling.  I would say we are looking at something deeper, that is, the essential nature of the state.

Seems, balkas, I am not alone in my thesis of a genetic tendency
for aggression in humankind. 

elisalouisa, March 22 5:27 am

Have you ever watched toddlers establish/protect
their turf and/or try to put down a perceived rival? That
tells you something that all the scholarly degrees in the
world cannot supersede. It takes patience and love to
undo such inborn tendencies, by giving the child a role
model to follow with the conditions of goodness that one
creates. Basic well hidden negative tendencies cannot be
completely eradicated, what Carl Jung would call our
“shadow.”  Yes, totally politically incorrect views. Fifty or
one hundred years from now such may not be the case.

Bravo and admirably said.  I have often watched this “normal” behavior of
these little ones and my observations are exactly as you describe.  It can
be downright brutal! And by gently speaking to them about what is right
and wrong behavior, calms them down at least for a while. And we hope
that over time it will sink in.  The tendency is intrinsic therefore must be
“taught,” uh…nurtured out.

John Best asks, “What IS Progress”?, March 22 5:54 am

We, and the common people do need a way to ‘tag’
those among us who nurture our aggressive tendencies. I
agree we have a hard-wired tendency toward violence, and
that does not mean each and every one of us. A society
simply needs an optimized percentage of aggressive
individuals to do the dirty work.

I must disagree with your notion that not each and everyone of us are
not hard-wired towards violence.  For exactly which warrior genes do
not show up in every individual?  How are these individuals sorted out
by nature, since genes are the natural means to the behaviors?  and at
some point in evolution our ancestors were all of ours in the aggregate.
Or are some individuals more “special” than others. That would be a kind
of master race theory.

With all due respect Ed Romano, March 22 5:51 am, yes it is
comforting even if there are flag wavers.  They are people too, and who, I
believe, are liable to modify their views when convinced to do so.

...and seen in PatrickHenry’s perception, March 21 at 5:10 pm as
well

“It is each persons moral compass to either kill a threat
or not, in peace as well as war.  When we start killing those
who are not a threat, our compass starts spinning and we forget
where we are as a nation and the fundemental [sic] beliefs which
got us here.”

And whether or not he is aware of it… katsteevns, March 22 at
5:11 am,
his comment also testifies to his view that it is a “persistent” behavior,
but it goes a whole lot farther back in human history than the Spanish-
American war.  It goes back to our ancestors, and is innate.

Excuse me Mr. Henry but?” When WE start killing those
who are not a threat”???

First, “WE” have been doing this consistently since
the Spanish-American war in which the underlying motive
was to expand business beyond our borders in order to
accumulate capital from foreign lands.

And secondly, This country was set up on it’s very founda-
tions to protect those who have property from those who
do not.

Your analysis presumes some kind of innocence which does
not exist and which goes a long way towards keeping us in the
dark place.

We, and the common people do need a way to ‘tag’ those among us who nurture our aggressive tendencies. 

I agree we have a hard-wired tendency toward violence, and that does not mean each and every one of us.  A society simply needs an optimized percentage of aggressive individuals to do the dirty work.  Those societies which acheive a balance of genetics toward organization, warriors, passive workers, and innovators will have an advantage as a society.  The name Ernst Becker comes to mind and I need to read more about the field, but there it is for what it’s worth. 

Going back to the genesis times, here’s one film that barely touches aggression, but it does go into societal structure, a bit of communal defense, etc.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/clever-monkeys/

But if you have any doubt about the evolutionary roots of war, see the series ‘Dark days in Monkey City’ http://animal.discovery.com/tv/dark-days-monkey-city/  Yes, perhaps this is overly dramatized, but I think there is something to it.

So, if this is indeed how things work, how do we organize ourselves to manage our genetic inheritances such that we don’t waste our lives annihilating each other and the planet?  We need a movement to explore this and nudge society along a slightly better path. I wonder if these forums are a precursor to that sort of group, if they will coalesce over time,  or if individual failings of ego and/or organized intentional disruption will break up a meaningful coalescence. 

I offer that a necessary first step is to sensitize ourselves to recognize intellectual manipulation and temporarily ostracize (until rehabilitated) those who would subvert reason and civility.  This will not be easy because we have not trained ourselves consistently in either an accepted civility or consistent practice of reason.  IMO, the two are independent.  But I see many hopeful signs here on TD.

Isn’t it nice to have your idea confirmed….in this case by a flag waver.

balkas: i have repeatedly postulated on this site that we were and still are ok; i.e., that nature which made us, did the best it could for us and there is no more to be had than that.but at certain point of time some extremely sick minds [priests, at first] thought that we ?are not ok.

Really? If we were all O.K. I assume that would include the “extremely sick minds” who thought we were not O.K. So why were these minds not O.K.? You are admitting what you say is not true.

Have you ever watched toddlers establish/protect their turf and/or try to put down a perceived rival? That tells you something that all the scholarly degrees in the world cannot supersede. It takes patience and love to undo such inborn tendencies, by giving the child a role model to follow with the conditions of goodness that one creates. Basic well hidden negative tendencies cannot be completely eradicated, what Carl Jung would call our “shadow.”  Yes, totally politically incorrect views. Fifty or one hundred years from now such may not be the case.

This may not be the website to profess such beliefs but then again that could be just why it needs to be said here.

By PatrickHenry, March 21 at 5:10 pm

“It is each persons moral compass to either kill a threat or not, in peace as well as war.  When we start killing those who are not a threat, our compass starts spinning and we forget where we are as a nation and the fundemental beliefs which got us here.”

Excuse me Mr. Henry but
” When WE start killing those who are not a threat”???

First, “WE” have been doing this consistently since the Spanish-American war in which the underlying motive was to expand business beyond our borders in order to accumulate capital from foreign lands.

And secondly, This country was set up on it’s very foundations to protect those who have property from those who do not.

Your analysis presumes some kind of innocence which does not exist and which goes a long way towards keeping us in the dark place.

Chris hedges asserts repeatedly that no civil rights movement here has ever gained political power. So, when you speak of “the fundamental beliefs which got us here”, you are NOT referring to the nation as a whole, but some fictitious anomaly.