They are not civilized
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2002
By Amon Hotep
Printer friendly version
November 01, 2001
When people domesticate animals they enslave them, they rob them of their freedom to roam and live under the direct influences of nature. They are subjugated to the wills of people however misinformed and misdirected their wills.
This is the nature of nations that continually claim they are civilized. They wage wars under the pretext of helping the less fortunate or to advance 'noble ideals'. They have taken the arrogant and racist position that their values and outlook on life are somehow superior and all must yield to their wishes. In other words they seek to domesticate more and more people, who, just like domesticated animals, are very easy to control and exploit. They are also easier to slaughter. Of course these leaders' motives are always about economics and people are somewhat aware of this but most people are domesticated and when the master calls with a firm voice they know how to submit.
The problem America and its allies are having is that Afghanistan has resisted all attempts at Western Domestication and continue to do so today. A less domesticated people are difficult to capture. They don't have a single stable ruler whom Western Leaders could corrupt and exploit for the resources in that region.
Why do you believe Western Leaders keep insisting that Afghanistan should have a single ruler? Why can they not leave these people to work out their own system of governance and if they seek aid then make demands for changes in their human rights policies in exchange for the assistance? If European leaders felt there were people who wanted to leave the region they could easily address this through their own immigration policies.
But no, the people is not their concern, they can at best be cheap labour when domesticated the European way. What they need is a ruler who would yield to European demands. What about someone who is familiar to the people in the region but likes the luxuries of the West? Such a leader could serve 'our' interest. Talk to him, tell him we would finance him and protect him if he returns as the leader over all the Afghan tribes. Tell him he would be the person we would recognize and with whom we would enter all business transactions. What if he is old? Well better yet, he may not be too bothered with details; all 'we' have to do is keep him comfortable. Think of it, we could get him to sign contracts with us that no other government would be able to overturn. We can set up bases to protect our interest. These people need to be trained.
In animal training, positive reinforcement (the term for bribing with treats) is now the popular model. This is similar to bribing leaders to exploit the resources of a region. But if this fails with animals they easily revert to their old tried and tested ways of beatings. In the case of Nations it is war. Bomb them into submission.
This is not Al Capone and his bunch; this is the United States and its allies the biggest gangsters on the block.
Students of history should be aware how the Europeans made deals with American Indians and African 'nobodies' who were suddenly given titles and the 'rights' to sell the properties of all Africans and Indians. This is how it is done. One is only a leader if leading European powers recognizes and can manipulate him or her. So it takes little for them to appoint 'leaders' to sign deals. All of this is the exploitation that accompanies European domestication.
In order to exploit the resources in a region, they have to first exploit the people living on the land. The people have to be domesticated with European Leaders as their controllers so they would be accomplices in their own exploitation. Western leaders are impatient with the slow process of domestication that comes through food aid and 'religious' coercion. These tactics worked in the past, but in this age of instant communication and competing powers such methods could seem rather slow. Their economical needs are urgent.
They say there is a global recession and they are eager to exploit other untapped resources and stimulate some of their key industries. Who can complain about a two hundred billion dollar military aircraft contract? They have all seen the urgency in strengthening the military defenses. Who benefits and who pays the bill? A nation ripe with fear will not question the need for developing and improving defenses. A paranoid nation will not question the speed at which funds can be allocated to wage war. So ok, the UN has finally gotten some of the money the U.S. owes so they are now mute. They are obedient to the dominant European powers. They have demonstrated the level of their domestication.
I can imagine Bush and company in their offices talking among themselves prior to the U.S. attack: "You know it is time we get more involved in exploring the oil and natural gas pipelines in that region. We could easily get hold of that land and own all. What do these people know about billions of dollars? Let us hold our hands on negotiating with them. Something will give soon and we could pin everything on this Bin Laden chap. We can easily attack Afghanistan and put in place a leader favorable to our interest. Who will stop us if there is a compelling case requiring urgent actions to protect national security? Just keep the public sufficiently afraid to maintain support for our raids. Remind them it is our nation's security that is at stake."
In December 1940 William Henry Chamberlin wrote:
"I am anticipating the day when the possession of Tibet and Afghanistan will be represented as vitally necessary to the security of Kansas and Nebraska. There is no logical end to this elastic conception of 'security' short of the conquest of the whole world."
-- "War – Shortcut to Fascism," American Mercury, LI, 204 (December 1940), p. 399.
Given the history of American deceptions such a scenario is possibility.
Historically, this has been done; wars have been waged to advance economic interests. Most leaders claim it is their nation's security they are protecting. It is for these reasons the beginnings of many wars are shrouded in mystery (lies). To start a war one must stray far from the real intent and this is what we are witnessing today. To sustain wars leaders rely on lies and the means to communicate lies to people en masse. For these lies to have any impact, they require a highly domesticated public, suspicious of any view other that that of the controllers. They have coined the term 'propaganda war' as a way to legitimize misleading information. A propaganda war is very effective on a domesticated population. How else can anyone explain the ease at which so many people are willing to accept that their politicians are telling the truth?
They speak of having indisputable evidence but it is too sensitive to give the public, so they put out a set of circumstantial evidence that can fit a broad spectrum of people and have decided on bombardment with 'broad based' 'manufactured consent'. How else can you explain the gullibility of people notwithstanding the historical evidence that is available about wars and deceptions? American leaders are noted for lying to the public and they seized an opportunity when they felt the domesticated public would blindly support revenge to launch an attack on semi-domesticated Afghanistan. Yes these people in that region may be ignorant and the Taleban are trying to bring the people under their own brand of 'Taleban Domestication' but at least as a country they were not attacking another country to so do. Incidentally not one of the suicidal hijackers was from Afghanistan, most were from Saudi Arabia and they lived in different parts of Europe. There is no evidence that the Taliban supported or ordered the initial attack on America.
What makes European powers feel their brand of domestication is best for all people? Why are they so busy manufacturing consent and trying to control even the media outside of their borders? Freedom certainly does not exist for many people and most who feel they have attained it in European dominated countries are lost in the material trappings. Those immersed in Western materialism in their extreme illusionary states see themselves just like dog trainers and handlers who reign supreme over their animals.
Try telling any of those who are convinced that their leaders are correct to examine other possibilities and you may be snapped at like a well-trained dog that tolerates no subversion to his master's authority. I told one person on a discussion board to let us examine the so-called evidence and he immediately snapped back with a comment on the amount of people who died in the United States. There can be no discussion with such blind rage that seeks an outlet readily supplied by politicians.
The masters understand their dogs and most times they know how far they can go before they themselves get bitten. Anyhow, dog handlers are quick to remove animals from the pack that do not submit to their authority. Long ago they would openly killed such people who did not yield to domestication and although killings are still done, they regularly label such people who immediately become ostracized from the pack. So the word 'extremist' is the new label for those in opposition to European domestication.
Such is the world today, where leaders with the aid of mass media could command the masses to suspend reason and blindly follow them, even to their own destruction.
But this phenomenon is not new for each time people marvel at the obedience of their pets they are marveling at their ability to enslave another and are reinforcing their feeling of superiority over that animal.
People are conditioned through religion, politics and countless other ways to neglect reality and reason and be herded. Such people are considered 'civilized'.
Well, I have to disappoint many, they are not civilized they are simply domesticated.
Send page by E-Mail
Homepage | Reasonings | Features | Forums | Interactive