Eri wrote:daredevil is unreal!!!
Latin netflix still doesn't have it
Eri wrote:daredevil is unreal!!!
its all the same bullshit arguments that lead to the same place. "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" "islam is the worst incarnation of that" Thats simplistic nonsense that gives people an enemy so they remain pacified while they lose lives, rights and treasure in their own governments fruitless war on terror.Jec wrote:If Maher, Harris, Dawkins's discourse was the norm, the way we had been dealing with this.... Apologists wouldn't have the need to brand them "New Atheists"....
The romantic bullshit, it's not getting us anywhere...
No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.Jec wrote:More like, "religion causes a lot of harm to the world and we should actively seek to reduce this damage by not keeping the fucking quiet".
Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions. Our excellent media coverage has provided too much nuance. As Hitchens said our violence in the region is just and necessary. Likewise as Hirsi Ali says we must crush Islam under our heel.jec wrote:
Just because you see it simplistic or easy doesn't make it any less truthful or relevant. Occam's Razor, we have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are.
We are good and they are bad.jec wrote:We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history.
Jet wrote:
No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.
jec wrote:
Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions.
Jet wrote:
We are good and they are bad.
Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.Jec wrote:
Wut? No. anyways... what it could lead to is more than just an idea, it's an action
Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.jec wrote:
Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?
Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.jec wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as saying the billions of muslims around the world act like savages, but I will say hundreds of millions agree or consent to the worst ideas of the religion.
Autocracy is no better than Theocracy.jec wrote:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/mentally-ill-woman-stoned-to-death-in-kabul-for-burning-quran/ <- I believe the headline should read "Woman stoned by mentally ill crowd"
Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.Jec wrote:
Try again, more like, "Islam is bad, and full of bad ideas, PERIOD"
Jet wrote:Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.
Jet wrote:
Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.
Jet wrote:
Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.
Lots of people believe bad shit. Sometimes they act on them, other times they do not. This reality is not exclusive to the east.
Jet wrote:
Autocracy is no better than Theocracy.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/09/why-is-bahrains-government-afraid-of-a-tweet-nabeel-rajab-arrest/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-court-sentences-us-egypt-citizen-life-prison-30244233
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/middleeast/egyptian-court-sentences-us-citizen-to-life-in-prison.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1
Jet wrote:
Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.
Jec wrote:
If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.
Jec wrote:
Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...
Jec wrote:
Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.
Jec wrote:
To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...
Jec wrote:
But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...
? wrote:
The Bush administration’s favorite contractor, Blackwater, is the most powerful private army in the world. It commands thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, has over a billion dollars in government contracts, and enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for its theater of operations’ conduct.
Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, a staunchly conservative Catholic, has also served on the board of directors of Christian Freedom International, a crusading missionary organization operating in the overwhelmingly Islamic countries of Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Prince envisions an evangelical “end time” role for his warriors, “Everybody carries guns, just like Jeremiah rebuilding the temple in Israel—a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.”
http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel100608.htm
Jeremy Scahill wrote: And when he moved to the United Arab Emirates, he said he did so because it was a free society and a country that respected the free market. Well, it didn’t take long for him to get down to business with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and essentially hatched a plot to build up a mercenary army within the borders of the UAE, relying on labor from Colombia. Blackwater has a long history of working with Colombians. In fact, Blackwater paid Colombians $34 a day to operate in Iraq. And when the Colombians protested their payment, saying that they were getting less than the Bulgarians or the others that were working for Blackwater, the white soldiers, Blackwater threatened them, according to the Colombians, and wouldn’t give them their passports back and said, you know, "We’re just going to release you onto the streets of Baghdad." And eventually the Colombians left, and they went and they assassinated the recruiter that had hired them for Blackwater. So it’s ironic that Prince is using the Colombians. Now their pay has been increased to something like $150 a day.
Jet wrote:
You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.
Jec wrote:
Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.
Jet wrote: Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"
Jec wrote:
You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return
Jec wrote:
Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy. That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it
Jet wrote:
How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on
Jec wrote:
huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc.
jec wrote:
How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc..
jec wrote:^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror...
jec wrote:So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions.
Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.jec wrote:Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them?
jec wrote:What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.
Jec wrote:
Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?
jec wrote:
Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...
jec wrote:
Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....
Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...
Jet wrote:
Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?
jec wrote:
Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.
Jet wrote:
Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.
Jet wrote:
Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering.
Jet wrote:
Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.
Jet wrote:
Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia?
Jet wrote:
The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.
Jec wrote:Scoreboard... As far as religions go, they are causing the most trouble... not just East vs West but East vs East as well as evidenced in China and India and among themselves.
jec wrote:Do you truly believe that if the US pulls out is honestly gonna stop breeding islamic terrorist? Look at what happened in Iraq and Syria, the lack of US foot presence led to the development of strong extremists organizations hell bent on revenge. Pulling out and stop intervening is not enough... radical reform must happen within the ideology... sadly, it will take generations to achieve it and since no one wants to bring this discussion to mainstream media due to possible cases of "hurt feelings", it's happening at an even slower pace.
Jec wrote:Nonsense... Pakistan and India are evenly matched... Both are nuclear armed too... If they think that stimulating the military industrial complex is the best way to harm another nation, maybe they are simply far too irrational.
Jec wrote:Like they did in Syria or Iraq... The latter decided to choose a Kurdish president that ignored the sunni in and shia in the country leading to the rise of IS
Jec wrote:
The point still stands, his extreme ideologies are not representative of hundreds of millions of westerners... Ask any L American if they agree with US foreign policy...
Jec wrote:Of course not... but they would have even less excuses to repress their people... for example, they wouldn't jail or kill apostates... Killing opposition and apostates is worse than just killing opposition... But I don't even know what we're getting at here...
jec wrote:
I don't know, that's just speculation...
Jet wrote:
What consistitutes your score board? What exactly are you tracking? Violence and the profiting from it are nothing new. Neither is indoctrination, propaganda, secrecy, unjust imprisonment, mass surveillance etc.
Jet wrote:
No pulling troops out of the region is not enough. It must also stop the funding of terrorist organization that operate to further its geopolitical interest. You cant begin to talk about ideological reform when you are imprisoning and bombing people. Or supporting those that do it on your behalf for that same reason. These are elements that prevent liberal reforms from beginning to take root in the first place.
Jet wrote:
Islamic communities react through suicidal killings to get revenge for perceived damages. How is it not obvious why people do this? Because they are angry that their loved ones were killed by a system imposed on them by another country. As a consequence they want to hurt the ones responsible for maintaining it. Its important to note that this is not limited to attacks on western troops. They are reduced to these type of tactics for thats generally what's available to someone with limited resources yet bent on causing massive casualties. You once said that you didnt expect a soldier to be sane...yet you expect rationality from a civilian who has their loved ones slaughtered in front of them? Well that says a lot about bias...
Jet wrote:
Right, as if the US and other countries actually stopped intervening....
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119418/arming-syrias-rebels-obamas-been-doing-it-covertly-2013
Jec wrote:
More like falls flat. You'd have to believe ideology matters more than impact of said ideology, which is ridiculous. The people that act on dangerous ideology equate to far more harm than those who merely hold dangerous thoughts. Anyone can have bad, horrific, disgusting ideas. But they can only be fantasies unless we find a way to manifest them materially in the world around us. Imperialist powers have managed to do that far more effectively than the muslims you claim are a bigger threat.
Jet wrote:
They wouldnt jail or kill apostates? That assumes because a regime couldn't justify it with ideology they wouldnt kill or jail their own people. Just because they would not have the excuse for killing apostates does not mean that said apostates wouldnt be killed or imprisoned along with the rest who oppose a tyrannical government. They may have less of an excuse for it but that doesn't mean they don't/wouldn't repress their people.
Jet wrote:
It really seems to me more like willful ignorance. The willingness to ignore western violence which is commited on a much wider scale than religious extremists.
wrote:Historical Revisionism
Next Affleck argued: “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot, and we’ve invaded more Islamic nations.”
Aside from essentially suggesting that “two wrongs make a right,” his assertions reflect an appalling acquaintance with true history — thanks of course to the ingrained lies emanating from academia, followed by Hollywood and the media.
Reality records a much different story. From its inception, Islam has been a religion hostile to all others. Jihad was its primary tool of expansion.
Consider: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.
Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.
In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia), was conquered by Muslim Turks.
The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.
Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.
In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that people like Affleck are obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.
Yet today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.
Eri wrote:GoT questions:
episode 1 and 2
- Spoiler:
who was the guy deaenerys had killed? for murdering the harpy guy. and forget the other one. im gonna get back to you on that one
Jec wrote:I never accused religions of unjust imprisonments and mass surveillance, that doesn't even make sense in this context.
jec wrote:They wouldn't actively search for apostates unless the apostate opposes the regime, MASSIVE DIFFERENCE... Don't try to equate this matter, there's a clear difference...
jec wrote:Agree on the need to stop funding groups, not on considering the elements that prevent liberal reforms.
jec wrote:You can't have liberal reforms when the leaders, both socially and political of their communities are keeping their sheep comfortable under ultra conservative ideals.
jec wrote:
If mainstream media would have more serious debates on faiths rather than just a couple of schmucks saying "it's just a few rotten apples" we'd be getting somewhere, at least on the ideological front.
jec wrote:Because islamic communities are the first community to ever be victims of brutal repression and murder... <\sarcasm>... but they are the first to act in such a way. They would not retort to suicidal killings if they didn't brainwash them into thinking they're getting 72 virgins...
jec wrote:So... handing out weapons instill radicalism too? I would think the radical groups would be thankful for being armed to the teeth...
jec wrote:The US might have helped armed ISIS but their ideological motivation and what ignited them was a weak Kurdish regime that decided to legislate ignoring the interests of the other ethnic groups in their country. They don't even let themselves be and are willing to tear each other apart over slight differences in their own religion... Like catholics and protestanst years ago...
jec wrote:I disagree. Massive belief in ideology is far worse than the acts of few on a certain ideology.
jec wrote:Hell, I didn't know it until you brought it up. If most people find out about it, pressure and protest would arise from home making their representation of Christianity illegitimate
Ive been researching more than just the role of christian extremism thanks. Not to discourage you from learning more but if you're still intent on proving one religion is more extreme than the other youre still missing the bigger picture. You'll never get out of the tribal mentality that will only keep dumbing down any ideological debate.jec wrote:I"m gonna keep on researching on the role of extremist Christianity in these conflicts and I encourage you to do the same
jec wrote:I disagree... Hell even you are contradicting yourself... since according to you, western military interventions in the ME are led Christian Zionists and extremists. The western violence you protests is also religious in part...
Jet wrote:
.... Also people are burned alive with our bombs. So I don't see how that makes our violence better
Jet wrote:
Any talk of secularism will be perceived by a country like Saudi Arabia as a threat to its rule. That is a fact, just like they displayed recently with Saif Badawi. How is any new reform going to happen where such talk is outlawed? In one of the many oil rich dictatorships which we enable in order to secure our power even our politicians criticism is mild.
Jet wrote:That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.
Jet wrote:
Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.
Jet wrote:
...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.
Jet wrote:
Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.
Jet wrote:
No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.
Jet wrote:
Really? Youd be surprised to learn then the scale of support israel gets from christian evangelicals because their faith tells them that jewish control of the holy land will result in the second coming of christ.
Jet wrote:
Ive been researching more than just the role of christian extremism thanks. Not to discourage you from learning more but if you're still intent on proving one religion is more extreme than the other youre still missing the bigger picture. You'll never get out of the tribal mentality that will only keep dumbing down any ideological debate.
Jet wrote:
*No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.