Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

When he took office, Donald Trump did a complete about-face regarding his foreign policy with the middle east. Notably, he went from condemning Saudi Arabia to tacitly praising them. The US's commitment to regime change and meddling in the middle east makes little sense on the surface. There is no obvious strategic or economic value to these actions. The 'humanitarian' concerns are clearly a pretext. So what is the real reason for all of this? The answer is the petrodollar, and the maintenance of US economic supremacy. Saudi Arabia demands US dollars in exchange for oil. That's what truly gives the US dollar its value. That's what allows the US to have enormous trade deficits with other countries. For example, China sends its goods to the US in exchange for USD which can be spent on Saudi oil instead of US goods and services, creating a trade deficit advantageous to the US economy and its people. The rest of the world exports goods, the US exports dollars. In return, Saudi Arabia gets the support of the world's strongest military and an incredible amount of leverage with which to direct it. If the Saudis chose a different exchange currency, the US economy would quickly collapse. Without Saudi oil to back it, the US dollar would inflate wildly. The US would not be able to sustain it's huge trade deficits, and the people would suffer. The Saudi government is also in trouble. A huge proportion of Saudis rely on welfare, without that, a revolution from the underclass would be inevitable. The massive Saudi welfare state is sustained only by its oil exports. The Saudis have plenty of reasons to destabilize their middle eastern rivals and assert control over the region and its oil. Because of a largely useless populace, controlling and exporting more oil is the primary way that Saudi Arabia can expand its power and improve its economic situation. The world's largest importer of oil, China, would obviously rather trade in Yuan. China has made agreements with Russia for the trade of oil, at the expense of Saudi Arabia. Unless the Saudis accept Yuan, they will lose a great deal of China's oil trade to Russia. China is poised to take international economic supremacy from the US, and they will if the Saudis accept Yuan. To avoid this, the US must appease and assist Saudi Arabia against its rivals. Syrian insurgents are funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and the US in order to take control of more oil in the region. To maintain its precarious economic position, the US cannot allow China and Russia to control more of the world's oil and price it in Yuan. Failure means a devastating economic collapse for the US including hyper-inflation and a severe reduction in imports. The US would be unable to fund its incredibly expensive military, and the US would lose its position as the world's foremost superpower. Donald Trump has to make the difficult decision between catastrophic warfare and economic collapse, and it looks like he has already made his choice. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/china-will-compel-saudi-arabia-to-trade-oil-in-yuan--and-thats-going-to-affect-the-us-dollar.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/saudi-arabias-dark-role-i_b_3402447.html

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage Yet another war in the middle East. Now we hold our breath and see what the other side will do.

Is it possible to peacefully partition America into multiple countries? The alternative is inevitable war in my opinion. Once the left started normalizing violence, it's not possible for them to turn back because it would require self criticism. They would have to own up to what they did. That's impossible because SJWs always double down. Am I a pessimist?

I didn’t see this in the podcast stream.

Since Syria, we have been talking about how Trump is either being pressured or converted by ((( Jared Kushner ))) and his ((( Neo-Cuck ))) friends. Since North Korea, we have been completely perplexed as to why Trump is playing with fire. I (and many others, e.g. Bill Mitchell) have pointed out that Trump has a history of being cold and calculating, during his negotiations. During his campaign, he often did jaw-dropping things. Many reacted by calling him a mad-man, only to find out weeks later what the original plan was. I think that today, we may have some insight as to what the geo-political chess was about. By agitating North Korea, Trump has created a situation where South Korea really needs the US military. CNBC just announced that Trump is now threatening to terminate the free trade deal with South Korea if Seoul doesn't pay for US defense. BOOM. Art of The Deal, baby! So do you guys still think Trump is a mad-man? Or can we finally admit that Trump is a methodical strategic genius?

I read over at the Ron Paul Liberty Report, that there is a bill active that will allow president Trump to attack Iran using the military to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, all without the approval of congress. I'm fine with the temporary immigration halt, but shouldn't this, along with Trump wanting to "rebuild" the military, be worrying at all? I'm pro-Trump, and am glad about all he's done since he was inaugurated, but does anyone have any logical reasons why Trump won't carry on like the previous administrations and invade? If so, please share. Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/pre-emptive-attack-iran-bill-active-in-us-house

I was listening to Gwynne Dyer on youtube, who is a Canadian investigative journalist and he started literally blowing my mind during his interview, as he's talks about present events 5-6 years ago. he talks about Brexit, Refugee crisis and last but not least, the Trum Wall. He starts by talking about food crisis and the crops failure due to the climate change that will affect most vulnerable areas, starting in the middle east, south Asia and central America. I tried to find if he had ever visited Stefan, but couldn't find anything. any ideas if Stefan can reach him or dig a little deeper? thanks

Trumps stance on foreign policy is vague at best. He's said we'll "...get rid of Isis and get rid of them fast." He's also said he's comfortable with targeting the families of terrorists. Finances and borders are important, but personally I can't vote for another war monger. I did it with Obama when I was on the other side of the isle, thinking he was the peace candidate. Sanders and Paul were the only two this go around. Why do you all feel that supporting a war monger is preferable to abstaining from voting altogether or casting a vote for a third party? Specifically, do you think that saving your children from paying taxes is more important than preventing our military from slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of people?

I went to my state's works agency hoping to receive help with interviewing and applying for jobs. Before they evaluate my qualification for these services, I must register for the draft. If I do not I cannot even be evaluated for eligibility for these services. I am 23. I don't want to register for the draft. I thought it was a choice when getting my license at 18 and chose not to register. She told me "you have to" register, and not doing so is breaking the law. Is not registering for the draft illegal? I don't want to be drafted. I could really use expert interviewing help. I may be accepted for their interviewing services and job search help. But it goes against a base of the brain fear of death and against my principle of the NAP. I know it's ironic to some extent, because it is a state subsidized service, but I believe the benefit of help with interviewing will outweigh the costs of money I could waste continuing unemployed, as I am, otherwise unless world war 3 breaks out. At the end of a spiel of questions she had for my account creation on their agency's website, she told me of their services; I asked her about the intensive one on one help with interviewing. She emphasized it was only for people who really needed it. I was sure I could use the help, and still am. She said, alright, but you'll need to be approved after answering more qualification questions. She looked like she kind of doubted my need, in a mean kind of way, and asked me if I was okay with continuing. I was okay with that. and so I gave her answers to other questions she asked. It got to a point where she said that she just needed to sign me up for selective service to move me on. I was okay with that and then the webpage she was on to register me stopped her, my last name was incorrect on the form. "Shoot" she said. I offered her my other name and she began the form again. As she refilled it, I asked her what "selective service" was and she told me, offhand, the draft. I held her up. I didn't think she should have the authority to register me for the draft on her own computer; first off, it's not me on that computer, second off if we're discussing my need for free-market help, the military is like the opposite venue. It astounded me. She told me I would have to register before they could figuring out if I would be eligible to be eligible for interview help and job search one on one help. Is this a bad route to take? Is it illegal to not register for the draft anyway? Have you had success in your state, working with your state's works agency finding work? I can use their computer stations searching job listing websites, and ask for assistance on applications I am filling out I think, and I can search through books full of job postings that they printed out and put in thick binders but I feel overwhelmed by the people there and I have a computer at home and time alone. I think a different environment might help, especially surrounded by people with similar purposes, but I see the environment also hindering me. A lot of other people applying for jobs are there too but nobody I know, or that I think I can get to know. It feels odd a little. I want mock interviewing help and I want to work one on one with someone. And talk to people who want to help me. Ironically my mom works one on one with people in a similar way but for disabled and impoverished people, for a different organization. She recommend I go here if I didn't want to work with her or my dad on interviewing and job searching. They fundamentally do not care for me which is why I feel I have to use the state workforce agency, also my dad doesn't have experience interviewing people and my mom is fairly new and doesn't even like her job. I have also talked to my older sister about jobs and she had no patience for me or my interests. These people when I went there seemed more interested in finding out what my interests are, but I don't think they can help me unless it is one on one. If I chose to register for the draft and am accepted to their more intensive services, in person interviews would be very helpful for me. From what I am told, I can come in every day they're open if I want to and from what I understand practice with different employee interviewers in this room filled with low walled cubicles. They have a morning class on writing resumes that I can join open to everyone (~50 people). I'd really like the community's help with this..

...and, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation." Some of these things are covered in a few other forum threads, so please excuse the uncited references. I am a Philosopher King donor, who has donated almost a thousand dollars to this conversation. I am close to asking for my money back. I listened to their recent podcast, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation," and felt angry and frustrated at the rightward, Hoppean turn the conversation took. They seemed to paint almost all Mexican ("illegal") immigrants with the same broad brush. "They come from a society that inflicts abuse on their children!" "They don't peacefully parent their kids and grow up all screwed up!" There are people in the US like that! What am I supposed to do, advocate for a phalanx of border guards at the state border to keep North Carolinians from "invading" my state? If not, why not? Because the line on a map is thicker? As an anarchist, the only borders I respect are property lines. Private property lines. Don't people own the land on the other side of the Rio Grande? (Hey, that rhymes!) Or is the whole premise of "border security" that they outsource that power the government? Is that it? I think Mike mentioned that the US government should still obey the immigration laws in this country. Even if those laws are consummately unconstitutional? The US Constitution only give the federal government the power over natualization. Immigration was originally left to the states. (I have a problem with that as well, but that's another matter.) The US government usurped this power with the Page Act of 1875, as a means of stemming the tide of Chinese "taking American jobs." (Some things never change, unfortunately.) Mexicans (or other immigrants) do not "take American jobs." They do not belong to Americans, they belong to the employers. The employers can (or, at least, should) give those jobs to whomever the employer wants. I also felt angry when I realized that they were very supportive of Trump's policy on this. So, let me get this straight... Ron Paul, no, Donald Trump, Hell Yeah! I felt angered when Stef mangled people in this conversation who dared to say that Dr. Paul should be commended for his support of freedom-oriented legislation, and may even be voted for. (Yes, we all know that voting doesn't solve anything.) But Trump, who isn't freedom-oriented on pretty much anything, gets drooled over by Stef and the gang? I'm curious as to the rationale. (Legitimately. I really can't put the proper tone in a written forum post.) Is it because, unlike Ron Paul, Donald Trump doesn't even give the pretense of being a libertarian? Is that it? Yes, I know that no one of the Freedomain Radio staff would officialy support the Donald politically (Stef can't- he's Canadian), but still... I would advise you to please not fall into the same trap I'm trying to avoid- seeing people as homogeneous. I understand that not all migrants are sympathetic, hard-working, conscientious people, any more than they are all money-grubbing, welfare-statist, child-beating, irrational religionists. I don't think any of us are asserting that. However, you know that national "border security" and immigration policies don't work on a case-by-case basis. It winds up being, "ship alla them Moo-slum sand niggers'a right back whur they came frum!" Or worse, as a local radio talk show host said about people fleeing Cuba a few years back, shoot to kill on sight. Which brings me to the "European Migration Crisis" podcast... A lot of the cultural invasion topics from the Trump Conversation podcast were brought up here, with the subsequent trepidations from me. However, I noted, with some dismay, that Stef didn't address the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room... the Gun in the Room. Another poster on another forum topic addressing this mentioned this, but for those who haven't read it, let me say it. These diparate people from across the Middle East didn't, en masse, get up one fine, peaceful day in Syria (or Afghanistan) and say to themselves, "You know, Syria is great and all, but you know who needs themselves some Syria? Portugal!" They are fleeing these areas because these European citizens supported their governments' involvement in the War on Terror and have sent some of their fellow citizens there to bomb, shoot, and irradiate these Middle Easterners' families and friends, and depose their leaders. Another governmental program that is attracting those people to Europe is the welfare states. Stef discussed this at length on the podcast, and I commend him on this. But reforming (or, preferably, eliminating) the welfare state is the more humane solution to this problem, not shipping them back to a literal war zone or killing them if they refuse. That's what they're there for! They could have met that fate if they'd just stayed where they were. Bottom line, I don't seem to understand the whole issue, but I have some ideas. The best way I think to handle the problem (as far as anyone rational can influence the government) is: end the War on Terror, eliminate welfare and other unconstitutional benefits for non-citizens, and inform these refugees (or "illegal immigrants,"* or whatever you want to call them) that they are on their own. In a truly free area, there would be no honey to attract redistributionist people and all the land would be owned by individuals or organizations, who would be tasked with keeping tresspassers "off'n their propertah." As far as those who are already here, keep anyone you like off your property for any reason you like, but whomever anyone else allows on their land, or hires, or sells to is none of your goddamned business. (As least as far as government force is concerned.) By the way, Stef mentioned that the best thing for these refugees is to stay and fight where they are. All I have to say is, Anne Frank didn't. Sigmund Freud didn't. Albert Einstein didn't. The von Trapps didn't. And most importantly, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek didn't. They knew a sinking ship when they saw it and, like good and prolific rats, got while the gittin' was good. (Yes, I know these people aren't exactly modern intellectuals steeped in Western Civilization and classical liberalism, but their situation is similar.) I intend to do the same thing. Those people in the Middle East aren't exactly fighting an intellectual war. They're fighting the 3rd US Marine battalion- with guns, and drones, and Hellfire missiles, and tanks, and depleted uranium ordinance. please help me *I call them, "unauthorized movers," like someone going from Montana to Colorado, or Ontario to Alberta. What's the difference?

I've heard this two or three times in the last few months, when people discuss soldiers and morality. It goes something like this: Person A: (some point about how evil the actions of soldiers are) Person B: They were just doing their job. Person A: That's no excuse; they chose to take that job, they chose to join the army. Person B: If they didn't join the army, the government would start drafting people. Two responses come to my mind. 1) If the government was so desperate for soldiers that they had to recruit by force, then (you'd expect them to also be running low on police) they wouldn't have the manpower to force people to be conscripted. I'm not happy with this response, because I don't think they'd need a particularly large amount of manpower. I mean, in the UK there are about 240 non-police and non-army people to every one police or army person. They are hugely outnumbered, but the widespread belief in the righteousness/necessity of the state gives them the incredible amount of power required for people to submit to the government. No other gang facing those odds would manage to get anyone to do anything. 2) Justifying joining the army by saying that it's to prevent conscription does not justify the evil done after having joined. A soldier can avoid doing evil either by refusing orders or by turning their gun against the people giving the orders. While the point is, in my opinion, valid and while it does include the words "joining the army", it avoids the question of whether the government would start drafting people. I think that a lot of people would reject the point due to emotional reaction, and they would still believe that drafting would come into play. What do you think? What would you say to Person B? "If they didn't join the army, the government would start drafting people."

I listen to The Art of Manliness Podcast every now and then and I came across this interesting conversation about biological origins of male aggression. I immediately thought of the FDR shows I've heard on the topic and wanted to share. What do you guys think? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/173724074-artofmanliness-86-demonic-males-with-dr-richard-wrangham.mp3

I came across an article on a war jounalists views of why young men are drawn to the military. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/sebastian-junger-knows-why-young-men-go-to-war-f163804cbf6 The article doesn't present very good evidence and puts forth a lot of things without substantial arguments, but it did get me thinking on rites of passage. Junger says that young men are drawn to the military because it's one of the only ways they know to become a man. It occurred to me that young men have no direction from school, family, or media what they have to do to transition from boys to men. So I'm curious, what modern rites of passage have you seen, and how do boys transition to men?

In a recent podcast Stefan mentioned that soldiers on the front lines were better off attacking, where they stood a chance of surviving (or die as heroes and earn their families honour and pensions), as opposed to retreating, where they would have more likely be shot by their own officers (and lose the honour and pension for their families). And it occurred to me that in the infantry (at least in the days of WWII) the soldiers would be armed with rifles, which were designed to be accurate at long distances, whereas the officers were armed with pistols, which are only somewhat accurate at short distances. Just thought this was interesting…

My father once told me, "In my opinion, there's no such thing as a pro-war movie." He never swallowed the red pill, but that's one area where I think he's right. Films such as Saving Private Ryan and The Best Years of Our Lives remain two of my favorites because they heavily criticize state action and its effects when viewed rationally. Now I can add Fury to that list. The film chronicles the downward spiral of a good-natured recruit (Logan Lerman) into a violent, indoctrinated pawn, even earning the nickname "Machine" near the climax. It becomes clear just how lost Brad Pitt's character is when, on the verge of tears, he refers to their tank as his home. Even if the protagonists win the day, they're already dead. Anyone else see it? What were some of your favorite moments?

About year ago I stumbled across a story that was so incredible that it was almost impossible to believe. When I asked myself the question "would the government really do that?", the answer was a clear and resounding "yes". It's a long story, but the introduction for newcomers must begin by reading the book "Gold Warriors - America's secret recovery of Yamashita's Gold". It's available here at the author's website http://www.bowstring.net, where you can also buy 1.5GB of additional material and evidence on 3 CDs. You can also buy it from Amazon and for the Kindle. [Full Disclosure: I have no association with Sterling or Peggy Seagrave, their website, nor any of the material they're written or produced. I'm simply a guy who read the story and was totally stunned how much real evidence of this conspiracy is readily available today, but basically no one knows about it.] In an effort to keep this post short I'll summarise as follows: If there was ever enough public awareness of the information revealed in this book, it would unmake the world. If all it took to destroy the world as we know it, was for the truth to see the light of day, then it is right that it should be destroyed. If this topic is of interest to people, I have a lot more information that I will post about. As I said, I've been researching this story for over a year now.

Can anyone help me narrow down or find a really good video that goes indepth into the effects of war on soldiers, the breaking down of children for future recruitment, ptsd, violence, etc. Things of this nature? I know i've heard it before from Stefan, I just cant find what I'm looking for. Any assistance would be appreciated! P.S. - Im not talking about the 2 newest ones, the "No Thanks For Your Service" and the "Truth Behind Fort Hood". Thanks again!

Let us assume that we had successfully established a free society (Yey!). Let us further assume that, as we anticipate, personal protection services are provided by Private Defence Agencies (PDAs) each proposing its own private set of laws while conflicts between PDAs are resolved by mutually agreed upon arbitration agencies. My question is whether wars would be possible under this regime and if so, is it good or bad? More concretely, I have several specific scenarios in mind, I ask whether they are likely to happen & if so whether this is a flaw in the anarcho-capitalist vision which requires a remedy? The scenarios: 1. NOT POPULAR IS NOT FUN: Customer C of PDA P is a sceintist which conducts his experiments on monkeys that he rears for this purpose in his private property. His studies attract negative publicity from animal rights activists and are presented to the public as atrocious and superfluous. Public opinion is swayed against him and 10% of the customers of P petition it to end its business relations with C, As a result, PDA P now considers C as a liabilty rather than an asset, updates its laws to forbade such activities & requires customer C to conform to the updated law or give up her services. Customer C considers this to be his life's work and refuses to stop his research he prefers to hire the services of another protection agency but no serious agency agrees to accept him due to his unpopularity. The road is now open for animal rights activists to organise together & launch an act of aggression against the unpopular sceintist. In their rage, they kill the scientist & his family (to minimise the chance of future attributions against them) & divide all his property among them. 2. SUBJECT THE SECT: An indian sect from its own PDA, denoted A, in order to live peacefully under their own laws. PDA B, knowing that A's customers will never join it utilise its military advantage to impose a one sided agreement between A & B, which requires PDA A to pay PDA B an annual fee and forces A's customers to utilise agency B's courts in any dispute with B's customers. 3. FAR FROM THE EYE, FAR FROM THE HEART: Suppose that an agency in a desolate spot, converts to a rouge mode of operation (North Korea style), as the economic potential is small and as long as it doesn't provoke any major PDA she might be allowed to exist for a very long time as not enough individuals might be interested in funding liberation wars against it. In fact she might even agree not to compete with the other major PDAs and in return they might outlaw funding war operations against it. 4. DIVIDE & CONQUER: Suppose that PDAs are geographically well localized, than a rouge agency might be able to divide & conquer its enemies as remote agencies might be reluctant to pay for the war efforts.

That old meme still circulates that without government people would run around killing each other. But keeping the peace seems to be a big problem for big government.

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA3qQ-aqs7o

Seeing how people protest mistreatment and abuse, while pacing modern industrial cities, got me wondering... Is it our dependency on external resources that maintains the vicious cycle of war and the corruption of those in power? Any group of people that are utterly dependent on resources from others, will have the mandate to make certain that the resources keep on flowing. For example, for city folk, if food does not enter the city regularly, then many people will be harmed. That's why they will even go as far as to abandon moral behavior and force those transactions. Currently, this is achieved with farm subsidization, at least in many western countries that I know. Would there be no war if all communities and people were self-reliant? At least, for their more urgent needs. Would those who are in power, those who are more influential over the local community, be less susceptible to immoral behavior, when their community is self-reliant? I'm sorry if this topic feels overly hypothetical, but I do feel it can make for a good discussion.

Oh, you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you be able to find it outside.If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?In you is hidden the treasure of treasures.Oh, man, know thyself and thou shall know the Universe and the Gods! - (EA)" Phrase inscribed in the ancient Temple of Delphi. Certainly we know a great deal from epochs, myths and gods of old not because they are real but because studying the old gods one understands the footsteps taken to arrive were we are. Let's not forget that the Alexandrian library was burned by religion, in it we lost a vast amount oh history. A large bulk of the gods have served a utilitarian proposes that to enslave the people by empowering governments who in turn used the gods to strengthen Armies with a false sense of duty and purpose. And yet we must be careful not to degrade what they have given us and (separate Buddha from Thor), perhaps we may learn some thing from our Ancient's, I remember an Inscription that reads on a Sumerian tablet it says "what has happened in history should be learned because it will happen again" {Money did not originally appear in this cold, metal, impersonal form. It originally appears in the form of a measure, an abstraction, but also as a relation (of debt and obligation) between human beings. It is important to note that historically it is commodity money that has always been most directly linked to violence. As one historian put it, “bullion is the accessory of war, and not of peaceful trade.” David Graeber} Are we aware that the early Sumerians did not live in inclosed walls? because they did not need them, violence and war came only when the Mesopotamia arrived, do we know that the early Sumerian were the first to divide both space and time by units of six.The modern division of the year into 12 months, the 24 hours of each day, the division of hours into 60 minutes and 60 seconds, and the divisions of the circle/sphere by 360 degrees, each composed of 60 minutes and 60 seconds of an arc, are all Sumerian developments.They invented things like wheels, numbers, astronomy, government, sailboats, irrigation systems, canals, the water wheel, copper tools, bronze weapons, jewelry, sun-dried bricks, the pottery wheel, mythology, the lunar calendar, the sundial, the saw, the chisel, cuneiform(writing), The pulley, the lever and units of measurements. Science is always indirectly confirming what the ancients have always said namely that life started because of water and fire. It is our duty to learn from the past..... What can be learned from this early Sumerian society? Why did they live in reletive peace? what were they doing rite? what were they doing wrong? What can we apply from what they learned into a new begging?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ Can't wait to get my own Senator.