Dr. John Alexander, Warrior Monk — Reality Denied |373|

Yes, when the 'Left' accuse us of being 'far right' because we are anti-war, well I pride myself in being their kind of 'far right'!

However please let's not turn this discussion into a political discussion. I thought the podcast was very interesting - I will probably listen to it again before commenting. If anyone wants to discuss US wars and aggression - fine - but why not start a new thread?

David

David, in this instance I tend to disagree with you. War is political, so Alex's questions, at least to some extent, invite a political response. Let's not forget either that war has a spiritual dimension that goes hand-in-hand with politics. Not all wars are unjustified; in some, people have no choice but to resist an aggressor, and such, I believe, was the case in WW2. It was in part a spiritual response to fight against the evil of the Nazi regime. It's the only war I can think of where I might myself have volunteered to fight.

There's the interesting case of Noor Inayat Khan, a Sufi Muslim, who became a radio operator for the allies, and worked for them in occupied France. She was captured, interrogated and eventually executed without giving anything away to the Germans directly, though they learned much from her journals, which she wasn't supposed to keep (this may have been the result of a misunderstanding on her part). She was posthumously awarded the George Cross, the highest civilian decoration in the UK.

The Sufis have always been prepared to go to war in a just cause. They shouldn't be confused with the likes of ISIS, who revel in war and mayhem, using Islam as an excuse for it. IMO, if all Muslims were Sufis, the world would be a much better place, but even then, perhaps not war-free. Noor exemplifies the "warrior" who is nonetheless a highly spiritual person. She didn't herself kill people, but she helped organise the Resistance in France, and they did kill people, so I think she can accurately be described as a warrior of sorts.

We live in a world in which there is unjustified aggression, one in which appeasement has its limits, and that's just an unfortunate fact. In a sense, everything is a reflection of man's spiritual state, and that includes politics.
 
You know, this is unfair. We are a day ahead of you guys in the States, yet every time I find we get the podcast after you do. This has to be some kind of flat earth time conspiracy crap. So I am going to comment on Alex's questions before I listen to the show.

I have been posting Alex's questions for quite some time now. This is because I'm usually on the Web at around the time the podcasts are released, which is usually in the late evening on Tuesday in the UK. I think it's important for someone to do that so that what he wants answering can be addressed, at least to some extent.

Sometimes, someone else might get there first -- often Jim Smith -- and when that happens, I don't bother to post the questions myself. Of late, I sometimes listen to the tail end of the podcast first, post the questions, and then go back to the beginning to listen to the rest of it. It's become a bit of a ritual with me, and I don't do it to be unfair in any sense. :)
 
Last edited:
Col. Alexander mentioned how each of us may from time to time find ourselves taking a tiny step into the unexplainable. For a few of us curious seekers explanations must somehow be found lest we might return to belief in the "fable" of God. But alas, in my case in the process of going through life, strange sometimes frightening situations arose. Ultimately, I turned to God in prayer, The Lord's Prayer to be specific, and it brought results. Dramatic, permanent results. My faith since then has granted me the gift of intuition, saved me from physical crippling, financial ruin and probably more other misfortunes than I am even aware of. I will never engage in causing any harm to my innocent fellow human beings. I guess I'm not a warrior unless it be against evil spiritual entities which I believe to be very real and very influential.
 
Michael and Charlie,

I am just trying to give some space for a more general discussion of what John Alexander said. He clearly was anti-war, and that seemed to be his main contribution on that subject. I don't want to inhibit anyone from discussing war - particularly in a negative sense - and so perhaps one of you could start a new thread on war in general, or maybe on the endless wars that the US has pursued since WWII.

Charlie, I don't own the forum (!!) - we all do - I just try to keep everything running smoothly, and sometimes I have to actually stop someone doing something - but not in situations like this. In fact, the forum has run very smoothly recently, so my role is somewhat redundant at present.

David
 
Michael and Charlie,

I am just trying to give some space for a more general discussion of what John Alexander said. He clearly was anti-war, and that seemed to be his main contribution on that subject. I don't want to inhibit anyone from discussing war - particularly in a negative sense - and so perhaps one of you could start a new thread on war in general, or maybe on the endless wars that the US has pursued since WWII.

Charlie, I don't own the forum (!!) - we all do - I just try to keep everything running smoothly, and sometimes I have to actually stop someone doing something - but not in situations like this. In fact, the forum has run very smoothly recently, so my role is somewhat redundant at present.

David

Sorry David, I don't want to start a new thread. There is nothing on this thread I've posted that I believe to be irrelevant.
 
About the actual podcast!

As I listened to the preamble, I got the impression that John Alexander might be a bit flakey, but in fact, he seemed pretty direct, and said some interesting things.

His comment about conspiracies inside the military about UFO's or ψ seemed to ring very true. These organisations are made up of people, who simply will not see eye to eye about these issues - so there isn't a super-secret strategy.

His comments about the film "The men who stare at goats", may also be accurate, but perhaps it was also seen as a distraction from whatever is going on in the military.

I am looking forward to reading his book, since Alex recommended it so much.

David
 
Sorry David, I don't want to start a new thread. There is nothing on this thread I've posted that I believe to be irrelevant.
Well OK then, let's continue any discussion as we were doing - I was only making a suggestion!

I agree with all of you guys. Of course I’m all for peace. I don’t want to sound “pro-War.” That would be ridiculous. But of course, WW2 was a war that had to be fought. There were/are pacifistic societies who, if you ask them, would say that reisitance in WW2 was the wrong way to go. I’ve read/heard pacifists say this. If pacifism means “do everything you can for peace” then of course I’m a pacifist. But if pacifism means, “allow a tyrant to go unchecked and slaughter as many innocent people as he wants, then I am not a Pacifist. I think the definition of Pacificism, in its strictest form, is of the latter option. Therefore, I don’t understand it because it’s impractical and very foolish and stupid, almost to the point of being wildly immoral. Actually no, It’s wholly immoral.

1) I think WWII was rather exceptional because 'we' were the good guys, sort of. I say 'sort of' because the West did sell arms to Germany before the war.

2) I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Hitler had won the war. I wonder if his regime would eventually have gone the same way as General Franco's in Spain! Analogously, if we had attacked the USSR (somehow without destroying everything), we might similarly feel that that was a war that had to be fought - and yet communism collapsed with a whimper in the end!

3) There have been a lot of wars and US interventions in which 'we' were definitely not on the good side - putting Saddam Hussein into power, supporting him against Iran, which itself had the Shah imposed upon them before they revolted, removing Saddam Hussein from power, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan (first the US armed militants to push the Soviets out, then it has struggled ever since with the terrorists that were its own creation). Libya was turned into a failed state, and the Syrian war was ignited by the US funnelling weapons to 'pro-Western terrorists', South America, etc etc.

David
 
Well OK then, let's continue any discussion as we were doing - I was only making a suggestion!



1) I think WWII was rather exceptional because 'we' were the good guys, sort of. I say 'sort of' because the West did sell arms to Germany before the war.

2) I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Hitler had won the war. I wonder if his regime would eventually have gone the same way as General Franco's in Spain! Analogously, if we had attacked the USSR (somehow without destroying everything), we might similarly feel that that was a war that had to be fought - and yet communism collapsed with a whimper in the end!

3) There have been a lot of wars and US interventions in which 'we' were definitely not on the good side - putting Saddam Hussein into power, supporting him against Iran, which itself had the Shah imposed upon them before they revolted, removing Saddam Hussein from power, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan (first the US armed militants to push the Soviets out, then it has struggled ever since with the terrorists that were its own creation). Libya was turned into a failed state, and the Syrian war was ignited by the US funnelling weapons to 'pro-Western terrorists', South America, etc etc.

David
I'd say the majority of our wars were unjustified. My opinion:
Revolution-Justified
Indian Wars-Unjustified
War of 1812-Probably justified/unsure
Mexican War-Unjustified
Spanish War-Unjustified
WW1-No real opinion/questionable, probably should've minded our own business
WW2-Justified,
Korea-Probably unjustified
Vietnam-Unjustified
First Gulf War-While our motives were probably financial, the invasion of Kuwait was obviously wrong and they were being pillaged, plundered, and sometimes murdered. I give this war a cautious "Justified"
Second Iraq War-We all know by now that was total horseshit, Unjustified
Afghanistan-Unjustified

I've thought a lot about your number 2 point. If war with the USSR would've happened directly after the fall of Berlin (as some claim Patton wanted), that mass of the Red Army would've swept West and they would've pushed us way back. That Soviet army, at that point was an incredible piece of machinery with under-rated leaders and numbered in the millions. That said, I think the result would've been similar to what we witnessed first during the war. The Western armies would've been pushed back, but as new materials and men kept coming from the US (mostly) but also from the UK and perhaps France, I think that massive machine would've eventually been pushed back. We had greater air force technology, and while the USSR was producing a lot of materials, they couldn't do so on the scale the US could, and the USSR was extremely war weary having lost some absolutely mind boggling 30 some million people (troops and civilians). We also would've just finished a war in Japan, and could've used Japan as a staging and launching area to open up a second front against the USSR in the East, and in addition to owning the air, we would've owned the sea. Also, heres the biggest point. We had nuclear weapons!!! People never seem to consider that. I think its likely more would've been produced and probably used on military targets this time rather than civilian.
 
Last edited:
Dr Alexander said something that I think rings very true. A lot of people seem to think that the government has all this data on UFOs and understands the phenomenon. They may know more than most, but I think they are largely clueless on the matter. I could be wrong. But I don't think they understand the phenomenon, though they may have good info which we are not privy to. At any rate, if they do understand it much better than I think they do, theyre still far from understanding the all of it with all its depth and connotations towards a greater consciousness system.
 
I got the impression that John Alexander might be a bit flakey, but in fact, he seemed pretty direct, and said some interesting things.
I went the other way. I liked his interview. He sounded like an honest, squared away guy, just ignorant about Martial Arts like most people are.

Then I visited his website and went in the opposite direction. Yeesh. Most of the people he brags about associating with I wouldn't trust further than I could throw them...

http://www.johnbalexander.com/ufophenomenology
 
I just want to put in one more comment on the pacifism thing....

First off, again, I'm not a pacifist.... and and I believe Nazism to have been a historical manifestation of evil (should anyone have to state this?).

So, I suppose pacifism boils down to a simple statement - killing people is wrong. Most find this to be a deeply ingrained, intuitively correct and powerful truth but add a list of qualifications of varying length to the statement: Unless in self defence, unless to protect an innocent, unless provoked, unless someone has committed a specific crime, unless in revenge, unless they have something I want, etc. Pacifists add no qualifications.... and believe this so strongly that some have been willing to face a firing squad for their beliefs.

I find this logic, especially when applied to such an intuitive truth, to be very, very challenging and uncomfortable. It brings to mind those many (but still comparatively insignificant) incidences of soldiers recognising each others humanity in the midst of the battle-field. These moments of mutual recognition are often accompanied by statements like: "Why would I murder this man?".... suddenly an evil that must be stopped becomes a human being.... it's almost like a spell is broken. It also reminds me of why modern military training is specifically designed to stifle our natural repugnance to killing fellow humans.

My non-pacifist stance is further challenged by war's seemingly inevitable ability to spawn more wars.... and, imo, economics is always a factor in the build up to conflict (I wouldn't single out bankers, though).... and this larger perspective complicates the good-guy/bad-guy dynamic. Besides, you cannot fight an industrialised war to protect innocents without killing many, many innocents.

Jim Smith's contribution on the topic was also very interesting.... what are we to make of a soldier that has an NDE and subsequently commits to non-violence?

And you have to admit, perhaps if more people took pacifism seriously Hitler would have had no army to marshal.

Well, I don''t know.

Peace.

P.S. War as potential spiritual practice reminds me too much of Christianity's heretical just war doctrine.... an almost inevitable tool of empire.
P.P.S. Many people did predict, right from the start, that the conditions imposed on Germany after WW1 would inevitably lead to another conflict.
 
Last edited:
Yes, when the 'Left' accuse us of being 'far right' because we are anti-war

Do they? Well, this paid up lefty (I can show you my globalist membership card) agrees with almost everything the righties have said in this thread. :)

However please let's not turn this discussion into a political discussion. I thought the podcast was very interesting - I will probably listen to it again before commenting. If anyone wants to discuss US wars and aggression - fine - but why not start a new thread?

I don't think I have anything more to add, anyway.
 
I'd say the majority of our wars were unjustified. My opinion:
Revolution-Justified
Indian Wars-Unjustified
War of 1812-Probably justified/unsure
Mexican War-Unjustified
Spanish War-Unjustified
WW1-No real opinion/questionable, probably should've minded our own business
WW2-Justified,
Korea-Probably unjustified
Vietnam-Unjustified
First Gulf War-While our motives were probably financial, the invasion of Kuwait was obviously wrong and they were being pillaged, plundered, and sometimes murdered. I give this war a cautious "Justified"
Second Iraq War-We all know by now that was total horseshit, Unjustified
Afghanistan-Unjustified
Yes, you have extended my list, and you clearly know more history than I do!

One point however, Afghanistan needs to be broken into at least two phases. The original phase involved arming the mujahedin to attack the Soviets, then the second phase involved trying to oust the awful regime they had put in place!

I wish the US would contemplate the futile bloodshed they have imposed on the world :( I actually think President Trump does realise that.
I've thought a lot about your number 2 point. If war with the USSR would've happened directly after the fall of Berlin (as some claim Patton wanted), that mass of the Red Army would've swept West and they would've pushed us way back. That Soviet army, at that point was an incredible piece of machinery with under-rated leaders and numbered in the millions. That said, I think the result would've been similar to what we witnessed first during the war. The Western armies would've been pushed back, but as new materials and men kept coming from the US (mostly) but also from the UK and perhaps France, I think that massive machine would've eventually been pushed back. We had greater air force technology, and while the USSR was producing a lot of materials, they couldn't do so on the scale the US could, and the USSR was extremely war weary having lost some absolutely mind boggling 30 some million people (troops and civilians). We also would've just finished a war in Japan, and could've used Japan as a staging and launching area to open up a second front against the USSR in the East, and in addition to owning the air, we would've owned the sea. Also, heres the biggest point. We had nuclear weapons!!! People never seem to consider that. I think its likely more would've been produced and probably used on military targets this time rather than civilian.
Maybe you slightly miss my point. It wasn't so much who would have won the hypothetical war, it was that in the long run it was far better that that war was never fought at all. Possible the long term outcome if WWII had never been fought, would also have been better - possibly someone would have found a way to kill Hitler, and common sense would have gradually returned - without the bloodshed.

David
 
Do they? Well, this paid up lefty (I can show you my globalist membership card) agrees with almost everything the righties have said in this thread.
In that case, think about Hillary Clinton. She started the Syrian civil war by funnelling arms to the opposition forces (all of whom seem to be fanatical extremists). She also said that if she became president, she would intensify the war by imposing a no-fly zone - bringing the US right up against the Russian forces. Oh and she cooperated with David Cameron to reduce Libya to the state it is in today.

I feel as though the political coordinate system has rotated somehow from when I was a young man. The politics has changed out of all recognition, but the labels have remained the same.

David
 
I am not sure what you mean, but a thread like that would activate the warrior monk inside me - so don't even think about it!
Are you saying it is not allowed to show people that Adolf Hitler was a great man who sacrificed himself attempting to defend his people from attack by evil forces?
 
Back
Top