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

We do this in the United States. Every kid who signs up to go kill people in foreign lands does so voluntarily.

The problem is not that men abide their wholesome, good natural instinct to protect their families and communities. Self-Defense is a basic human right.

The problem is that most people don't know All wars are nothing more than factions of elite Bankers fighting each other for control of acreage.

A critical part of that deception is the absurd idea we've seen in this thread that "Some Wars Are Good & Necessary".

Fight that ignorance, and you do more to move the world toward PEACE than anything else.

 

Before banking (and bankers) arose in the 14th century Italian cities (as far as I know), why people fought the wars? There was warfare before a single banker walked the Earth, you know...

 

I agree. Earlier sources are usually better, but also a good strategy is to study these narratives holistically.

Don't rely on just the Old Testament, a text which has been so worked over, stomped-on, and re-written as to be almost useless.

To learn about floods, Giants, or sex with Angels one should study all the old legends which describe the same things; Native American, Sumerian, Chinese, Viking, all of them.

Two rows of teeth? Nine feet tall? Six fingers? Caananites who will rape, kill, and then eat you?

I cannot understand why anyone would find that less interesting than which set of clods wins some corporate sportsball show.

 

The same reason Bankers do today, more acreage to squeeze profits from.

If King McDougal could talk his people into stealing 200 cattle from King McDonald twenty miles away in A.D. 942, he could build a bigger mansion and own more comely servant girls.

 

OK, let me put it in another, less confrontational way:

Here we all are as a community on a forum, partly for the purposes of conversation but in no small part to learn from one another. When Person1 says, then, "Hey, how about [unusual claim X]?", and Person2 says, "Huh. I hadn't heard of [unusual claim X] before. On what basis do you make it?", it is discourteous and contrary to the forum's purpose as an instrument of learning for Person1 to respond with a vague handwave and an "Oh, you know, dig around there and you might come up with something". If you're here, in the common interest of learning, to share knowledge and facts, then it is simply good manners and adherence to common purpose to provide people with the most direct means of justifying that which you claim to be knowledge and facts.

 

On the subject of the podcast: I listened to it a couple of nights ago with some degree of distraction, but based on what I heard and processed, there wasn't anything so "off" about the guest's ideas and claims that seemed to justify Alex's intro in which it was implied (maybe even directly asserted) that Dr. John Alexander is an agent of disinformation. Perhaps if I listened to the podcast again in a less distracted state I'd change my mind.

On the theme of pacifism which has come up in this thread's discussion, I, too, find the concept challenging. I find it interesting to consider this question in the light of the Christian Gospel. On the one hand, Christ was so much of a pacifist that he rebuked his disciple for cutting off with a sword the ear of one of the soldiers come to arrest him; so much of a pacifist that despite that he had the omnipotence of the sole Creator of the Universe behind him, he allowed himself to be crucified. On the other hand, he also reportedly said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword".

There seems to be a tension between the political and the spiritual here - a tension which, in my view, is difficult to resolve in practical reality, especially in such a case as an aggressive totalitarian bent on bringing the world to its knees, and making significant progress towards it, as in WWII. Do we say, "Christ's spiritual war is won by physically turning the other cheek even in such cases?", or do we say, "Christ acceded to his own physical crucifixion only because it furthered the spread of his spiritual message. Allowing the global spread of a Totalitarian State would instead repress his spiritual message, and on that basis we should (physically) defend against that outcome"?

I could offer an opinion but at this point I'd prefer to simply let the question sit.

 

What about revolutions (as well as insurrections, insurgencies, rebellions, mutinies, revolts, etc.), David? Do you think that the people who are mercilessly oppressed, in a formally "legal" way by a currently "legitimate" authority, have a right to struggle against their oppressors to liberate themselves, in armed and militant way - at least, if no peaceful way to achieve liberatory changes in society is available?

I address the same question to everyone else here...

 

Self-Defense is a basic human right.

Bankers attacked Libya in 2011 because Gaddafi refused to become part of the IMF/World Bank, and was trying to establish a gold-backed pan-African currency. Libyan banking and natural resources were being used to give citizens the highest standard of living in Africa. Can't have that, can we?

Today Libyan people live in horrific poverty and get sold in slave markets, but they have a new Central Bank, are taking on IMF debt, and their oil is now fetching good margins for petroleum companies owned by Bankers in New York, London, and Milan.

Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war against Germany and open up Russian natural resources to exploitation by western Banks.

Libyans, Russians, and Germans had the right to defend themselves against those attacks. They were no match for the unlimited funding Bankers provided to the terrorist organizations.

 

Grant Cameron hasn't given us an update this week, but Dark Journalist published a decent round-up yesterday...



Like me, he thinks the whole Delonge/CIA "Soft Disclosure" clown show stinks to high heaven.

 

"All wars are bankers' wars."

I see there is a bit of contention on this notion.

I don't take this to be only our modern-day concept of 'bankers' at all. What I hear is, it's called 'a war' b/c there is enough money on either side for soldiers to be paid by someone.

Otherwise we call it something else, like a conflict, or dispute, or scuffle, or feud, etc.

 

Damn, Madonna and Beyoncé must be wicked smart!

 

Semantics, nothing more. He who holds the purse is the banker. No one fights 'a war' where no one is holding the purse strings. Call him a banker, call him a king or a sovereign or pope or priest or whoever, someone is footing the bill.

Even a tribe fighting another tribe is not really a war if no one is rewarded, it's a conflict, b/c there was no 'nation' and no one financing that battle.

 

Two sets of rules, one for your fellow man, one for the master. Turn the other cheek when we say so, fight when we say so.
It is meant to cause cognitive dissonance as that further traumatizes the mind and allows for better manipulation by the ruling class.

 

So many good side-tangents I've been distracted 4 times already meaning to actually get to the questions! Thanks for the clear reminder.

But before I try, I want to share one thing completely apart from the questions but inline with the interview. I have had some 'peripheral' experience with the military. One thing I heard constantly, "that's above my pay grade." And NO ONE knows where and from whom his orders really come. And most are promoted b/c they don't ask questions and don't make waves, that's why they are so successful as an institution/complex. Modeled after the greatest hierarchies known to history, like the Jesuits. Our modern corporations are similarly modeled.

I think if the 'warrior monk' was a self-guided and spiritually-guided individual first, and in service to his mission serving the greater good second, then I could understand a real necessity of this archetype into modern society. But what I see more often, and including Dr. Alexander, is someone who is continually looking to justify past wrongs by becoming a savior, or warrior-monk character, or even dare I suggest, a caricature.

It was difficult to perceive to whom/what Dr. Alexander held allegiance, and why. Maybe this is a maturation of the warrior into the monk, but it sounds awfully convenient. Certainly it must be very difficult to come to terms with killing others no matter what the circumstances (I had to kill a wounded lamb and from that alone felt terribly traumatized, so I can only imagine the mountains of un and under-processed remorse these soldiers deal with.).

While I completely respect that so many of our military have had honorable intentions in their choices and those career military continue to try to make sense of their myriad sacrifices, I hope they are not grasping from one flimsy branch onto another.

With that perhaps I'll have to look more into his work and affiliations before venturing to purchase the stories.