Why do we the subjects, turn on each other?

[Plume]

I don't have an answer. It's just inquiry of what any of you thought. like a...an input harvest...

As far back as I can remember, Africa was always troubled with deadly faction and tribal activity. in America, i see the equivalent.... Judas is depicted as doing this, but why do the subjected or the sufferers, turn on each other? why do we love to move the crowd according to our dictations in our individual small circles? why do we act out the "ruler" characteristic? Even if it's coerced, what makes us blind to our humanity that we can carry out to infinity, atrocity on each other even while most of us wallow in beliefs of love.

[Neo]

Ask the individual you think is turning on you or turning on someone else for their answer.  Take what they say very seriously, no matter how stupid it may sound to you.  It could be:

1. They feel you're siding with someone they view as a threat.
2. They feel you are the threat.
3. They don't know how to communicate in a way you feel acceptable, or do but don't want to, for various reasons they may or may not be able to explain to your satisfaction.
4. They had a bad day.
5. They're usually a bad person and can't help themself.
4. They fear infiltration and or ultimate destruction by agents (criminals running society).

The criminals who run this world will stop at nothing to destroy those who would attempt to change it, even if their methods to change it are peaceful / non-violent.  See the movie The Matrix again for this played out in dramatic form.  In that story, the Agents job is to keep everyone from discovering they're a slave and to destroy those who would help set them free.  This is why there's so much violence in the movie.  Criminals use violence.  They can't help it.  It's their nature.

There are many efforts to increase freedom in the world that have been destroyed and many who participated in the same killed, fined, bankrupted and or put in a cage (jail).

Wake up.

See:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,51/topic,231.0/">http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/in ... pic,231.0/</a><!-- m -->

[Plume]

Neo, why are you insistent on clamoring onto me with your intensive-over the top-conspiracy madness???

[Plume]

..... anyway.... my question still stands, does anybody have an hypotheses into why we turn on each other. there's more to it than what the first response implies, i'm sure. what attracts people to this "king me" or "god" complex where they carry out atrocity against their very own idea of humanitarianism or love?

[eye2i2hear]

Plume, me thinks, m8, you're asking the question of the ages, aka the question (and/or quest) of a lifetime...?

[IMG width=443 height=244]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/freelancer_47/Braveheart/BH_119.jpg[/img]

If I'm capturing what you're getting at, it reminds me of the scene in the old Mel Gibson movie, "Braveheart".  As you may recall, it was about the historical character William Wallace of Scotland, in his fight for freedom for himself and others from the kings, particularly, the king of England.
Of course the "vein" of "kings" was rampant, and so Scotland was simply seeking "their's".  Which gets us to the scene I've always had stick in me mind's eye.
In one of the many battles, as typical, the kings were observing from some hill far away from the bloody battle, but often dressed in war regalia.
ye ole "king" of "England"

[IMG width=399 height=222]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/freelancer_47/Braveheart/BH_121.jpg[/img]In this scene, was an entourage that included a helmeted horseman.  As the battle was concluding, Wallace rides after the kings to have this helmeted horseman turn back to take him on.  The battle ensues typically, ala either accurate history or the more likely Hollywoodism, with a fight unto the death. 

Where eventually "our hero" Wallace dismantles the helmeted warrior in preparation of killing him, de-helmets him.  But when the helmet comes off, lo, he de-masks him, as its the "beloved" heir to the Scottish throne himself!  Wallace has been betrayed by "his own".

What's intriguing about the scene for me, is the portrayal of both the betrayal question of "how?!?" but also Wallace's reaction to it; with the deeper implied question of "why?!?" coupled with the "how?!?"  He was totally defeated by it (tho be it momentarily, so to speak, in movie time).[IMG width=332 height=189]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/freelancer_47/Braveheart/BH_127.jpg[/img]

It seems both the why and the how of such as fighting within the ranks, so to express it-- tho perhaps we betray ourselves in holding such war metaphor analogy? --is what has been with us naturally since "the beginning"-- better, history memorial.  That being simple ignorance.  Coupled closely to that of course is the equally natural instinct, summed as 'survival'.  Man has a keen, if not exclusive, addition to said survival instinct-- and perhaps even intertwined with the ignorance trait --that being fear.  Somewhere in all this soup of human-essence comes superstition, including things like faith and gods/God/goD/etc.
[IMG width=266 height=150]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/freelancer_47/Braveheart/BH_078.jpg[/img]
this "character" tells Wallace God has sent him to look after him... and "his" (given to him, by God) land...
Toss into this "boiling pot" the quite natural conscious and perhaps more significant subconscious state and you get the likes of The State, protector of "individual sovereignty"-- simply a heritage of the likes of divines, gods, kings, and such controlling factors.  Survival of course inherently including self-interest, yet another potentially tempting to misunderstand or overstate for (aka 'selfish' or "selfism" or "Statism").

[img width=307 height=329]http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Motivations/Braveheart/braveheart.jpg[/img]It seems this human nature, this essence of ignorance coupled with primal fear, results in control seen as survival-- "necessity".  As such, its ignorantly fueled, superstitiously clung to, and fearfully finds very little boundary when it comes to establishing friend or foe-- be that far or near.  On a hill far away or in a forum at hand (or by monitor).

There probably is no "THE" answer.  But as Marc, Stefan, and others akin to them, like many of us here on the forum, seek to address it, ignorance is a key cornerstone.  It spawns or fuels the likes of pride, fear, superstition and perversion of natural 'orders' (mandates).  All said (as typed) with a glance back still at the helmeted warrior potentially still off on the nearby hill... and in the valleys... of my mind...

One "seen" there, another seen in yon last glance scene in the mirror.
Where I've rambled all over the initial point: it tiz the question of the ages.
As the concluding followup scenes in Braveheart captured, sometimes that look in the mirror brings great regret.  Here's to hoping it is the spirit that prevails, both here and there upon my distant hill's mount.  Here's to the day (and the hour) that the battle is only in the mind and never literal...

[Neo]

Plume, your "clamoring onto me with your intensive-over the top-conspiracy madness" is just your false perception, which is now your reality, making you guilty of the very madness you perceive.  You're also not even giving a specific example of what you term a king me/god complex.  Cite events qualifying as an "atrocity," facts, supportive evidence, etc..  Avoid opinions.

If you haven't read Marc's book yet, please do so before replying.  Opinions are not facts.

Google "persecution complex."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_complex">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_complex</a><!-- m -->

"You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you." - Henry Kissinger, so I've heard

[Lummox3]

Because we misunderstand each other?  ;D

The scariest thing is to have perceived reality incorrectly, it's death to most forms of life. It's actually easier to hurt others and retain a fantasy then face up to our ability to make error. It's painful to the ego to think it's limited, that it will die.

Fragile ego's can't take reality at all. At least I think this is the case. It's my best guess.

[Neo]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna</a><!-- m -->

don't you worry about a thing.  every little thing is gonna be all right.

[Plume]

[Neo]

Plume, you're reacting emotionally, not reasoning cooly, as if engaged in some cosmic battle ("justify" / "counter attack") when you're not.  I'm going to demonstrate this by not responding to your posts anymore (ignore them) and I would ask that you do the same, and ignore mine as well.

You do the thing you say I am by "characterizing" my posts as "noodling."  You need to read "a book" (Marc's, and others, if you haven't already, that are all about thinking things through) because you don't yet know how to reflect carefully enough to avoid being characterized as a "strange fellow" by others, in private messages I've gotten.  Now that was not me writing about you, that was others writing about you.  Feel better?  Go fight others, not me.  You can have the last word now.  I'm done.

Of course, you can always quit this forum then rejoin under a new alias / name, if you feel your image is damaged beyond repair.  No one would know.  Unless your writing gives it away.

===

Now Neo, why would I have to read a book to justify counter attack in regards to my character?
you're like "noodling" on a guitar while the band is in an intense conversation.

[Plume]

yeah! i get u i2,

I don't remember where i heard or read but, the quote sorta goes... "if every thing were free (life's necessities), there would be no incentive for anyone to live".??? I'm sorry i don't recall the exact wording of this quote. But I kinda thought it absurd, yet sorta agreeing to what it implied. And what i'm getting at, can we manage a world like this. (Free World), without the appeal of  king or god complexes? we arrive mentally in 2007 from a beginning that migrated through much discourse, so, we are gradually understanding today (at least Aill) that the strongest of us should never be considered king or god. using your imagination, if there is nothing that pricks our individual rites to life, is it possible to never arrive to our current strive for selfish domination reality?