Warrior blood

Times of peace (as is times of war) are a natural part of the yin and yang of good and evil. We must have war in order for the human mind to cherish peace. The warrior is the defender of the peace. He clashes with the human minds that cherish war. The victims of this endless battle is the weak minded that think we can "all just get along". We know them as yuppies, liberals, and democrats. :woohoo:

The good thing is that the battle thins that segment of human frailty, and again, the natural order of survival of the fittest surfaces.

Kohadre wrote: Did you read all of my post or just cherry pick the parts that appealed to you?

I said peace has to be maintained and fought for, but the future will tell if that is in a violent or NONVIOLENT manner

I read the whole thing and I'm sorry if my response came across as willfully disregarding your own words. I did miss the part where you said:

Kohadre wrote: I recently saw a topic titled "People Killing Each Other" and it got me thinking. To a certian degree, I think that peace is an ideal goal. However I think that peace, like freedom, must be maintained and fought for. There will always be conflict, whether it is violent or nonviolent - the future will tell.

Emphasis mine.

I think I completely lost that line because it was one of the first things you said. It's like when someone gives you a long set of instructions and you forget the first two in the list because you were trying to hold on the middle and end. Again, I'm sorry I made you feel like I was cherry-picking what you said.

At first I have a gut reaction that gives me cause to answer one way. Then my training kicks in and causes me to want to answer another way.

After pondering this for a few hours I have come to a conclusion.
All life is based on conflict. It is in everything from how we interact with the world and all the way to our entertainment. Conflict is not confined to people going out armed and murderously killing each other; it is an exercise of will or another; another thing, situation or entity. It is natural existence.

Balance that we all talk about so much is not the absence of conflict but knowing when to partake in it. You don’t avoid all “fights” and you don’t go looking to get in to any either.

Fear seems to be the determining factor of much conflict. Fear of losing control of one’s environment, destiny, life or perceived personal freedoms. Environment is a huge arena. It covers everything from how others perceive you and your perception of how you are being perceived by them to the job and nature itself.

There are lots of “fighters” in the world, but few Warriors. And there is a secret that separates the two. It is not the lack of fear; because, only a fool fears nothing, but the acceptance of the inevitable. We are all going to die. There is no avoiding it. The sooner one accepts this fate the sooner they can begin to function in a way that makes them a force unto themselves. All conflict resolution depends on this.

And with this acceptance we begin to understand the lessons of life in a different lite. We are not here as long as the great Sequoias and we are here far longer than the gnat. We have seen very little of what was and will see a smaller part of what will be. Our greatest gift is the ability to shape the future for those that will follow. And if we let fear dominate our lives, conflict will continue to be the governing factor in our decision making.

Just my thoughts on the whole matter.

Kohadre wrote: I recently saw a topic titled "People Killing Each Other" and it got me thinking. To a certian degree, I think that peace is an ideal goal. However I think that peace, like freedom, must be maintained and fought for. There will always be conflict, whether it is violent or nonviolent - the future will tell.

Fighting for peace is like sex for virginity. Fighting should be a last resort. peace is an ideal goal, it can be approached but never reached. Being strong and able to defend your self is prudent but so is restraint. The killing and blood shed I was refering to is mostly, religious,economic or emotional motivated.

My beliefs revolve around the ancient beliefs of the vikings and pagans, as that is where my ancestry lies. I have certifiable proof that my family is descended from viking bloodlines, and my ancestors for the most part have been warriors of some sort or another.
That's nice but not justification.


I crave conflict, and I look forward to the day that the "R" takes place as it will be my chance to earn my way into the halls of Valhalla. That said, even after the fight is over and peace is won, both in this world and the next, the state of peace must be maintained and fought for, again whether in a violent or nonviolent sense is to be found out.

Please be very carefull what you crave.

I think we too easily cast away our proud history as a warrior race. We have fought over the centuries for freedom, justice, equality, and faith. Blood has paved the way for reforms and improvements in technology which increase the quality of life for people around the world.

"For neither has man lived, nor died in vain"

To cast away our history as a warrior race and look at it with disdain, is to disregard everything beneficial that conflict has brought to us as a collective people.

I agree up to a certain point we do forget about the horrors of war to easily. Beneficial? necessary at time, winning can be benefical if the cause is just.

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I am not so ready as others to let go of the inner warrior that lives within me, and it waits for the day it can make a difference in the lives of those who are too weak of either body or heart to fight for themselves.

Strong is good, defending yourself and others is good, just don't glorify the warrior in yourself too much as that can be self deception that could lead to unecessary blood shed and inocents being killed.

I do not think this is a founded worry.

There is always something to fight for.

We are the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary success, our ancestors( not bipedal, or even remotely human yet) has survived mass extinctions events, and fought and scraped for survival against all odds, competing with a myriad of challenges to become what we are now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh-vuomKdRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34XKfYeAdI

Just a bit of inspiration to awaken your instincts :evil:

Written by Rory Miller

Your Nature

It's in your nature to fight. It is in your nature to be strong. It is in your nature not to be a victim. We are the products of 4 billion years of bloody evolution, where the victims were eaten. Everyone dies, we aren't immortal, but we don't die easily. Not naturally.

Fighting, self-defense, whatever you want to call it, is one of the most natural things in the world. Competence at it is your birthright. We do a disservice, I think, when we teach it as if it is complicated, as if it is something that needs to be learned. Not that you can't improve, learn and train. It is complex and nuanced to be good... but it is not complicated. That's a thought for another time.

But in the end, this is not about "forging warriors." This is about rehabilitating a predator so that it can take its natural place in the world. This is your nature.

Not fighting, the fear (not of fighting, fighting hurts, it is wise to fear it) of trying and learning, the insecurity is not nature. It is conditioning.

We are a large population of effective predators. Individually, not impressive. But teamwork is a power multiplier like no other and we are, often, better than wolves at working together. But unlike wolves, we're shitty at getting along. IMO, our teamwork was learned behavior, for wolves it is their nature. Without the genes to get along, we created rules, and we instilled those rules into our children from the first day. That's conditioning.

So when your student can't pull the trigger or can't grab a face, that student is not fighting his nature, he is fighting his conditioning.

There are two immediate implications of this, at least in my mind.

I walk in peace with you because I respect your strength. I see your nature, even if you have been blinded by your conditioning. The Hindu greeting "Namaste" I have been told translates: "The divinity in me recognizes the divinity in you" (seems unlikely, that's a pretty small word for two nouns, a verb and two locations). We walk in peace, you and I, because the animal in me recognizes and respects the animal in you. Negotiation and cooperation are preferred to testing who is the wilder.

The second: I understand that people need to be trained from a very young age to get along. But training makes it a choice and conditioning removes choices. And it seems that more and more effort is going into making people more and more passive. Who wanted you to be a victim so badly that they convinced you passivity was normal? Who feared your animal nature so much?

Take your power.

This is in response to the original post: So historically killing for religious reasons is evidence of a need to return to it? Or are you citing how you feel as opposed to think?

Phortis Nespin wrote: Times of peace (as is times of war) are a natural part of the yin and yang of good and evil. We must have war in order for the human mind to cherish peace. The warrior is the defender of the peace. He clashes with the human minds that cherish war. The victims of this endless battle is the weak minded that think we can "all just get along". We know them as yuppies, liberals, and democrats. :woohoo:

The good thing is that the battle thins that segment of human frailty, and again, the natural order of survival of the fittest surfaces.

Hey I'm a democrat
And a member of the nra :laugh:

I suspect there will always be the need for a warrior archetype in our societies, as well as the people who will embody that archetype. Smedley Butler told us that war is a racket, and I agree. I think, in an era without war, there would still be a need for people to teach the art of sacrifice to the general welfare, to teach courage.

I do look back on our wars with something like disdain, but I do not direct that disdain at brave people who sought to protect their own. Profiteers who declare wars deserve no respect, but brave men and women certainly do.

I am not certain how an era without war could ever come about. One hopes we would not allow ourselves to be come callow and selfish in such a time. Our warrior ancestors built a foundation for us. I think it is might be time to move on. Perhaps, we can outgrow the racketeers.

Getting along is weak-minded, huh? The ability to compromise is weakness? Concern for the general well-being is weak-minded?

Good to know where you stand.