What imbues man with the desire to have power and use it against other men?
Does power really exist?
I believe power is an illusion and what man really fights over is the “power structure” itself. These are the institutions that seemingly gives him legitimacy in his quest for domination. He uses the power structure for personal enrichment at the expense of those he dominates. This is evidenced by history.
History also provides us a clue as to the nature of it: Power can never last for any one person or group of persons.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Trivia: I happen to be just starting to read the book, “Genghis Khan, the Making of the Modern World.”
Maybe I’ll have some comments after awhile if this thread survives LIFT’s propensity to funnel discussions into the “Anarchy Rocks and You Don’t, Dude” arena.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Trivia: I happen to be just starting to read the book, “Genghis Khan, the Making of the Modern World.”
Maybe I’ll have some comments after awhile if this thread survives LIFT’s propensity to funnel discussions into the “Anarchy Rocks and You Don’t, Dude” arena.[/quote]
I am with Push “Lord, I hump myself to hell in your name” harder here.
Ghengis Khan certainly has a point here. He PERMANANTLY established his presence in the gene pool. His accomplices, armed with bows, lances and horses, too, enjoyed this privilege, to an extent.
Note that this both explains elegantly everyone’s drive to participate.
I can’t see how you can engage an argument that stands literally there like an invincible mongolian army.
I can extend this to other great conquerers as well:
Alexander the Great, akin to his own bisexual prowess, drove his armies like a phallos of titanic proportions east, across fertile mesopotamia, to finally thrust into the wet west of India.
…
I can extend this to other great conquerers as well:
Alexander the Great, akin to his own bisexual prowess, drove his armies like a phallos of titanic proportions east, across fertile mesopotamia, to finally thrust into the wet west of India.
…
So is it, as St. Augustine argues, biologically driven by the desire to spread our seed?
Do sex and domination go hand in hand with each other?
I can see how a primitive mind might understand that but an enlightened mind understands that destruction does not make us better off and that there is always a price to power – namely putting one’s progeny in danger which is precisely contradictory to what was set out to be established in the first place.
First of all, I think we all agree that the overwhelming majority is not enlightened.
Enlightment itself, however, still doesn’t free you of your apish genes. Most of the time you merely realize how ridiculous and arbitrary things are and how unfree and powerless an individual is.
And still: I don’t understand your “unappetite for destruction” : If security for your progeny is the key, then you would have to march with the one Megas, ride out with the Golden Horde, or enjoy your “special benefits” as a soviet occupant in Germany '45.
More progeny, especially at the expense of your enemy equals better protecion for it.
The Khan has won that argument long, long ago.
To illustrate that: My extended family has a branch where mongol eyes come through here and there.
I say his progeny is pretty safe nearly 800 years after he bit the dust.
Our ape brain clumps a lot of things together:
time and space are really the same for us. You could say that if someone came up with a timetravel-device, we really wouldn’t suffer from much culture-shock.
But it really makes sense and also explains how we have to come up with these stories of heavens and hells.
Same with sex & domination and human behaviour. Essentially the same thing: Domination without cojones is a cruel joke, sex without domination is a coup d’etat in the making.
Bottom line:
the argument can’t be about genetic success.
This path leads to murder and chaos for you cannot reason with a killer ape.
[quote]To illustrate that: My extended family has a branch where mongol eyes come through here and there.
I say his progeny is pretty safe nearly 800 years after he bit the dust.[/quote]
that’s the same thing for Attila’s progeny, 1550 years after.
my family come from northern France, near the Catalaunic Fields where Attila was defeated. Some of his soldiers were left behind, and settled in the neighborhood.
Mongol Eyes are pretty commons in this region, even today. My great grandfather had them, most of my granduncles have them, and I got them myself.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
First of all, I think we all agree that the overwhelming majority is not enlightened.
Enlightment itself, however, still doesn’t free you of your apish genes. Most of the time you merely realize how ridiculous and arbitrary things are and how unfree and powerless an individual is.
And still: I don’t understand your “unappetite for destruction” : If security for your progeny is the key, then you would have to march with the one Megas, ride out with the Golden Horde, or enjoy your “special benefits” as a soviet occupant in Germany '45.
More progeny, especially at the expense of your enemy equals better protecion for it.
The Khan has won that argument long, long ago.
To illustrate that: My extended family has a branch where mongol eyes come through here and there.
I say his progeny is pretty safe nearly 800 years after he bit the dust.
Our ape brain clumps a lot of things together:
time and space are really the same for us. You could say that if someone came up with a timetravel-device, we really wouldn’t suffer from much culture-shock.
But it really makes sense and also explains how we have to come up with these stories of heavens and hells.
Same with sex & domination and human behaviour. Essentially the same thing: Domination without cojones is a cruel joke, sex without domination is a coup d’etat in the making.
Bottom line:
the argument can’t be about genetic success.
This path leads to murder and chaos for you cannot reason with a killer ape.
[/quote]
Which brings me back to my original idea: is it just power for power’s sake that people desire?
If that is true then in the short run one’s progeny might survive conquest but future generations will just be subjected to the desires of the power hungry.
Besides this I am fairly certain most people do not consider more than a few generations ahead anyway. For most it isn’t about enriching a particular dynasty but about enrichment right here and now – which I think is even more worrisome because people whom do not plan for the future ultimately don’t have have a future and therefore have nothing to lose.
I can extend this to other great conquerers as well:
Alexander the Great, akin to his own bisexual prowess, drove his armies like a phallos of titanic proportions east, across fertile mesopotamia, to finally thrust into the wet west of India.
…
[/quote]
Anyone else have a hard on?[/quote]
I suppose writing books that feature Fabio on the cover must be fun, that, however, wasn’t my endeavour.
It’s a meataphor for an extended gangbang that’s called today “invasion” or “military expedition”.
Or “crusade” if one wants to be an ironic asshole.
I can extend this to other great conquerers as well:
Alexander the Great, akin to his own bisexual prowess, drove his armies like a phallos of titanic proportions east, across fertile mesopotamia, to finally thrust into the wet west of India.
…
[/quote]
Anyone else have a hard on?[/quote]
I suppose writing books that feature Fabio on the cover must be fun, that, however, wasn’t my endeavour.
It’s a meataphor for an extended gangbang that’s called today “invasion” or “military expedition”.
Or “crusade” if one wants to be an ironic asshole.
Still, feel free to rub one out.[/quote]
I get all that.
There was just something about the phrase, “thrust into the wet west of India”, that appealed to me.
