Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: tyler durdenDate: 2018-08-30 23:37:51Reaction Score: 8
Only partly true in my opinion. (op)
Your approach reminds me of the greenland theory -
Greenland Theory, which is again a bit tainted, but can open your eyes on a number of very interesting ideas.
My take on it is the following..
On a psychological level you have a conflict between 2 ways of living, worldviews, mentalities..
1. the people of the land - kingdom - self sovereignty - alligning to truth, nature in order to survive - morality, ethics
2. the people of the sea - empire - rule over others - making others allign to your rules / lies - deceptive tactics
By kingdom I don't mean the conventional meaning. In an ideal world perhaps each should be his own king in the sense that you freedom stops where your neighbour's begins. My point is that each should exercise control and command, but only where it is due - upon your own self, you should control yourself and command yourself.
Now empire.. empire IS a state of mind, it's a way of looking at things and saying 'mine, mine, mine, ummmm... mine!', it's a parasitical approach to life. How does an empire expand? It transforms things into it, provinces that were once independent, sovereign are transformed into parts of the empire. History is erased, culture is erased, language is erased, morality is erased. How was this usually done? It's pretty straightforward..
- they killed them all.
- they killed almost all of them until the remaining ones submitted to the will of the conquerors.
- they killed a lot of them and moved the remaining ones in other provinces of the empire in order to uproot them, make them lose their identity.
- they just 'bought' those that could 'be bought' in order to carry out their machinations and weakening them preparing them for one of the previous 3 options.
You might ask why kill people.. It's the only way to erase history, culture, language, morality and so on.. The information by itself is meaningless, we the people are the only ones that attribute meaning to things, it is only within us that these things are activated.
Anyway, in a nutshell.. I always associate the idea of 'empire' with this sort of a line:
'I don't really care what you guys were doing here before, this is how things are gonna be from now on: [...]'
Getting back to the original post, my personal opinion after some considerable research is that there really is only one empire. (in the sense I was explaining before) So for me the minoans are the phoenicians, the venetians, the carthagenians, the romans.. etc.
In my opinion it's like they tried to fake their own death/demise several times. All empires are colonial empires, with over-seas territories and so on.
In conventional history what was once a phoenician collony then became greek, then roman, then venetian, then spanish, then british, then dutch, then portuguese.. (I'm just trying to prove a point, not talking about a specific place) In reality it was simply always theirs, they just made use of the apparent conflict between their opposing factions to have an excuse to cover their own tracks or destroy whatever unexplainable thing remained from the previous 'worldwide civilization' I haven't even touched upon yet.
In more recent times the empire acts as warring opponents and the whole 'age of exploration', the whole 'new world' discourse is sold like this.. the pope vs the english, the spanish vs. the portuguese, the spanish vs the english, the english vs. the dutch. Just think about it, how effective a tactic it is to instigate conflict all over the world. It's controlling the discourse so that the proper questions don't get asked. Just like the conflict between the spanish and the portuguese in South America.. who cares there were some natives around? collateral damage, what matters is who won.
For me the whole 'new world' thing is fascinating. Think about the arrogance it takes to claim whole populated continents as your own and on top of that even the audacity to call them 'new'. I mean obviously it wasn't new to the people there.. but when it comes to the empire it's all about 'me,me,me', so that's how they sold it to us, trying to lend us their looking glasses so we look at the world in the same way they do and see nothing wrong with it.
I can only think of one way of ending this.. who's the savage?
ps: Some that enter this 'conspiracy circle' / truth quest start with the idea that the system has to change, that it's not working any more, it's failing.. I say it's working perfectly. It's not broken, it was built this way. It's just a matter of perspective, of zooming out of your comfort zone.
ps2: funfact: the Roman empire collapsed 1453. 'Columbus' 'discovered' 'America' in '1492'. I'll just leave it at that.