If an idolator sees a statue of Bhuddah, they (think they see) peace.

If an idolator sees a statue of Jesus, they (think they see) Justice.

If I want to know if there is peace, I look for a Government who pursues Justice within and without, I look for an Army being relaxed and at
home, or better if they are demobilized and don't even exist.

How about you ?

If an far eastern idolator wants peace, they close their eyes and
pretend it for themselves.

If a western idolator wants peace, most of them will go to their
'church'.

If I want peace, I argue for Justice and peace with my people, or anyone willing to create Justice and Peace by organizing the Nation fairly.

How about you ?!

The idolators close their eyes, try to live in a fantasy, ask a magical creature to solve their problems.

People who are not idolators, open their eyes and try to do something.
Only when they cannot succeed, it seems hopeless, they have done all
they can, might they start feeling the need to ask heaven for help.

Who will heaven listen to, if they listen to anyone ?

Such a silly world ... but I guess, the idolators who must be idolators,
might be close to being criminals and bad destructive people. Perhaps
their idolatry at least prevents them from committing crimes, because
they they act, they act for themselves without caring for anyone else ?
For everyone else though, I don't see the use of idolatry. It is a
bizarre behavior, and probably stimulated by the criminals in the ruling
class, because it disempowers and sidetracks their slaves. "Go pray to
the pink 8 legged elephant if you are poor." (Hindu) "Close your eyes if
you see suffering and it makes you sad" (Bhuddism) "Sacrifice a chicken
on a pile of garbage if you want wealth" (Voodoos from Africa). lol
"God appointed the Government, fold hands and let Jesus figure it out
(but pay your church dues, wine doesn't come cheap)." (Western idolators).

*

People might think idolatry is dying because of Science, or because of Socialism and the labor movement, but it does not seem to be the case,
because they merely created new idols. In Science we have the absurd
Einstein hoax, and Einstein is now the god of Science of sorts. They
worship the garbage he produced (light speed is constant for everyone,
which is insane; this was created from the absurd Lorentz
transformations, re-imagined by Einstein to be even more absurd than it
already was). In Socialism, which tried to do away with idolatry you
could argue, the bosses of the movement themselves becamet the idols,
and Tyrannical eventually it became. We know this already from the
French Revolution(s), where at one point they created an idol called
'god of reason', or somesuch. It didn't work out.

I speculate people are suffering from ancient monkey instincts, which
makes them either want to dominate (be god), or to fit in the role of
someone who is being dominated (the idolator). The god is the dominant
person, and the idolator is his subject, his slave, his tool. Many
mammal species seem to live this way, with a dominant individual over a
group, whose dominance is typically established through violence. This
is possibly why idolatry is so widespread and hard to get rid off,
because it is an extremely ancient survival mode and instinct in humans.
The slaves still have a little say in the matter, by sometimes being
able to prefer one idol over the other, with which is meant: this or the
other domineering individual, this or the other Chief or King, boss.

The reasons for this mode of survival might then go back to fighting
over mating rights, so that the strongest fighter causes the children to
be born with stronger hereditary qualities (genes if you prefer). Many
animal species live this way, including mammals who live in groups such
as humans lived in roaming groups while being hunter gatherers who relied heavily on the strength of their body to survive. The demands of daily
live included the demands of hunting, which can involve a form of
violence and fighting, as well as evading and defeating predatory
animals. If the strongest fighter in the clan is made dominant, is the
boss, at least gets a lot of children who are then revered as being the
best of the best for the future of the clan, you have a survival logic
to that.

Now however, humans started farming and keeping animals, which meant our technology / tools became better, and continually seem to get better.
This marks a shift in the importance of survival of the components of
the body such as strength and fighting fitness, toward the capability to
make these tools. The capability to make efficient tools which help
survival, is a capability which emphasises working together, creativity,
work ethic, intelligence, and the like. While someone spending a lot of
time "in the gym" (modern equivalent) may be much better in hand to hand fighting, someone who looks like nothing physically but is a good worker
and able craftsman, might be able to defeat this person quite easily.
The point is not to be able to defeat another person, but rather: to
defeat predatory animals, capture prey in the wild, control the
domesticated animals succesfully, grow food around the house, maintain
the house itself, etc. It doesn't pay off anymore as much as it did,
to have a strong body, and a weak mind.

Example: if the strongly trained fighter can defeat some able craftsman
in one blow in a staged fight, that may be fun for show, but in the
reality of survival: if the craftsman is able to make himself a new bow,
and a good spear, he is going to survive where the knuckle dragger will
not, even in a confrontation of the two.

The effect keeps getting stronger, the more capable our tools and
technologies become. At the moment we are on the brink of a situation
where the human body becomes irrelevant with regards to fighting,
because on top of everything else which we have, we will soon have
fighting robots. The human body is not even present anymore. It is a
matter of time before a robot will defeat any special forces highly
trained person, especially if that person is tasked with equiping
himself from raw natural resources. It will be quite the accomplishment
to go into the bush and come out with a good bow and arrow. I can't
imagine any fighter entering nature, and coming out with a capable self
made rifle of any sort whatsoever. Even if they managed it, which is
impossible I think - it would probably take decades of work if at all
possible - robot technology and other technology is advancing so quickly
it won't even matter.

The tools have far outstripped the capability and need of the human body
to fight.

What this means is that the dominant strong fighting person, to father
the children and secure the future of the Clan, is obsolete. Dominance
and slavery is obsolete, or at least would have to be reimagined in
light of survival through far advanced tools and technologies, compared
to what we could carry along in the stone age. An ox drawn cart is
already far beyond the basics of the stone age, and so is a wooden
house. It isn't necessarily about modern technology. A bow and a metal
knife (sword, a long knife), may already have tipped the balance,
without humanity noticing it. Then there is well coordinated group
strategies, which also benefit from a benevolence within the group,
rather than fighting to establish dominance.

If idolatry is part of animal behavior, then it is obsolete for the
survival of humanity. The future is in a (more) horizonal way of
organizing.

This is what I think is an interesting shortcut to understand it:

Mode 1, stone age hunter gatherers survival. They work in a pack, but
the strongest most able and daring fighter is regarded highly by all.
Just as they lived in a mode of war and violence with the other animals,
who where their enemies, so they also had fights with themselves. So
they lived around violence to a degree, and also where violent to a
degree (which shouldn't be overestimated either, though, and they where fortunately not capable of this massive slaughtering which humans
nowadays engage in, because the organization and even food for it didn't exist).

Mode 2, settled life of the farmer and animal keeper. They give every
animal their space, every crop and herb has their allotted space. Not
one may dominate over the other, so that each can live and grow in
peace. Fighting within the herd is stopped, and erratic violent bulls
will probably not be allowed to mate, lest the offspring will also be
unruly and difficult for the farmer. Just so as they live by giving
space to let livee, and need peace for useful growing, so they need to
do with each other, to give the next generation their space in peace and
for nothing. The potatoes are no longer in a war with the carrots, the
farmer has separated them and given each their space.

So as they do with their surroundings, so they need to do with each other.

If the stone age hunter gatherer clan fully committed to peaceful living
in the early stone age, when technology was very simple let's say and
they didn't even yet make stone axes, it is possible that they may have
died out because the reproduction of too weak individuals over too long
a time, while other animals kept up their selection to win the fight.
It is speculative, I admit that, but there is a logic to it.

The same but in reverse is true for the farmers (which is us, we are a
farming culture, even if you don't see it anymore). If we don't achieve
peace we could wipe ourselves out. The violence has become modern warfare, which is (in this view) a grotesque form of two bulls trying to impress
the herd with their force, so the winner may father the children. The
violence between the humans in this situation serves no purpose anymore, although there is unfortunately still a need to defend yourself from
violence. Once you get attacked you have to defend, but this argument
isn't about that, but rather contrasting an overall situation of no
violence versus one that has violence. Once there is violence, there is
a reason to counter it with violence if necessary, but for the purpose
of establishing peace, rather than for establishing dominance
(territory, wives, wealth by looting, etc).

Hence the idolatry is obsolete, because it is about subservience and
slavery to a dominant person who supposedly creates the survival of the
Clan by being strong.

Instead of the subservience and slavery, it should be a talk between
equals, who decide based on things like what makes everyone the most
happy.

I think it is a decent theory at least, and perhaps more importantly
it has a good moral direction. Life could be a lot better, and we could
perhaps survive, if people thought this way.

*

In a Jewish sense of course, the Torah gives everyone their land by law
and for free for forever. This is a good example of how it has to work.
In the Jewish thinking, the 'world' is now 6 000 years old (roughly),
which is surprisingly the same amount of time as farming is thought of
as having started back in the past. You get all these demands and wishes
for peace, from the Jewish culture and law, which make perfect sense.
Adam & Eve may not steal from the forbidden tree, they need to leave it
in peace. Needless to say, stealing leads to violence, even with animals
this is the case. The Jewish religion is also against idolatry, and has
a God which is the God of everyone, which again leads to peace (well,
you could turn it into something else if you wanted to, but it is better
than every Nation and Clan has their own "gods" and nothing in common).

Hence everything makes sense, except that people don't seem to want to
listen to a reasonable argument, even though their survival may depend
upon it. Fine then, have it your way, have another experiment with
violence called "Full out nuclear war, World War 3", and see if it makes
you happy and if it has improved your survival chances.

I know that the Americans do their best to pretend that humanity has
enemies in the Cosmos (by way of Hollywood movies, which might not
impact you but it does impact a lot of American men), and so they want
Fascism and Eugenics and "survival of the most capable knuckled dragging fighters" and experimentation by warfare to continue. It is good to keep
in mind that these movies are fake and do not represent actual survival.
1: There is no proof that we actually have enemies in the Cosmos like that,
and 2: They conveniently are earning a lot of money waging their insane and evil wars, and 3: if 'aliens from the Cosmos' became technological to
get there with anything like ships and the like, which in theory could
be armed, it follows they may also have had a development like humanity
has had, and became settled and technological on their home world. This
may in turn also have made them greatly powerful, as their travel
through the Cosmos would proof, wouldn't it. If they have a biosphere
with many creatures like Earth, and most or all of them are not
technological, but the ones we see are, then if there had been a dog eat
dog kind of world, the technology could have meant the same for them as
for us (see argument above). The fact that we see them here, could mean
that they have adapted to technology and found peace at least with each
other, rather than destroy themselves in the crazy wars the American
movie producers like to pretend is happening in the Cosmos (without any
proof whatsoever, of course).

Hence that whole argument is flawed, that humanity would need to stay
violent because there are space dogs waiting for us beyond the Moon.
lol You see, 'the enemy' really can't win the argument, one way or the
other. Sadly though, on Earth you can propose a winning argument any day
you want, it doesn't mean a thing. Still violence obsessed I guess ?
If the above holds, then broadly you should see that people who choose violence, offensive attacking violence, should eventually die out.
Perhaps the next war could already be another example of that, if Russia
and USA nuke each other to hell, and some far off people who just minds
their own business is left alone, ends up surviving.

In any case, such is the argument for ending idolatry and for peace.
For equality between people, and conversation, reason and everyone their interests weighed fairly being the guiding principles, rather than
having a knife fight in the middle of a circus. Choose your world, I
guess, but choose wisely as what you have might not survive your choices.

(Why do I keep writing the same over and over again.) How it relates to
this Nova festival, is like so: if they had spend their free time on
making the land free for all, on a Jubilee system or even another, that
could have become real peace, real and lasting peace. They pretend their festival, with idolatry, and slogans around wanting to spread the wild
spirit of the jungle or something (the jungle is anything but peace,
it's a war), and freedom and love, but actually the whole thing is
primitive, even animal like, avoids making peace, celibrates
lawlessness, and ends up in a massive drama of violence. They didn't do
the violence themselves, admittedly, but in the long term they
indirectly do cause that. They close their eyes to the needs of
distributing the land, which would be the real peace, the real freedom,
the real love.

If they love the jungle so much, then go live in it, go live like an
ape I guess. You will find out it is anything but peaceful, anything
but love. It is a hard fight against animals and nature to survive. If
you want peace, you have to live with other people and make it so. It
is called civilization, which is based around *laws* which make people
free, such as the right to land, *laws* which create care and love such
as the 7th year debt cancellation for the poor (how much money did that festival cost again, and how many poor people could you have helped with that?). There you go: law of the Torah equals love and freedom, while
what you do at this Festival Nova celebrates carelessness, looking the
other way when people and the Nation needed things done for freedom and
love. They pretend it is all love and friendship, but deep down it is
the opposite, and I'm sure many of them think the Torah represents
something agressive and even Tyrannical (well, they would get the death
penalty for what they did, under the Torah), but it ends up being the
opposite. Then the children ... children born without having a father,
is this what these festivals also lead to ? I would think it can easily
be so. That would be a form of child abuse, a life lost perhaps to
sadness and trouble. For what ?

It seems innocent and free and happy, and that is how they portray their idolatry festival as being. Deep down if you see the needs of the
Nation and humanity, which are great, and what they are spreading and
doing, it becomes the opposite. I guess it is a matter of shallowness,
of not caring (heh) to think it through.

You could argue however, that it was all rather inconsequential and just
a bit of fun for young people or whatever. and that seems to also be
true. Maybe they worked hard for the world, and needed a break. However
if you read up on it, there seems to be a whole culture developing
around this Nova festival thing, which is far eastern Bhuddism and the
like (the far east is extremely idolatrous, especially India). They
could also have chosen their slogans differently, like "a relaxing day
with some music", rather than saying to themselves that what they are
doing is the end all and be all of peace on Earth. If you read some of
the reports, the people there actually seem to think that it was. Like
it was the solution to everything, this kind of festival.

Did they organize a Revolution there in the Desert, did they resolve to organize into Councils, and set up a system for all to have land and be
fee ? Of course not, nothing of the sort. Hence they also hype
themselves up to no end, and yes then you can expect criticism from lame
asses like me who seem to live behind a keyboard (I should jump on the
bike very soon, I see Sun ;-). If it *was* just a music festival, then I wouldn't be writing what I have been on it. They don't need an idol
there, and all these over the top claims - it is like they want to
create some kind of new religion for themselves, a "way of life". Then
just leave it as a simple music festival with some dancing, and I would probably not write about it at all. They make it such an all consuming activity, that it may indeed be a lot more harmful in total than it at
first may have appeared.

"We are merely a dance music festival, it is so sad and injust that we
where attacked." While it may have been an injust attack, with all that
seems to be going on, it is not merely a music festival anymore. It
seems to be a lot more than that. They seme to be rolling ount and
creating a religion of sorts, a way of life, an activity which consumes
them. I imagine many of their lives are about listening to music and
preparing more festivals, saving up money to go to them or to organize
them, and so on. They organizers also call themselves a "Parallel
Universe" or something like that (it came from Brazil).

A world which needs Peace, Justice and Freedom: it gets neglected in the
noise, it dies off before it could have blossomed. Was Nova festival
innocent ? Maybe not as much as some people thought. While you could
argue still that it is overall fairly innocent, or if some people wish
to experiment with life, that is their problem and freedom: ok that is
true, but why do they have to do it in the land of Israel, where the
Torah is supposed to be lived, so that humanity can learn and survive,
to learn Peace, Love, Justice and Freedom (!), but real and not fake.
Why did they have to come there, and why on that day of the Torah. Well,
I guess we all have something to think about now. It was attacked, it
may become part of the start of World War 3, and that is a serious sign
for all of us perhaps.

(Sorry for writing and rambling on without end; I guess I tried to
solidify the argument rationally as strong as I could, and to grab the
whole thing by the horns again, while trying to make it understandable
and reasonable, and also actionable.)

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)