Welcome to the Dimformation Age! Notes from the desk of Ned Mudd: reporting from the crawlspace of history.

"During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism." Howard Thurman

Imagine you’re walking down the road. You see a strange man beating a dog. The man has bulging muscles and a shaved head. One mean mofo, especially when he comes down on the cowering dog with a stick. What is the ethical thing to do? There is no help in sight, and no cell phone. Philosophical rumination isn’t going to unravel the knot…

If you approach the man and demand he cease beating the dog, he will redirect his rage and whip your ass. If you simply walk away, the dog is beaten, perhaps to death. You must decide now.

Why anyone would ask me to wax poetic about the ravages of war is a mystery. I’ve never seen the inside of a war and don’t intend to. War is abstract, the end result of a failure of human consciousness. As the old French song says: "Those who start wars never die of them. Only the innocent fall." We’re talking about behavior descended from organized jingoism, hype, tribal pride, and the lust for (someone else’s) natural resources.

Having missed WWII by several years, ditto Korea, it was my luck to be a teenager as the Vietnam "conflict" raged across America’s nightly TV news. "Body bag" was one of the revolving euphemisms that wafted through the airwaves of my youth. But, as Fate would have it, my lottery number was so lofty, I simply outran the draft. The one Vietnam protest I attended turned out to be a gathering of bored hippies with no clue as to the intricacies of international affairs. We were simply doing our duty, doing the "anti-war" boogie. Pass the bong.

Since then, I’ve become painfully aware of our species’ myopic tendencies. Platitudes rule in cultures incapable of thinking for themselves. Those in power, with a vested interest in staying that way, have zero incentive to keep the Truth in the forefront of our collective consciousness. As we’ve witnessed, via the 2nd Iraq conflagration, even uber-liberals (problematic definition) will readily support a bogus war that’s seen as a popular cause. The fools on the Hill blow with the fickle winds of public sentiment like dandelion fluff in an April gust. A sorry state of affairs, but there it is.

Primates can be downright aggressive animals. And, being primates ourselves, that axiom holds true for us: Homo erectus asphaltus. Our cousins, the Chimps, have been known to behave like zonked gang members, craving for a bit of head bashing on the far side of the "hood." (Bonobos, another cousin, utilize a nifty trick to quell violent nonsense: Group copulation. Something our present culture should consider.) Perhaps, by vestige of genetic drift, aggression is encoded on our operating system, much like our pernicious obsession with porn, celebrity murders, and true crime shows.

With all that in mind, simply being "anti-war" seems illogical without a concomitant strategy to contain unbridled aggressive behavior. It’s one thing to be "anti-war," another to implement peace. Solutions matter most where tempers and an illogical willingness to thonk the neighbors are in play. Where’s Sun Tzu when you need him?

What's the appropriate action to take in a situation where an 800 pound crack head decides to commit assault against yourself? Ever try to rationalize with a crack head? I recall a guy who ended up in that situation, no hope for détente, as the assailant was acting extremely dangerous. It took several chunks of lead to bring the drug addled thug to the ground, where he remains to this day. What would you have done?

Perhaps I’ve wandered off the proverbial trail. But I don’t think so. Violence is violence, any way you slice it. Violent acts of aggression are 100% idiotic behavior. That holds true whether we’re talking about individuals or nation-states. The problem occurs when one party opts for aggression, leaving opposing participants with the unenviable choice of fight or flight. What are you willing to give up in return for peace? Is peace a willingness to subject yourself and family to torture, servitude, and ruthless subjugation? Hopefully not. Tibet comes to mind.

Let’s change the facts. The dog receiving the heinous beating has just attacked the neighbor’s daughter. When you come onto the scene, the mutt has the child by the neck and is preparing to do something very bad, even by dog standards.

Paul Shepard, one of the 20th Century’s sharpest intellects, suggests that our Pleistocene ancestors left virtually no implements of war behind to be discovered by archeologists with pointy heads and dirty trowels. Yet, with the advent of large-scale agriculture and its twin, domesticated animals, there arose hierarchies of power, including the infamous warrior class. Kings need priests. They both need warriors. Safety in numbers becomes even more effective when you toss in a well armed and mobile army of young hot heads.

Agriculture not only requires brute labor, but tends to create population surges, thanks to new and reliable sources of calories. Population expansion requires increased yields, plenty of water, and, as it turns out, additional acres with which to produce more vittles.

It doesn’t take much to figure out that a land-hungry culture inevitably runs into conflict with those who’d just as soon be left to their own devices.

Yet, a quick review of history reveals that where agriculturalists/herders have butted heads with hunter/gatherers, the farmer/cowboys win. And they do it with hierarchical organization, warriors to spare, and an all-powerful god on their side. (It always helps to know that the Lord of the Universe is going to bat for your team.) While hunter/gatherers tend to be a serene bunch of comrades, at least with their lot in the Cosmos, bows, spears, and egalitarian social cohesion are no match for highly trained storm troopers. Review your Genghis Khan, then read on.

It may be that our adaptation towards territorial aggression, coupled with political/social hierarchy, religious dogma, and exponential demands for resources, invariably morphs into a blind eye towards all Others. Myopic fealty to a tribal clan diminishes guilt as your King’s warriors trounce anyone standing in the way of "progress." Sound familiar? Makes you wonder about the meaning of civilization.

War is a squirrelly subject at best. Are there justifiable wars? Is it appropriate to refuse to engage an enemy who appears at your gate with instructions to take no prisoners? What facts must be present to justify sending troops into the clutches of battle? Can a Christian kill in defense of a nation? Can a Buddhist pull the trigger in order to save an innocent life? When is détente no longer an option? Who should make that decision?

That we are currently embroiled in an inane conflagration in a country most of us have never seen, much less understand, illustrates the pitfalls of group-think confusion. In the immediate wake of 9-11, America suddenly found itself swept away on a tide of nationalistic hubris, our societal emotions whipped into a frenzied pitch. While this may be understandable from a psychological perspective, said situation isn’t opportune where long-term global entanglements are concerned.

Riding on hormonal soup, intent on avenging nationalistic pride, we made the decision to launch a "pre-emptive" attack upon another sovereign nation. The evidence supporting the rush to war was skimpy at best. Cooler heads might’ve done otherwise. But at that moment in history, it was easy for most Americans to justify their faith in the psychopomp residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. How easy we forget the lessons of the past. Now what?

In the final analysis, war is a phantom of the human consciousness. Every war begins in the recesses of individual minds and finds expression through our species’ innate tendency to resemble the herd animals that we domesticated in the dim recesses of our atavistic past. We act according to the dictates of biology and acculturation, wandering through life semi-aware of the forces that lead us. That such a course often assumes the shape of violent conflict is repeatedly expressed in the pages of our collective history.

Perhaps there’s no pat answer to the binary forces of war and peace. If there is, each of us must find it where it originates: In the true nature of our being. A nature that all beings share by vestige of simply existing together: Interconnected, interdependent, and in essence, of one substance. To war against each other is to war against ourselves.

And that, my friends, is stupid.

Salut!