Conflict, is it the real agenda?

What if the powers behind the various "extreme" movements are not interested in their stated agenda at all? What if their purpose, rather, is to foment fear and conflict?

Within conflict the opportunities for acquiring and consolidating power grow immensely. Create fear and uncertainty, especially with regards to intangibles, such as an unknowable and monstrous horde massing across the sea bent on our destruction and nothing concrete one can do about it, and we can see human nature takes over. People rally to political, ideological, and religious poles, and like a hand full of rats in a bag, they begin to fight each other over minuscule differences and ideological uncertainties. What arises are entities that claim to have the answer, if one gives away money, free will, and self-determination. This is why conflict IS the agenda!

The scenario is both historical and contemporary--it is what "economic sanctions" are designed to do, insidiously create circumstances where a population will not have a large enough view of the playing field or a clear enough understanding of the motives driving the players to be able to resist the effects. When it is applied to us, "We the People," the result is conflict for its own sake and opportunity for those generating the discord. At home and abroad, it is akin to a mining operation. blow up a mountain and sift through the rubble to get at the gold that was once bound up inside. Then make off with the loot.

I would posit that what we are seeing today is a bloodthirsty harrowing of our society where few, if any, of those at the most elevated and obscure levels of influence care one whit about the rest of the country's population. We are the "new natural resource," thrust into the arena and pitted against each other for the sake of a game we little understand or realize we are playing. Huge capital is created when a population fights itself, each faction religiously convinced it's perspective is right and on the side of God, yet destined to be unaware of the ulterior motives.

It used to be that when investigating crime one would "follow the money." What I propose is similar, though much more complex--"follow the power." By paying attention to who and what entities (political, religious, ideological, economic, etc.) are in a position to gain, one may begin to discern what is at stake.

So, the next time there is a heated battle over some point of ideological rhetoric, extremist viewpoint, or exclusionary belief system take a moment and look "through" the plot and see who really benefits from the "theme" of the conflict at hand. I would hazard that in many cases, the issues will not be served by the arguments. And, more likely, there will become an apparent motif of division and control that serves one side more than the other--more often than not the more powerful.

In short, we have in our psychology a penchant for blaming the victim. Whether this is a way of distancing ourselves from being victimized or aligning ourselves with the more cunning and adept I am not sure. However, when faced with simplistic arguments it is important to look for the complexities that illuminate the truth more accurately. Otherwise, we become the victim by proxy--regardless of which side we stand.