[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'M')axpower,

The problem with the "wussy" in Saving Private Ryan was a leadership problem, not a problem with the soldier. The scene where the wussy fails to protect and aid his fellow soldier, in my opinion, was the fault of the Captain, not the wussy. The Captain screwed up by placing a soldier on his own and compounded the error by placing a noncombative soldier on his own on the battlefield. First, it is well known not to isolate any soldier on the battlefield. Even seasoned soldiers can and will get the "rabbit complex" if put alone, meaning they would rather hide than fight. Leaders are taught, therefore, not to put any soldier alone, always fight in twos. Group peer pressure forces people to fight. The book "on Killing" talks about this, but a better book is "War on the Mind" which is referenced by "On Killing."

The Captain compounded this "rabbit complex" by then by isolating this trained clerk (not a combat arms trained soldier) on the battlefield, thus virtually ensuring the soldier would hide and not fight. As Vegetius wrote in the training of the Roman soldier, that more often courage is "learned" not born in people. Wiki Vegitius

This guy in the movie never had a chance. Alternatives? The mission was to deny the bridge to German forces, blow it if necessary. The Captain should have postitioned this non combat arms soldier on the "near side" of the bridge next to the blasting device with the mission simply to push the lever if any German forces started to cross the bridge. This ensures that someone is there to blow the bridge, allows this noncombat soldier to "hide" in the building housing the blasting device, and not have to confront the enemy. Just blow and go (retreat).

However, the Captain's biggest mistake was his decision to defend the "far side" of the bridge (the enemy side). There simply was no reason for this, other than making a bloody last scene of the movie. The mission was simple, deny the Germans the bridge. Thus, the Captain should have positioned his forces on the "near side" of the bridge, the friendly side, with the river between his forces and the Germans. If Germans start to cross, blow it, mission accomplished. It was potentially a fatal error not to have anyone positioned at the blasting device, as his forces almost were not able to retreat to it. Big mistake. This makes for a good last scene of the movie, but no trained combat leader would have made this mistake.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'I')t would be foolish to ever speak in term of absolutes - like always attack or always defend. In fact, a defense often involves some form of offense. Self-defense could easily mean you fire first or you don't fire at all.

However, the decision to attack and defend is highly dependent on the factual circumstances, which constantly evolve. I understand what Doly says, and based on "her?" situation, it may be foolish to plan on any form of "attack."

However, even with small numbers, never rule out the attack, as the British SAS says "who dares wins", or Napoleon who wrote in his Maxims of War that, when surrounded "attack", or Rommel who wrote his famous book "Attack" after his experiences in WWI.

[gego]

I have never killed a human.

I have killed when hunting wild animals, and butchering farm animals raised for food. I do not enjoy the killing, but I enjoy the eating, so I deal with it.

Whenever men get into times where they mostly solve problems with one another with force and violence, generally they differentiate the enemy from themselves to make the killing more acceptable. From talking with my father-in-law, who fought in the US army in WWII Eurpoe from June 18, 1944 until the end, it is clear that killing was progressively easier as the hatred grew and the Germans seemed less and less human. I have watched programs on the History channel where veterans from the Pacific war said they actually enjoyed killing the Japs, who they did not see as human.

Everyone reacts differently. I also remember reading a study of the US Civil war. A significant number of the soldiers on both sides did not try to kill the enemy, even when their comrades were being killed around them.

I think in a self defense situation, I would be able to kill to protect myself and my family. I would not seek out any such situation if I could avoid it. I am well prepared in the gun and ammunition department, however. Certainly there would be a psychological aftermath.

Years ago I was driving down the highway at 60 MPH when a car did not see me coming and tried to cross in front of me. I hit my brakes and swerved so that I managed to only shear off the radiator forward on their car (occupied by two teenage boys). Had I just hit my breaks and gone straight forward I would have gone directly into their passenger door probably at about 50 MPH. Nobody was badly hurt, but a month earlier an almost identical accident did happen within a mile of mine, and the occupants of the crossing car were all killed. It took me several years to get over just the thought that if I had not reacted quickly enough that those two kids would have probably died.

For some of us, there is no escaping that part of our humanity that finds killing humans offensive.

[seahorse]

maxpower,

I have a copy of the manual. I will send you a PM to get it to you.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'I')f blisteredwhippet and Jack are not one and the same, they should marry. Problem is, they would probably spend their entire lives visualizing killing each other

[gg3]

Over the last few days, while I was in the field scouting out land, something occurred to me about BW's original post.

Quote: "Socially, the best way to kill to not give any indication that you are capable of or going to do it. In other words, they never "see it coming". This killing style necessarily involves getting up close and working or living with the person."

That is not a description of killing in defense of nation, community, family, or one's self. That is not a description of killing an enemy combatant or a criminal who is attacking you or yours. That, summed up in the last sentence, is a description of willful and premeditated murder.

BW is advocating murder.

Murder, plain and simple, and advocating it is a violation of the terms of service of this site.

---

MaxPower is obviously dazzled by Hollywood. Real pacifists, whether 1-O or 1-AO, do not get anywhere near the front lines. If someone is in the US military and becomes a principled pacifist, that person will immediately be placed in a noncombatant role or allowed to resign from their branch of the service.

Someone close to me signed up for the Marines, was in the early phase of physical training before going into basic, and came to the realization that he himself couldn't do the deed. He was released from his commitment with no problems. Despite the troop shortage in Iraq. Another member of our community group went through basic in the Army during Vietnam and concluded he couldn't do the deed either. He was trained for Medic. When he went pacifist, they moved him to a position as a clerk at a base in Germany.

(And in case anyone here thinks our group is full of pacifists, it also includes veterans, and also includes members who are engaged in planning for community defense, including close combat if needed.)

Hollywood is full of shit. Period.

---

Seahorse2 is right on target, no pun intended.

Quote: "In fact, I would argue that all this visualization of killing in order to do it without emotion is just fear. You fear to kill, or are afraid you may not be able to, so you try to visualize killing to overcome your own lack of courage. There are plenty of heros out there that never visualized killing, but were able to do so when they had to, yet they still enjoyed people, life and everything that's in it."

In other words, the BW approach, deadening oneself inside in order to commit first-degree murder, is nothing more than covering up for cowardice.

I'm willing to bet that Seahorse2 is a veteran with a solid record in the service (I'll take a wild guess and say Navy or Marines, probably a commissioned officer.)

---

Attackers have the advantage of surprise, and of choosing the time, place, and method. Defenders have the advantages of fighting on their home turf: knowing the terrain, having support of the local population, having short(er) supply lines, and being able to establish fortifications and suchlike ahead of need.

Our group is betting on the home turf advantages including the continuance of the law and local law enforcement. The latter is a "conservative assumption," in the same sense as in business planning: it imposes more limits, therefore requires greater effort in order to succeed. That is, we can't just go blasting away at trespassers when holding them pending arrival of the sheriff will do (and typically involves greater risks to self, thus requires more effort to plan and execute successfully).

In the event the law ceases to be operative, we have plans to add "proactive defense" measures, e.g. when dealing with the hypothetical bands of bandits.

I've stopped discussing operational and tactical level planning around here for the obvious reason that this stuff has become TS in our group, and also lately because I don't want to give any ideas to anyone who is planning to engage in predatory behavior of whatever kind, much less commit acts of murder.

---

Agreed, practice makes perfect. And I also agree with the US military approach of training to the level of reflex. Being able to do the physical actions on a reflex basis also gives one more room to exercise judgement and thereby to act within a moral or ethical code.

[seahorse]

Jack,

I was kidding about you and BW.

I agree that its good to practice shooting, shooting skills, martial arts, all that. However, what I disagree with is this posted by BW:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o get rid of these unnecessary impulses, its a good idea to visualize killing people of all kinds, ages, and sexes frequently to eliminate the prejudicial instinct.

[kevincarter]

I had the opportunity to meet some Israelis the other day. We talked many things but they seemed to me VERY organized and with lots of chances of survival, at least I know that if the do not survive they’ll die trying hard as a nation.

To begin with ALL of them have undergone military training (3 years for man, 2 years for woman, compulsory, don’t you dare to try to avoid it) and army duty. So is not all theoretical for them, they’ve actually been there in the checkpoints looking for bombs with their m16 armed and ready.

One of the things the army does to them is to imprint “the morals of war” in their brains. So killing for them is not bad if it falls into the morals of war.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')hat is not a description of killing in defense of nation, community, family, or one's self. That is not a description of killing an enemy combatant or a criminal who is attacking you or yours. That, summed up in the last sentence, is a description of willful and premeditated murder.

BW is advocating murder.

Murder, plain and simple, and advocating it is a violation of the terms of service of this site.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'I') had the opportunity to meet some Israelis the other day. We talked many things but they seemed to me VERY organized and with lots of chances of survival, at least I know that if the do not survive they’ll die trying hard as a nation.

To begin with ALL of them have undergone military training (3 years for man, 2 years for woman, compulsory, don’t you dare to try to avoid it) and army duty. So is not all theoretical for them, they’ve actually been there in the checkpoints looking for bombs with their m16 armed and ready.

One of the things the army does to them is to imprint “the morals of war” in their brains. So killing for them is not bad if it falls into the morals of war.

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'O')ver the last few days, while I was in the field scouting out land, something occurred to me about BW's original post:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Socially, the best way to kill to not give any indication that you are capable of or going to do it. In other words, they never "see it coming". This killing style necessarily involves getting up close and working or living with the person."

[seahorse2]

BW,

Your historic view that there was mankind, a "savage man", without any moral code is misplaced. What about the Greeks who had none of what we would call "modern civilization" but had a moral code? Any number of American Indian tribes? or any number of early finds that also showed man believed in something higher than himself, beyond himself. Push a button to kill half the people? Which half? Would you be in the half to die or the half to live? You are thinking only of yourself. Like it or not, you are a part of and dependent on all of us here. Your dream to make us go away is only that, a dream, which cannot happen. You need to let go of that, it deprives you of finding any joy in the time that you have here.

I think you would enjoy this book:

No Boundaries

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'B')W,

Your historic view that there was mankind, a "savage man", without any moral code is misplaced. What about the Greeks who had none of what we would call "modern civilization" but had a moral code? Any number of American Indian tribes? or any number of early finds that also showed man believed in something higher than himself, beyond himself.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')
...We are all happy people, thinking happy thoughts (or in terms of dreams, "All Good People Are Asleep And Dreaming.") It involves too many aspects of our fears for the facile mind to comprehend willfully, when most if not all cylinders are firing at all times in the selfish pursuit of pleasure. This is probably why there is no action on global warming or peak oil or anything else....

...Perhaps then, the best way to get things done is slap a different label on the magic button and convince some sheep to press it, after convincing them that it will make them very happy.

I recently had a conversation with a woman who liked to spout bumper sticker type syllogisms and I challenged her with the argument that idealism in itself is not a solution to anything. The youth are infected with the diseased do-nothing pacifism of the 60s....

...I can think of a lot of reasons for pushing the button that have nothing to do with me. There are a lot of people, frankly, that float along on the principle that they are special, because they are humans, and have life. This is one of the assumptions of western morality. Humans are a special category, and combined with the life property, "rise above" western empiricism. The spirituality of the west is a collection of assumptions about our inherent divinity even as science proves that we should be communing with the environment as equals, yet the rationalization of ourselves as special cases is an escape clause within the moral code. The slide is greased with any number of rationalizations, from divine intervention to self-gratification....

...The truth is, most of us are going to die one way or another because of what has been done to the Earth. Instantaneous Fine Red Mist is a relatively painless way to go, wouldn't you think?

...Every vehicle mile travelled, every dollar spent, every time you flush the toilet... a million billion little magic buttons. The effects are cumulative. And if there is anything that is little understood by the masses of humanity, it is a sense of the cumulative.

[Hermes]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schneider', 'G')reetings everyone !

The first one might be the one of Dave Grossman,autor of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society talking about a innate resistance to kill a fellow human being,even while facing death ..

The second is the one of Gary Bretcher,called the War Nerd where the norm is killing,murdering and even genocide is the usual way to go of humankind when dealing with conflicts between each others !

Schneider

[gg3]

BW is clearly a good writer & rhetoritician, but lest anyone be seduced by his arguements, remember the context: the abdication of law and common ethics.

Who among us would not push a magic button that could virtually reverse time and take us back to 3 billion humans on a relatively undamaged planet? Therein lies the seduction of making virtues out of necessities. The fact that we're heading for dieoff numbered in gigadeaths does not equate to the justification to make a personal contribution one victim at a time.

Who among us is not aware that every trip in the car and every degree on the thermostat is a tiny little version of the big magic button? Kudos for the analogy, but once again, the indirect blood on our hands does not justify the more direct version. Having sinned via our lifestyles does not justify taking the plunge into a life of sin beyond all limits of common ethics.

And therein lies one of the psychological attractors of such arguements: the dominant culture operates on the premise that there are no limits to economic growth; and in order to support that conclusion, pretends that there are no limits to resources, no limits to the ability of ecosystems to absorb damage without harm. This feeling of limitlessness is seductive. It is more seductive than sex, more seductive than drugs, more seductive than any other instinct gratification. It is the ultimate form of hedonism.

But given that it is fatally flawed, and the fatalities of the flaws will escalate in short order, BW offers to trade one fiction of limitlessness for another: the fiction of limitless will, as practiced ultimately by throwing out all limits of common ethics. The hedonism of simple-minded sensuality is replaced by the hedonism of the berserker, who, like the suburbanite in the SUV, knows no limits to his behavior.

Yet the choice between the hedonism of ecocide and the hedonism of homicide is a Hobson's choice, which is to say no choice at all.

There is another option, which constitutes a real choice, and it is a choice that requires greater courage and greater will. The one resource that seems to be most thoroughly neglected in these discussions, is also a truly unlimited resource. It will fill the need for limitlessness without creating a zero-sum game, much less externalized costs or worse yet a state of lawlessness:

That limitless resource is love.

[Fergus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'B')W is clearly a good writer & rhetoritician, but lest anyone be seduced by his arguements, remember the context: the abdication of law and common ethics.

Who among us would not push a magic button that could virtually reverse time and take us back to 3 billion humans on a relatively undamaged planet? Therein lies the seduction of making virtues out of necessities. The fact that we're heading for dieoff numbered in gigadeaths does not equate to the justification to make a personal contribution one victim at a time.

Who among us is not aware that every trip in the car and every degree on the thermostat is a tiny little version of the big magic button? Kudos for the analogy, but once again, the indirect blood on our hands does not justify the more direct version. Having sinned via our lifestyles does not justify taking the plunge into a life of sin beyond all limits of common ethics.

And therein lies one of the psychological attractors of such arguements: the dominant culture operates on the premise that there are no limits to economic growth; and in order to support that conclusion, pretends that there are no limits to resources, no limits to the ability of ecosystems to absorb damage without harm. This feeling of limitlessness is seductive. It is more seductive than sex, more seductive than drugs, more seductive than any other instinct gratification. It is the ultimate form of hedonism.

But given that it is fatally flawed, and the fatalities of the flaws will escalate in short order, BW offers to trade one fiction of limitlessness for another: the fiction of limitless will, as practiced ultimately by throwing out all limits of common ethics. The hedonism of simple-minded sensuality is replaced by the hedonism of the berserker, who, like the suburbanite in the SUV, knows no limits to his behavior.

Yet the choice between the hedonism of ecocide and the hedonism of homicide is a Hobson's choice, which is to say no choice at all.

There is another option, which constitutes a real choice, and it is a choice that requires greater courage and greater will. The one resource that seems to be most thoroughly neglected in these discussions, is also a truly unlimited resource. It will fill the need for limitlessness without creating a zero-sum game, much less externalized costs or worse yet a state of lawlessness:

That limitless resource is love.

[max_power29]

I hate the race card! I had to accept a supervisory job to get the schedule I wanted (to be able to spend time with my family). Being supervisor sucks!

I agree Love will not work on members of the dominant culture/paradigm. Its like casting pearls before Swine and unfortunately this fact appears to make blistered whippet right.

[Chaparral]

Hmmm. Interesting thread this be.

It would seem that BW is adopting a rather behaviorist notion of just what the human mind is and is not hardwired to do. It seems that the majority of us are not real thrilled to actually kill another being, whether it's the hunter experiencing a twinge of remorse after taking his animal or the man who retches and vomits his lunch after killing another man on the battlefield. This and other evidence through the ages indicates a hardwired predilection towards not killing rather than one of bloodlust. I know hunter's remorse well (for game like rabbit or dove) yet at the same time, another living being (raccoons mainly) has caused me anger by tearing up my plants and killing my animals. I've patiently waited by premeditated, pre-planned kill zones into the wee hours of the morning so that I could slaughter families of them wholesale with zero remorse. It seems that my mind underwent a phase change of sorts and all regrets evaporated. What sorts of things might cause a similar "phase change of mind" in my fellow man?
Is there some innate mechanism by which the individual overcomes his or her inhibition before the act and remorse afterwards? One might argue that killing a racoon is not the same as killing a human, even one painted as the enemy but I know the change in my own mind and I know the society that created Bach and Beethoven and Goethe also constructed ovens and railways leading to those ovens to similarly liquidate others. I've read anecdotes of the Serb-Croat-Bosnia fiasco a few years ago where former teachers/athletes/countrymen were killing former students/team mates etc. This is alien to me and yet I've thought about it given the likelihood of TSHTF coming soon to a city near all of us. I sure would like to know more about the nature of my neighbors beforehand though. One thing common to all organized killing is the presence of that "community with it's meat-shields and hierarchies and moral orders and payroll etc". Someone was directing the killing from on high. It had to be engineered. It likely did not occurr spontaneously out of unfettered individual motive.

The cultural mechanisms of dehumanizing the other man so that he may more easily be killed is more likely a function of that large, hierarchically organized group with chieftains and payroll clerks that BW says will go away. The Hobbesian state does not appear to favor survival of even the lone berserker. If the berserkers get too numerous, the rest of the sheep will come together and become wolves and solve the problem. I see a sort of frequency dependent dynamic between group selection and individual selection here. Perhaps it should be stated that the Hobbesian state does not favor itself; it may not be evolutionarily stable. It may be invasible by that cohesive community that eradicates the lone gunmen. Like the succession of wildflowers to shrubs to young trees after a forest fire, a Hobbesian state may force the germination of tribes which then grow and mature into something larger and enduring.

BW's strategems and ideas parallel mine when I first figured out what TSHTF would mean for someone like myself trapped in a city like Los Angeles with no way to escape and no place to escape to (hence my resolve towards community Mr. G- that and I've experienced firsthand, a Hobbesian micro-state in the ghettos of South LA). I'm afraid that I would have to agree with our Greyhound friend were I to remain in that position (think Mexico City, pop 24,000,000+ when Cantarell runs out, the US border is militarized and the rains stop coming). The decision thus has been made to leave that dangerous environment, head north and cast my lot with "community" or "tribe" versus "rugged individual".

I would argue against BW's dismissal of community as the "new new mormonism". Organization seems to arise spontaneously out of chaos like algae in newly formed puddles of rainwater. If the poo has hit the rotating blade, I am finding a tribe to join, even if I have to join as a janitor. I will cover my fellow tribesmens' backs and they will cover mine; that is the deal. Lone berserkers will be given the raccoon treatment.

It is in the context of the collective that BW's notion of surreptitiously desensitizing oneself to killing might become the Mark of Cain on all who wear it. Tribes can have within themselves, their own Hobbesian theaters where intrigue, treachery and assassination create similarly unlivable circumstances. It is how I'd argue, Jack, that one could survive and even prosper within a garrison state. It is with this point in mind that I would have to respectfully disagree with gg3's solution of love. I have to honestly say that my knowledge of and experience with humanity over the years tells me that we are scheming, power-hungry pursuers of social status. Any long term plans for a community in the upcoming uglyworld must take this into account.

Within a tribe, those who combine Machiavellian proclivities with violence might also need to be given Chaparral's famous "raccoon treatment". Chapter 2 of Robert Greene's "The 48 Laws of Power" give an interesting view of this in the Courts of Louis XIV and the rise of the courtiers. I think Mr Greene's book is a mandatory read for all citizens of the tribe. I'd argue that transparency and a sort of evolutionarily-stable strategy of administration would be needed to counter the potential greyhounds in the yard (as a breed, greyhounds do not get along with other smaller animals you know...literally, they run them down and tear them to shreds). To counter the mindset of the BWs and Polestars of the world, our culture must seek to "innoculate" our tribesfolk (cooperators- to borrow the parlance of game theory) against the usurpers, sociopaths, powermongers (defectors) etc within them. If no such innoculation occurs, then the violent Machiavellian will rise to power and the channels of information flow will be manipulated and we will be back to premeditated organized killing.

[gg3]

Re. all those who say that love is impossible or absurd:

Fergus, "today's world" of Status-Usurping Vehicles and monster McMansions, is headed for the edge of the cliff with the accelerator pressed to the floor. In the world to come, the social contract for survival necessarily includes the willingness to go the distance for others. This is not idealism, it is pragmatism.

---

As I've said before, and note that this is an analogy to the present case: A society needs a balance between militarists (defined as advocates of warfare, in contrast to warriors who are the practitioners of warfare) and pacifists: Too many pacifists, and you don't fight when you should, and you end up in Darwin's Dustbin. Too many militarists and you fight when you shouldn't, and also end up in Darwin's Dustbin.

By way of the above as an analogy, a society also needs a balance between love and power. Too much of the former and it becomes so yielding that it melts. Too much of the latter and it becomes so rigid that it snaps. Here in this topic we speak of killing which is the ultimate exercise of power. Speaking of love is the necessary counterpoint in order to achieve balance.

Keep in mind that power is a limited resource and thus a zero-sum game: we cannot, for example, have two Presidents at once, or our town have two Mayors: there can be but one at a time. Our entire system of governance, which has survived 225 years including wars and depressions and near-brushes with tyranny, is based on the division of power and on its allocation through lawful processes. In places where checks and balances are not built into the system, power changes hands chaotically and with much bloodshed: those societies advance far more slowly if at all.

Who among us would disagree with this to the point that they would put their money & muscles where their mouths are and move from Europe or the UK or US, to a place such as Somalia...? (If there are no takers it can be assumed that my point here stands.)

And as I said in the previous posting, love is an unlimited resource, a positive-sum game. Though you may only have one spouse or partner, you can still have love for all members of your family both nuclear and extended, and for all of your friends and others who are near to you. Your love for your son does not diminish your love for your daughter. Your love of one friend does not diminish your love for another friend. In fact they are additive: each contributes to the others and strengthens them.

If we are seeking a place in our lives where we may exercise limitlessness without bringing about overshoot and dieoff, this is the place. Consumption is not limitless, nor is reproduction, nor is power, nor is thuggery. Love is limitless, as learning is limitless.

---

Chapparal, what you're talking about first off, is the difference between necessity and wantonness.

The soldier under fire overcomes the vomit reflex to defend himself and his fellow warriors. The hunter overcomes remorse thinking about his or her family or tribe in need of food. And you yourself, along with every other farmer, shoot possum and raccoons without guilt when they threaten the crops that would otherwise be destined for table or market.

The delinquint and the thug do it for thrills or for contract murder pay.

And those who stay in the megalopolis with the resolve to shoot first and ask questions later, most likely do it out of fear.

No doubt you were probably scared shitless at the thought of South Central boiling over like a chemical waste spill and engulfing Los Angeles whole. As I would be too, were I to stick around the Oakland area much longer, due to the close proximity of two places that are on the FBI's top ten list for violent crime.

We team up with others to form community and go to the country not only to reduce the risk of being hunted by thugs, but to multiply our strength by virtue of cooperation, proximity, and a clearly defensible border.

This is one of the key benefits of community: mutual defense and the strength of numbers to provide an actual deterrent. Berserkers are not likely to come near a place that has a reputation of being armed, trained, well-organized, and willing to fight.

The stance of community defense is, "We will not start it. But if someone starts it with us, we will take it to the finish and we will finish them off." All it requires is one or two instances of some attempted barbarian incursion ending up with a score of barbarian graves on the outskirts of town, and the word goes out: don't mess with these people, find someone else to loot and pillage.

---

In game theory, the most advantageous strategy in repeat-iteration mode is to meet cooperation with cooperation, and to penalize defection with time-delimited defection-in-return. A social fabric that balances love and power is one that is well equipped to play in this mode. In other words, it is a prerequisite for a winning strategy.