392. The Undercurrent Of War
War is perhaps… a term which can account for anything. Although we typically consider war being… well, the proper definition of war, we could also assume it’s simply tension, friction, anxiety or beyond between one or more things. As we know, we can often times be at war with our own selves. And perhaps if you have an issue within your home or out and about, you can be “at war” with inanimate objects, as well.
So what is “war”. I’m not entirely sure I will ever know the answer, but from what it feels like to me, it’s two energetic beings which are crossing over in their directions. One has an intention to go a certain way, and the other has an intention to go a different way. Btu in some way shape or form, they must “cross”. Because by all means, we are all going our own ways, often times unencumbered by other people, places and things. But at the intersection, or at a head, we have “war”.
I honestly think there can be so many ways to deduce different types of war, because they are all unique, but I want to look at things through more of a historical lens.
In terms of civil wars, or countries warring with each other, why is this the case?
When there’s a “peaceful” civilization, and I say that loosely, as any country which is starting a war with another one is not at peace. I’ll tell you right now, to start a war with something, you are not at peace. And perhaps it is for the good fo yourself, and maybe even for the good of the universe to start this war. A specific example that comes to mind is when other countries joined World War 2 in order to prevent future genocide. But part of me wonders if that was truly the case, or the war was started from a place of fear. Fear of being overtaken, fear of death. Sometimes bad intentions lead to good results, and vice versa. When they say all is fair in love and war, I think they mean it. But it’s more like all is valid in love and war.
So if there’s a deep fear and insecurity driving us to start a war, or continue a war, what is this precisely? The concept of control comes to mind. If you’re a country that has limited or lack of control, a perceived solution to doing this is to overtake another country. But the truth is, when a country overtakes another country at a point and place in time of energetic instability, this will always lead to a larger sense of instability. Kind of like how things which are too big, tend to fail. You need to resolve your own issues and problems first, before you expand. It’s just sound logic.
To address my argument regarding the undercurrent being racism, this is another interesting facet of war in general. We as people, want alliances. It’s integral for our safety and security. So whenever a war is started with another person, there’s a perception that this person is not an alliance. But in order for there to be a perception that another person or another group of people is not an alliance, there must be a discernible difference. This may be cultural, religious, or another physical difference. And again, this targeting approach is due to fear of insecurity and lack of control. You must overtake another person, place or thing to regain this control. And ultimately, the goal is, they will be just like you. And this power can carry out your will. I do find it interesting that we tend to attack others which do not look like us, primarily because i strongly believe that we al have energetic gifts and strengths which are identified by our physical features, and perhaps even gender. So physical appearance, particularly attributes and skin color, is unintentionally the “perfect storm” for being targeted. It’s visual, somewhat obvious, and again, a marker of our energetic strengths.
To put it simply: human beings inherently want alliances. War is a last resort. The only way we do not perceive us to have alliances is through energetic differences which are threatening, only if we ourselves inhabit old, negative or stagnant energies, or in other words, fear.
The other interesting aspect of this conversation is a split collective. What if hypothetically, one part of the collective is more evolved than another. And is it technically possible/ I do feel that at any given time, there are parts of the collective more evolved than others, as it represents the expansion and contraction that us humans go through often. We need a mix of both in order to move forward in the future.
Now that we’ve dissected the problem, what is the solution/ Well. It would theoretically solve racism. And I have to say… maybe it’s not realistic in my lifetime, but it can be accomplished. The way, from a metaphysical perspective, to solve racism, is to remove and release all fears that we have about our own energies, and the energies of others. Theoretically, it would be the… pinnacle of our evolution as a species. We would understand with great depth and knowledge why certain people look the way they do, and what energetic strengths they bring to the table. We would accept that although we do not inhibit these strengths ourselves, it’s important that someone or some people of the collective inhabit them. We would lift up others for these strengths, and cease to shame them. And at the end of the day, we would leverage our own innate strengths, and not be jealous or upset with others. Or wish we had different ones.
Maybe it is too large a feat in this lifetime. But what would it hurt to acknowledge and accept this? Could that be the antidote in itself? Granted, we can’t make the rest of the collective be forced into this process, but if anyone reading this right now can start to make a change, I do believe that inertia does permeate.
Remember that everything that we do comes from within. War externally is only a reflection fo war internally. And to resolve the war internally is quite scary in terms of this self-reflection, but it’s a necessary step.
