posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:48 PM
I hear people talk about peace and the abhorrence of war, but I'm not sure people truly understand what being able to have peace would entail.
Let's take a look at what peace is first.
I mean does peace mean the absence of war? If we had no wars tomorrow, would that mean we were at peace? How long till another one crops up?
Are little skirmishes among people enough to say that we aren't at peace?
These are all rhetorical questions because the reality is that no one (well, very few) would truly want peace.
The fact is that man is ruthless, selfish and brazen in attempts at garnering control and power over others.
Notice I said MAN as in mankind. There are men who are selfless, giving and care for their fellow man.
Unfortunately, it only takes one person to desire what another possesses or to covet another man's things for war to erupt.
What's the answer then?
The truth is that there is only one way for peace as most think of it to exist. There has to be a technology so advanced, so overpowering that no one
would have any hope of overcoming it by force.
Here's the problem with that. Who runs it? Who has control over it? What stops them from abusing it and becoming the all powerful ruler of
Is that what people want when they ask for peace? That's the only way that true peace can exist because as I said, it only takes one man to not be
happy with the status quo to say # it, let's start a revolution.
Why do you think that govts want to get guns out of civilian hands? for the safety of the people? Get over yourselves. If anything has been proven
throughout history, it's that govts can't be trusted with total authority. He with the guns right now has the authority.
Guns are the power as it stands right now.
What has stopped the USA from taking over the world? We have the firepower to.
Obama could go and carpet bomb the entire middle east and colonize it if he so chose. What's stopping him? His lack of desire? Nope. His good will
toward man? Nope. His fear of other nations? Partially.
No, the main thing stopping him is the people of the USA. That can change easily. More easily than most would like to imagine. The more authority we
give to govt, the less we hold in the people's hands, the closer that reality comes to fruition.
Does anyone honestly believe that the Germans would've been able to do what they did to their populace without taking guns out of their hands first?
Actually, a better question would be do you honestly think they would've been willing to TRY to do what they did if there was a well armed populace.
So the crux of the matter is this. There can be no peace without total superiority and that is NOT what advocates for peace really are wanting.
The closest thing to peace that the human condition allows for is for individuals and like minded individuals to have the means to resist tyranny and
the means to gather together to repel tyranny.
Every time I see people advocate for increased restrictions for the people to do just that, I cringe inside at their lack of understanding of the
reality of mankind.
I see people advocate for forced innoculations and I get sick to my stomach. You want people that think spending 1 trillion dollars more per year than
they take in and that have amassed so much debt that we can barely pay the interest on it to be able to force people to take a needle and be injected
with who knows what under the guise of stopping something that might or might not happen?
Then those people have the utter GALL to call those who don't want to be stuck with needles CRAZY???
Wow. Introduction to the opposite sketches. don't say "I don't know" (dating myself there).
That leads to why people would be so against liberty and the answer that keeps cropping up is fear.
People have been bred to fear. It doesn't matter what it is, acting out of fear is the most wrong thing imaginable. To quote a wise man "fear leads
to anger, anger to pain, pain to suffering, suffering to hate." j.k. to quote another one "the only thing to fear is fear itself".
What does that mean though??? Isn't that an oxymoron. I mean you're still fearing something right? I think a better way to put it, though less
fanciful and eloquent is, "The thing to be most wary of is acting out of fear".
What fear truly leads to is acting with a lack of reason, it can be paralyzing. What happened to promoting bravery? I just don't get it.
My second sky dive ever, I had to cut away and come down on my reserve chute due to a line over. My first jump was accelerated free fall. I never
jumped tandem and I never jumped static line. When I landed, I said, I'm jumping my level 3 AFF right now.
This is because I will not let fear dictate my actions. Why as a society are we allowing ourselves to act out of fear?
I've been in war, it isn't something to be glorified. But to allow injustice out of fear is far worse IMO, especially out of a false sense of
believing that peace is even possible. Instead of promoting for peace, let's instead promote for JUSTICE with a willingness to fight those ugly
disgusting wars because it is SO much more preferable to the disgusting, idiocy of giving into fear under a false guise of hoping for a peace that is
impossible to maintain without totally giving into fear.