In my experience, violence is perfectly acceptable in certain situations. For example, it takes good men skilled in violence to stop evil people from carrying out their crimes against children around the world.
It was just added so mods would not lean on me. In reality violence or the threat of violence is what underpins all of societies laws.
Something I took from book I liked Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez.
Behind every law is the implicit threat of force, and behind ever vote, is the implicit threat of rebellion. That's the bargain that holds a free society together, and no society with a large power imbalance remains free for long.
Democracy only arose when the ability to deploy force was decentralized.
If you go back to the middle ages, the state of the art weapon's system was the armored knight. He cost a fortune to train, feed, and equip, but a mounted armored knight could overpower almost any number of peasants on a battlefield. The distribution of political power in mid-evil society reflected this. Authority was vested in a tiny minority, and the people had no choice but to obey.
Then with the advent of gunpowder, that all changed. Suddenly you didn't need a highly trained specialist warrior to win on the battlefield. All you needed was a warm body who could fire a gun. Anything they could aim at, they could kill, and from that point the edge in warfare went not to highly trained warriors, but to the side that could field the most people, at which point we saw the rise of the nation state, and nationalism as a concept as a logistical requirement for fielding and ever larger conscripted army, but this changed the political dynamic. The nobles could no longer ignore the demands of their subjects. Those subjects now had to power to kill them, or to refuse to fight in their wars, so kings began to cede more power and authority to representative bodies of the people, like congress, parliaments and so on.
Very very well said and you're 100% right. What's said on here is monitored by dark forces looking for any opportunity to go after an anon. Luckily, what I posted was a paraphrased quote from Tim Kennedy 😁
Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the answer will not be violence. It will be avoidance or de-escalation. But that one time when violence is the answer, make no mistake, it will be the only answer. ― Tim Larkin
Yes, I think they have worked hard to make us not act as it makes it easier for them to run their agenda. Part of that is the reduction in testosterone in males.
In my experience, violence is perfectly acceptable in certain situations. For example, it takes good men skilled in violence to stop evil people from carrying out their crimes against children around the world.
It was just added so mods would not lean on me. In reality violence or the threat of violence is what underpins all of societies laws.
Something I took from book I liked Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez.
Behind every law is the implicit threat of force, and behind ever vote, is the implicit threat of rebellion. That's the bargain that holds a free society together, and no society with a large power imbalance remains free for long.
Democracy only arose when the ability to deploy force was decentralized.
If you go back to the middle ages, the state of the art weapon's system was the armored knight. He cost a fortune to train, feed, and equip, but a mounted armored knight could overpower almost any number of peasants on a battlefield. The distribution of political power in mid-evil society reflected this. Authority was vested in a tiny minority, and the people had no choice but to obey.
Then with the advent of gunpowder, that all changed. Suddenly you didn't need a highly trained specialist warrior to win on the battlefield. All you needed was a warm body who could fire a gun. Anything they could aim at, they could kill, and from that point the edge in warfare went not to highly trained warriors, but to the side that could field the most people, at which point we saw the rise of the nation state, and nationalism as a concept as a logistical requirement for fielding and ever larger conscripted army, but this changed the political dynamic. The nobles could no longer ignore the demands of their subjects. Those subjects now had to power to kill them, or to refuse to fight in their wars, so kings began to cede more power and authority to representative bodies of the people, like congress, parliaments and so on.
Very very well said and you're 100% right. What's said on here is monitored by dark forces looking for any opportunity to go after an anon. Luckily, what I posted was a paraphrased quote from Tim Kennedy 😁
One of my favorite quotes:
Yes, I think they have worked hard to make us not act as it makes it easier for them to run their agenda. Part of that is the reduction in testosterone in males.