Project Much?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As the commenter quoted in this post reveals, many of the problems women bemoan in relationships aren’t caused so much by men, but by women reading male behavior through a female lens (and yes, in the reverse, too, but this blog is aimed at women so that’s why this post is geared toward women.)

The concept is called projection, and it can be seen causing strife in male/female relationships in all sorts of ways.

The problem with projection is that often it flies under the conscious radar, so the person doing the projecting doesn’t even realize it.

One example could be how women obsess and will endlessly read the tea leaves of male behavior to determine if a guy is truly interested in her, or not.

At the same time guys say it’s as basic as, “if he’s talking to you, he likes you.”

So why the confusion? If they are honest with themselves, women often operate a so-called beta orbiter network. These beta orbiters are within the “let’s just be friends” zone, but girls will often pretend that maybe she likes him or could like him to get him to do boyfriend-like things for her (like take her out when she doesn’t have a “real” date or provide boyfriend-like emotional support.)

Sometimes (or depending on the girl, often) she’ll string them along with romantic gestures or some physical intimacy in order to gain favors or keep him on the hook as part of her “backup plan.” (Note, I am not saying it is good or fair to the guy. It’s not. At the same time it’s just something females do for some reason, so one has to consciously NOT do it. I suspect it is a subconscious safety thing, but again it’s just as unfair to do to a guy as it is for a guy to string a gal along.)

In turn, the beta orbiters may be projecting as well, believing that if she talks to him she likes him holds true for women, too.

As mentioned in the first linked post, women obsessing about whether a guy will leave her after he’s made a commitment or if he really likes her or not is a reflection of the fact that often women can and will leave a guy if a better one comes along or string a guy they don’t like romantically along in that very way. (Note: Yes, sometimes guys also don’t commit, but that’s for different reasons than why women break commitments or have beta orbiters.)

Compounding the issue is that most dating advice for women is rife with projection nonsense. In short, making it pretty worthless advice. Why? It’s usually written by women who are themselves projecting. (If you want relationship advice about guys that is much more helpful, seek it from a guy!)

Next time you find yourself spinning in your relationship, ask yourself if perhaps projection is to blame? The cool thing about recognizing projection is that once you start to be aware of it, you can see it all over!

Can you think of examples of projection? Or do you think it doesn’t exist?

(p.s. The Red Pill is often criticized as misogynistic, and while some commenters, bloggers, and participants on red pill forums may be that, in general it’s really not about saying “all men are evil” or “all women are evil” as much as it is looking at these subconcious/biological drives and behaviors of each gender and how they play out in real life. In fact, I believe being aware of them can help improve relationships, as well as help head off problems. The key thing is to not take these discussions personally.)

Is Sex Always for Sale?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week we discussed the topic of sugar daddy/baby relationships and what they reveal about gender relations when viewed through a red pill lens.

Today I stumbled across a blog by a former call girl who describes her career choice quite candidly, and in a way that challenges a lot of the commonly held stereotypes about the profession.

In this post she asserts there’s really little difference between a call girl/John relationship and a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend one except call girls are openly and honestly acknowledging it’s an exchange of sex for resources with one key difference — unlike with dating or marriage, with a call girl the exchange is guaranteed.

In fact she hints that’s exactly why “good” women object so strongly to prostitution: because it puts the exchange many such women don’t want to admit right out there in the open where it makes those who want to pretend it’s (and they’re) not like that extremely uncomfortable.

It’s an interesting insight as far as inter-gender relations, even if I am not so sure myself that it always boils down to the simple equation of a woman gives a man what he wants (sex and/or babies) in exchange for what she wants (provision and/or protection.) And actually in this post, she says similar, and goes into the topic of transactional sex and marriage further. Interestingly, she speculates that it is the idea that all sex should be based on true love/feelings and should never, ever be transactional that is behind many a divorce today.

Once again, like with the sugar post,  I am not advocating women choose (or not choose) to become call girls or for this to get into a discussion about morality or virtue.  What I am more interested in is the question — is all male/female sex basically a transaction on some level?

Perhaps this is why, or at least partly why, women’s right activists and feminists advocate for a woman’s right to have sex for free with anyone they choose without “slut shaming” but will in the next breath take a hard line against actual whoring, saying it’s always about oppression and victimization? (Not that it sometimes isn’t.) Is that not a contradiction?

Perhaps they equate free/casual sex with independence and sex in trade for money or provision/protection (like marriage) as dependence? Or do they object because it somehow reveals something about the feminine imperative they would rather not be out in the open?

Are modern women trying to blur the line between sex and resources because they want to be able to exercise their option to get the goodies and NOT make the trade? (For example, in the sexless marriage.) Or to exercise the option to make the trade, when they want to, minus goodies? (For example, to be able to have casual or no strings sex without the social judgement of days gone by.) To have a sort of sliding scale approach, where some guys “pay” nothing while others “pay” dearly, based on how attracted she is to him? (the AFBB model)  Or are they simply trying to get an upper hand in the gender balance, exploiting their options as fully as possible while at the same time trying to limit men’s?

Her argument brings to mind an old saying once commonly said by mothers to daughters, which (in a seemingly opposite but perhaps similar way) feminists rally against because it also hints at this transaction nature of sex. “Why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?”

It’s an interesting topic to ponder, I think. What do you think — is sex between women and men basically always about a transaction? And if so is that a fair exchange, or not?

(And if you did not click on the link and read the post that this post is in response to before, I highly recommend you do so before commenting whether you agree with her or not, just for purposes of discussion.)

 

 

 

 

Why Are Good Guys So Hard to Find?

Tags

, , , , , ,

I often hear women say good guys are hard to find. Interestingly I also know a lot of good guys who say they wish they had a girlfriend or wife, but they don’t have much luck with women. Where is the disconnect?

Women say it’s the men, men say it’s the women. But I think it’s more to blame on how gender relations have been turned upside down over the past 40 plus years than anything. Everything seems to be all backwards these days, and as far as I can see it’s not working out all that great, either!

I have even seen it in person. A former neighbor of mine has been chasing her “bad boy”  for several years now. Meanwhile she on and off dates another guy who is a really great guy — and he thinks the world of her — but she says the attraction just isn’t there. He’s good looking, has a great job, is a devoted father to his kids (he’s divorced), I can’t see what there is NOT to be attracted to! (And of course, when her bad boy is out of the picture or has once again left her in the dust, who does she call?)

One thing I have noticed about good guys is they are often pretty subtle, as in they often act more like a friend than a romantic interest. In fact I myself have had guy friends, great guys, who in retrospect I realize probably were hanging out with me not for company but because they were hoping it would turn into something more. But without them ever “making a move” I truly believed (before the manosphere clued me in) that they actually just wanted to be friends. Apparently from what the guys have told me, single guys rarely hang out with ladies they have no attraction to.

So ladies, if you want a good guy, my advice would be to take a look around at the guy friends in your life who just might be waiting for you to send them the green light while you are clueless that they are interested. Of course we girls are told over and over not to make the first move, but the trouble is the good guys have been told not to be too pushy, or a creeper, or to harass the ladies. And so…usually nothing happens.

And have you ever noticed that bad boys, meanwhile, seem to have no problem harassing the ladies? I mean flat out brazen bold about it. And they are rarely without a female companion –or several at once! (That’s exactly why one of the main concepts of “game” is to teach good guys how to act more like bad boys!)

Anyway not that I have all this figured out myself but I do know this: there are lots of good guys out there who are currently single and completely being overlooked. They may not be the flashiest guys in the crowd, but the best kept secret is good guys make great boyfriends and husbands!

Maybe some of the good guys around here can enlighten us: how does a gal get a good guy to break the ice? Is it bad to make the first move? Do guys really want to be “just friends” with the gals they hang out with most of the time? Have the good guys just given up? What would it take to get them to take the chance and how to do it? I truly do think we ladies are missing something here…

 

 

 

 

Is Everything Old New Again?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Somehow I recently stumbled upon information about a growing new market in online dating: sugar daddy/sugar baby websites.

Now for starters don’t get me wrong here, I am not endorsing such an approach, nor advocating women sign up for a sugar daddy website.

But there is something about it that is all very red pill somehow, although I am not sure I can put it into words. Not that it’s stopped me before, lol, so I will try.

Something I find really interesting about it is the outrage from feminists in particular about the idea. Seems it flies smack in the face of the “single independent woman” mantra.

As if somehow it’s OK to have a “sexually positive” relationship with a man, but only if it also contains no expectations of provision or protection in return.

Somehow one night stands and casual hookups are completely ok, without any emotional ties or connections, but God forbid a woman have a more traditional relationship where she is in an exclusive committed relationship with man who cares for her emotionally, physically, and/or financially because that would be akin to oppression, or prostitution, or something.

The almost schizophrenic reasoning behind it can be seen all over in both popular culture and society at large. Young girls are encouraged to explore their sexuality, freely, and for free, no strings attached a la Sex in the City while the young married stay at home mom is seen as some sort of outdated oddity who couldn’t possibly be happy.

In a weird way the sugar baby rules of “no nookie until a financial agreement is struck” seem almost refreshingly Victorian in a casual sex world. Ironically, it’s the gals who sign up for such sites but try to play the game by today’s rules (give up nookie, hope for an arrangement in return) who seem to be the ones complaining of getting “taken advantage of” by sugar daddy’s who then disappear. (Surprise!) Boo hoo. No Louboutin shoes or Gucci bag to show for it, either! Waaa. (BTW: there are much more important things in life, but that’s another post…)

Again, don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a sugar baby lifestyle is the way to go. But a return to a more traditional relationship dynamic where expectations of provisioning and protection proceed physical relations might not be such a bad idea after all.

What do you think, readers? Is it wrong for a woman to expect provision or protection? Old fashioned and outdated? Does that make a woman a victim? A user? Cheapen her? Turn sex into a transaction?

And what about from a male point of view? Is it exploitation if a woman says no agreement, no kitty? Or is it all-in-all a livable deal?

Talk amongst yourselves…

A Red Pill Wedding?

One of my college roommates approached getting married with what I considered at the time, a very unromantic view. Rather than looking for love or to be swept off her feet, she approached the entire process almost as if it were a job interview.

She’s been raised in a traditional upper middle class family. Her dad was an engineer, her mom had a degree but stayed at home after marriage. She had two biological siblings and two adopted ones. She attended a private Catholic girls school and was just finishing up her Master’s degree when we met. Technically she had finished her classes but was doing her student teaching to gain enough on the job experience to get her certification.

I wouldn’t say I knew her well, and we only lived together about 8 months before she fulfilled her goal of finding someone, getting engaged, and getting married. I lost track of her soon after, so I can’t really say how that all worked out.

Looking back though, with a red pill perspective, I can see she realized then what I myself did not — that at 23 (from a male point of view) she was at the physical prime of her life.  She guarded her virginity closely, and she bragged about it openly. (She had a long term, 3+ years, boyfriend in college who never proposed, so I often wondered exactly how “virgin” she was but…perhaps technically? Who knows!)

She was blonde, with big blue eyes, and a petite figure. She wasn’t drop dead gorgeous, but she certainly wasn’t unattractive either. She knew how to and consciously did make the most of the assets she had.

I can’t remember how she met her fiance, this was before online dating, but I do remember he fit her very detailed criteria. At the time it seemed so calculating to me, the “hopeless romantic” that she would choose her life mate based on such cut and dry things like his education level, current earnings, future earning potential, adequate but not jaw-dropping looks, and appropriate social status.

They went on a few dates, all the while she made it very clear to him that her goal was she was seeking marriage and to be a stay-at-home wife and mother.

At the appropriate 6-month dating mark, he presented her with the appropriate sized ring, in a socially approved “romantic” way (“surprised” her at a local park after going on a hike.) Truth be told, I am sure he knew that if he did not propose, she would cut him loose and continue her search. She was not at all bashful about putting her expectations out there, and she had a solid sense of her MMP “worth.”

The one missing piece, that he was not raised Catholic, was soon addressed when he enrolled in classes that would make him a confirmed Catholic by their wedding date.

They married in a traditional Catholic wedding, white gown, in the church, etc.

As I have said, the whole thing kind of yucked me out at the time, it seemed too calculating, and she seemed kindof shallow to me, so I did not keep in touch. Truth be told I felt for her fiance, who truly was a really nice guy, and worried she was getting the better part of the deal and he was signing up to be the draft horse to make her dreams come true.

Four years or so later I ran across them at a party at our other former roommate’s house, and was surprised they only had one two-year-old daughter by then, with no immediate plans for another child. They lived in the “right” neighborhood, had the “right” friends, were part of the “right” social circles. She had the life she wanted, had planned for, had aimed for. On the surface anyway, they seemed happy.

Looking back on it I suppose at least from her point of view, it was a red pill wedding. She recognized her SMP/MMP market value, protected it, promoted it, and cashed it in at her peak. Whether it was a red pill wedding for her mate, well that is another story I will leave to the guys to discuss.

Personally I still find myself thinking it was all a bit too formulaic and calculating. I would have preferred to see more evidence of “true love” or them being “soul mates” but who am I to judge? Especially after seeing many friends swept up to their doom by such feelings with guys who never offered anything more than a handful of Skittles and an, “I’ll call you…sometime.”

What do you think, reader? Was she wiser than her years, or did she play it all wrong?

Let those who have ears hear.

—————

p.s. And so of course I had to look them up, via social media, and I see they have two children, a teen girl headed off to college and a pre-teen boy, and they are still together posting pictures of the family body boarding in the surf at an exotic location for New Years! To her credit, she pretty much looks the same now as she did then! And they look happy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Feminism Can’t Work

Feminism, the idea that women can do or be anything that men can be, that women and men can be the same and equal in every way, can’t work because it is based on a flawed premise to begin with.

Men and women are not exactly the same minus the genitals. Men and women are different right down to a cellular level — XX or XY.  Men and women are biologically different, and that’s an undeniable scientific fact.

That’s not to say women and men can’t be separate but equal. Or that either male or female is “better” or “best.” More like they are two halves of one whole.

Things would actually work a lot better if women would recognize and accept this rather than continue to demand the government make everything equal, as if the government is some sort of parent who has to make sure everything is “fair.”

Women actually have the easier part of the deal, to manage home and hearth, so I am not sure why they demanded to go out to work everyday, fight on the front line, or do all those things men do (and are made to do that women are not) anyway.

At best a feminist world will never truly be self sufficient, equal, and autonomous.  Feminism will always require an outside force, likely government and a socialist system, to make it work. If women give up on the provision and protection of invividual men, they will still demand it collectively from all men.

And that’s not really fair or equal, now is it?

Let those who have ears hear.

How Feminism Nearly Ruined my Life

Tags

, , , , , , ,

One reason why I started this blog is because I wanted to share my personal experience of how feminist beliefs have played out in my own life negatively, and in the lives of other women (and men!) I know. I would even go as far as to say feminism nearly ruined my life. I can directly account my being divorced and a single mom to its poisonous teachings.

And it started even before I was born. My own mother was of the boomer generation, and while she herself did not follow the feminist path and choose to be a wife and mother instead, she always seemed to feel like she had “missed out” on the things her two sisters who did not have children were able to do. Most especially my mom was bitterly jealous of her oldest sister, the only girl in the family who went to college and then spent her life working as a high school teacher.

My aunt taught home economics, so she was still somewhat traditional, but she and her husband (who worked for IBM) were your typical dual-income-no-kids (DINK) couple. They lived in a fancy house that was impeccably furnished with white carpet and white furniture. They traveled the world on my aunt’s summer breaks, and basically spent their entire lives indulging their every self-absorbed whim. They didn’t need to think about anyone else, and so they didn’t. My mom didn’t hide the fact that she thought my aunt had it all, and she hated her for it.

My mom didn’t really seem to like being a mom, and she clearly resented the burden of having children. She tried yo pass this view of mothering on to me, doing her best to tell me at every opportunity not to destroy my own life by having kids (Implied: like she had done. Ouch.) She raised me to be a good little feminist, to put my education and career before all else.

Even after I married she advised me never to trust my husband to be there for me, but to always be on guard with him, to always have my own income, and to always be on the lookout for him oppressing me and holding me back. If I was unhappy or when things weren’t going well, instead of advising me to work on my marriage or saying that sometimes tough times just happen and this too shall pass, she urged me to divorce, to unburden myself of male oppression. Not exactly the best way to approach a marriage.

Likewise, because of the negative view she (and feminism in general) painted of motherhood, I was in no hurry. When I finally decided to have a child at age 33, I can remember my mom acting more like I had ruined my life than her being happy. Perhaps her only joy in my becoming a mother was that she finally had something to lord over her sister — a grandchild. She made a very big deal of that, making sure her sisters without children knew these were HER grandchildren and her reward for “suffering” though raising her own kids. (We largely raised ourselves actually and did all we could not to burden her further with our presence.)

Despite this big show, she rarely ever visits HER grandchildren despite living only 20 minutes away, and she never offers to take them or spend time with them. She prefers instead to show her love by showing up at birthdays and holidays, swooping in with lots of gifts, taking photos which she posts on Facebook, and then quickly departing.

Over and over again my mom has always qualified her own parenting and then grand-parenting by saying she “couldn’t give what she didn’t get.” She feels absolutely no remorse at all for her attitude, and feminism only supports her view that she is most important, that it is all about her, that being a perpetual self absorbed 14-year-old girl is perfectly OK. It’s her “right” to choose freedom from any familial responsibility.

I am not saying all this to bash or disrespect my mom, although I could see how it might seem that way. In reality I feel sorry for her. She’s been poisoned by feminism, too, and that point of view has led to her resenting her own family rather than seeing it as a blessing.

She’s missing out on so much, big chunks of her children’s and grand children’s lives. The opportunity to bond and create relationships with us. To belong to something bigger than herself. Rather than heal her own childhood lack by being or doing different, she only replays it via denying her own children and grand children any maternal attachment or nurturing. I used to reach out to her, to try and have a relationship, but after numerous painful rebuffs, I stopped. Now I leave our relationship up to her. I am happy to see her when she comes around, but I don’t ask for anything more than she herself is willing to give. And that is not much.

My mother’s attitude colored my brother’s view of women and family so much that he never married or had kids. He’s struggled his whole adult life, trying to reconcile all of this.

In real life very few people know that I have these feelings. Every once in awhile someone I know will ask where my mom lives, assuming it is across the country because they have never met her or heard me talk of us doing family things. It’s embarrassing to see the shock on their faces when they realize she lives locally.

Ironically, there are several women in my life who didn’t have children themselves who are my mom’s age that spend much more time with me and my kids than she does. We’ve all sort of adopted each other. These two women followed the feminist path themselves, and while they both accomplished much in life, they now seem to regret that they don’t have a family legacy but a dead end. The older they get, the more acutely they seem to feel it. One is a widow and in her late 70s. She really worries who will be there for her if she ever becomes ill or can’t care for herself. Besides her older brother who lives in assisted living himself, she’s literally all alone in the world. And she knows it. I tell her I would be there for her, and she seems to find great comfort in that. And I would be there for her, just like she’s been here for me.

While I was pregnant with my first child, I spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of mother I wanted to be. I decided I wanted to be the mother I never had, to do my very best to give my own children what I didn’t get, to never play my own lack forward. I never want my own children to feel the pain of feeling like a burden, and I tell them often how much I love them and what a blessing they are to me. I tell them how happy I am to be their mother, how wonderful they are, and how proud of them I am. It brings me such joy to see their little faces light up at those words. It heals me to be the mom I wished I had myself.

And someday I hope that I will also be the grandmother I wish they had, that I can be there for them, support and encourage them in their marriages, encourage them to embrace family as a blessing not a curse, watch the grand kids so they can enjoy date nights, and to encourage them to put their husband and children first, to build their house upon that rock and not their careers.

When I was expecting my first I found a quote by Jacqueline Kennedy that I think pretty much sums it up: “If you bungle raising your children, I don’t think whatever else you do matters very much.”

Regardless of what feminism may say about that, I think truer words were never spoken. The older I get, the more strongly I believe that. And that feminism is at the root of so many of the problems we see in society today.  Babies don’t belong in daycare, they belong in their mother’s arms. A society who teaches moms and dads otherwise is shooting itself in the foot.

Let those who have ears hear.

 

———-

 

p.s. I know many women today would say they don’t have a choice to do the above, because their mate is unwilling or unable to provide for them so that they can. That “men aren’t men anymore.” And it’s likely true.  Today women are raised to work  and have a career, and men have been raised to expect and accept this, also. Again, I would say that’s the result of feminism. Women actually wanted that, demanded that. A pretty bum deal all around, if you ask me! But that’s a whole other post….

 

 

 

 

Male Lives Matter

Did you know that suicide is the leading cause of death in men under the age of 45 in England, and the second leading cause of death in The United States for those under age 34?

Men also commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 in England, and as the chart on this page shows, of the 6500 U.S. suicides in the 35-44 age bracket, over 5000 of them were men.

And yet, where are the public information programs about male suicide? Where are the programs targeted at helping lower male suicide rates? Where are the support groups and other resources for men contemplating suicide? Where is the research into why men commit suicide? Where is the month football players wear red to help raise awareness of male suicide?

You’d almost think male lives don’t matter based on the lack of attention paid to this very real health threat. What does that say to the man pondering taking his own life?

Male lives do matter. And they matter just as much as female lives.

It’s time to rid ourselves of the thinking that any attention given to male issues somehow takes away from women’s issues. That men don’t need support because they have male privilege.

As the suicide rates clearly show, being male isn’t easy. And the fact that this very preventable leading cause of male death is getting zero attention is a disgrace.

Male lives matter just as much as female lives matter. If they don’t, the femanist rallying cry of equality is nothing but a cover for female supremacy, not equality.

So feminists, which is it?

Let those with ears hear.

———-

p.s. Sadly, if this post was written by a man, he would very likely be accused of being a misogynistic woman hater. Men can’t even speak up for themselves without risk to their professional and personal lives. Ladies, this needs to end. We need to speak for men if they are not socially allowed to speak for themselves! Male lives matter! All lives matter, or none do.

Addicted to Choice?

Have you heard of “choice addiction?” It is the paradox caused by an abundance of choice. Rather than leading to happiness, more choices seem to lead to never ending angst over which choice is “best” instead.

In relationships and especially marriage, choice addiction can lead to a dangerously dissatisfied non-committal attitude long after a commitment was supposedly made. Other options are considered after the door is supposed to be closed.

I have watched women endlessly go around and around in their own mind, questioning the choice she’s made in a mate, wondering if he was the right choice, wondering if there is a better choice? Meanwhile such internal strife ironically is what destroys any hope of living in and enjoying the moment.

Serial monogamy, casual relationships, and no-fault divorce just add to the choices. When social norms looked down upon such practices, women were more likely to choose thoughtfully and then embrace the choice she’d made, making the best of her situation. Today women are encouraged almost to walk away over the slightest dissatisfaction, to seek a “better” choice.

Choice addiction is an illusion. More choice, unending choice, and choice churn don’t lead to happiness. There is no magical, mystical “perfect” choice. In fact the best choice of all seems to be to accept and embrace a choice once made. To ignore and dismiss any further choices.

So if you find yourself slipping into the choice addiction mindset,  remember — more choice isn’t necessarily better. And that every choice, even the best choices, include ups and downs, pros and cons, and pluses and minuses.

Studies show that it’s actually easier to find happiness and satisfaction when choice is limited versus when choice is abundant. In the current anything goes world, it may be those who choose not to consider their other choices who find  the greatest contentment and joy in life.

Let those who have ears hear.

Can Violence Create Peace?

If anyone wishes the world could just do one big group hug and be done with war and violence and  conflict, it’s me.

I have long struggled to understand why violence exists in an enlightened world, why the seemingly primitive and barbaric practice of war has not gone by the wayside in civilized modern life.

In fact it’s my own inability to comprehend the purpose of violence that led to my continued pondering of its possible role and meaning.

I am a big believer that the world works the way it does because somehow something about even the most seemingly irrational behavior actually works on some level. And not only works, but works enough that it more works than it doesn’t work.

On a macro scale, that’s what the red pill is about. It is about questioning, examining, and in turn understanding the way things actually work as a way to navigate life rather than approaching life as we wish it worked, were told it should work, or how we believe it could work. How it actually works. The truth, regardless of how bitter, unpopular, or unpalatable that may be.

Why bother? Why subject oneself to that rather than put on rose colored glasses? Because as good as rosy colored glasses may feel at the time, they inevitably lead to a much more painful or pricey outcome than facing the cold hard facts of life head on and acting accordingly.

The Red Pill often focuses on gender and relationship dynamics between men and women, but it actually goes far beyond that. One could argue it applies to nearly every aspect of life.

Which brings me back to the question of violence. What purpose could violence serve? Is there any upside to violence?

It suddenly came to me that it’s the threat of violence, and if that fails actual violence, that creates peace, stability, and civilization. As paradoxical as that may seem. It’s the threat of violence that keeps violence at bay.

When threatened on a personal or national level, shying away from the threat of violence or if necessary the use of violence to restore order will not lead to peace or resolution. In fact, wavering early or ignoring reality only leads to bigger problems requiring even more violence to bring things back to order, to restore peace and stability.

So while I abhor unnecessary violence, I no longer cling to the Pollyanna notion that violence has no place in a peaceful world.  Without the willingness to counter senseless violence and threats to peace with the use of force, there would be nothing but escalating war unending. The true triumph of evil.

Let those who have ears hear.

 

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started