On Neutral Pragmatism Pt 3

[iamthey]

Part One: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=59837

Part Two: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=59913

On Politics & Peace:

The nature of the political is that of struggle. It is only in this environment of struggle that the political can therefore exist. By struggle I am referring to the clash of two concepts of form, or rather two conceptions of the ideal, and the many different roads to achieving such an ideal. All conflict in this world, be it open debate, and oratory designed to win the hearts and minds of others, forms of negotiation and diplomacy, or out right war are merely manifestations of the same conceptual battle being waged within the political. As truth is an assertion of force it is in this way through struggle that one conception of truth emerges; in this regard the political is always a competition of strength and the victorious party within it is always the strongest. If a weaker party is to prevail it is never because they were weak but in fact because they possessed a hidden strength.

Of course it is not always clear cut; many parties may struggle against one another, some will invariably merge, and ally themselves against others while some will dissolve altogether and form new groups based on their interactions with other parties. At times no party may prevail so surely as to totally eradicate all competition but may only temporarily gain dominance only to be plunged into the decline by their sea of rivals. This same reality applies not only to what is traditionally thought of as politics, but also on the international level. Where rather than individuals and groups rivaling for dominance there are nations and corporations. And rather than oratory and revolution there is merely diplomacy and war both two sides of the same coin that we call politics. In this way the world stage is inherently socially darwinistic, as only the strong be it in their ability to garner respect or their ability to propagate fear are the ones capable of surviving and asserting their own standard of truth upon the world.

On the matter of peace as a cause. There are two distinctly different notions of peace the first is the peace that comes when the political ceases to exist. This occurs when one party has vanquished all competition and is left to assert its will over all. Intermediary periods in between war could not accurately be called times of peace as they are simply periods of struggle within the political realm where war remains a possibility and there is still the near certainty that war will eventually come. The second is the notion of peace as a cause. This form of peace is itself a lie; as it betrays its own nature. The cause of peace is not really pursuing peace for it is making peace the subject of struggle. By participating within the political the promoters of peace have missed the point, and have decided to make peace a concept of form to be imposed upon the world. However in doing so they must simultaneously challenge all other conceptions of form as in order to truly achieve peace one conception (In the case of peace as a cause it must eliminate those who would utilize war or are capable of doing so) must vanquish all others. For peace is not in it of itself a conception of truth but rather it is as I said the absence of struggle. As peace must challenge the right of all others to struggle for their own cause it therefore must by its nature subjugate all others. While some groups may do so voluntarily many would never agree to remove their ability to ever struggle for what they advocate, as such the promoters of peace must hypocritically utilize the most direct form of political struggle, war. In this way those who promote peace as a cause must in doing so initiate the single greatest war in human history, that being a war against all those who would ever utilize war for any reason. Moreover it must thereafter maintain total and absolute dominance over the whole of the international arena; this is the only way war can truly be ended. In this regard war must be accepted for as long as there is struggle there will always be times that mere words are not enough and direct confrontation is required to either support words and agreements, or to repel the forces of aggressors.