Although world peace is inevitable, it really doesn't come from this path.
It isn't just that lies / false flags have gotten us into wars, it is the people that wanted an outlet for their repressed aggression, angst and anger.
If we truly want to stop wars, we need to have little boys beat each other up.
No, really!
When a boy picks on, belittles, derides, bullies, or in other words, they were looking for a fight, the one being a victim should turn to his fists, if words cannot work out the disagreement.
Currently we punish both children for fighting, even though one of them was a victim.
We have made it all but a crime to defend yourself. You are not allowed to defend yourself from "your" govern-cement. Even when it is wrongfully and knowingly doing ill.
World peace has to start at this level.
All the other levels are ineffectual.
I understand this quite well, and it doesn't change the effectiveness of the steps I outlined here. I would, however, be very interested to hear an explanation of how - when the people stop supporting war with their thoughts/feelings/ideas, stop endorsing war with their votes (2-party system), stop honoring war, stop volunteering for war, and stop paying for war - how this will in fact not bring peace as you claim. I am very interested indeed, to hear how exactly this won't bring peace, b/c it seems to me if enough people did all of that, there would have to be peace - war would be impossible. If enough people decide war is over, and choose peace, war will be over, it's as simple as that.
So the answer to violence on a large scale is to teach violence to children on a smaller scale? I do agree it is better for men to fight with fists than kill each other in war, but certainly teaching children to work through their disagreements with violence rather than words is NOT the solution to war - which is also an attempt at solving disagreements with violence rather than words...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but isn't this pretty much exactly how every war ever waged began? Turning to violence when "words cannot work out the problem"?
What you are missing is some basic, underlying principals.
Anti-war ≠ peace
If you do not handle anger, frustration and other negative emotions by getting them out, then you repress them, and that creates a LARGER outlet of collective repressed rage.
You are equating what i said to violence. When, the best paths are not violent. Unless you consider martial arts violent. If so, then you will never attain peace.
Wrestling is one of the best things to teach to young boys.
Which is just a specific term for rough-housing.
Next, young boys need to be taught to defend themselves. And for boys, this often means resorting to fisty-cuffs.
Remember, that govern-cement schools are all about violence. Every single piece of it is violence perpetrated against the children. And we teach young boys that they cannot defend themselves. That they are helpless.
So, yes, the answer to large scale violence is to teach boys to defend themselves, even if that means using physical violence.
Of course, i also suggest actually teaching children about win-win negotiation and actually working out conflicts.
Well I do agree with your points in this response for the most part. I still don't understand how the steps I laid forth won't accomplish the same thing. Of course forgiveness entails working through anger issues. And yes martial arts is great for that, punching bags also work well to get out anger without ever physically fighting another human being.
Also the reason I spent so much time explaining the importance of dwelling on peace rather than protesting war and exposing the warmongers is that I know anti-war does not equal peace. World peace comes after inner peace, and obviously those of us who have much repressed anger/rage and other negative emotions have not yet attained inner peace.
I am certainly WELL aware that gov. schools are all about violence - gov. is the monopoly of force. And yes boys AND girls need to be taught self defense, I do not disagree.
However there is a fine line between defense and revenge. To "turn the other cheek" courageously in the face of a bully I would argue takes away the bully's power. It breaks the cycle of violence. And yes a bully beating up someone smaller than himself is an act of violence in my book.
We can learn self defense and also still learn to love our enemies, and hopefully never need to use our self defense skills to take another life. Because even in cases of absolute self defense, killing another man or woman leaves a deep inner wound we will have to work through and heal, a scar that will remain with us for a very long time if not our whole life.
Words are powerful, and can solve most problems and disagreements between people. I would argue that not only is the problem that gov. schools punish victims for standing up to the bully by fighting back, but also "political correctness" in this society being pushed to such an extreme that so many people refuse to offend others with their words, or even simply refuse risking offending someone. The crackdown on free speech leads, imo, to increased violence. Those who suppress their true feelings in order to 'not offend' those around them, will likely express those feelings in acts of violence later on... When we are not 'allowed' to argue and debate with each other is the day we begin physically fighting each other.
I understand your point of view much better know, and I think the wording of your 1st reply just threw me off from where you were coming from. And in case you were wondering, I also happen to be a well armed pro-gun peace activist. I think we are actually far more in agreement than disagreement... Thanks for the interaction! Take care.