The more I read about the armed rebellions of the last hundred years, I am stunned that I was completely unaware of them. I am also deep in thought while wandering through this colorful New England landscape as to whether removing the current powers, even if possible, would do anything to alleviate our issues. I am starting to get the feel that the creation of power vacuums just serve to suck in more people hungry for power.

Without a populace armed with advanced weaponry and intimate knowledge of the landscape, it is all too easy for the current powers to not only defeat opposition with the sword, but to use its honed propaganda machine to defeat it with the pen. And even if the populace wins its freedom, it immediately creates new governments to rule.

It’s a depressing thought: Man will always seek to rule man. Those that do not seek to rule others, will themselves be ruled.

And I wonder why I am opposed to this. What is the motivation behind my propensity to defend the weak? Why, if I know that the game is to claw my way to the top, do I resist? Is the conditioning not to play the game a tenet in the game to make winning easier for the victors, or is it unconditioned emotion to destroy the game that I can’t possibly win? Is the attitude advanced or antiquarian?

Yes, I really think about crap like this.

I watch crap like this.

Posted in Philosophical BS