Another Post About Peace
bzz bzz bzz war is the bzz mosquito bzz bzz of human folly bzz
It’s absurd that war is just “declared,” whereas peace requires “negotiation.”
Peace, for some reason, always requires a “process.”
Sometimes you have to “sue” for peace. Taking someone to court, in a way, makes you an aggressor, so, in a way, litigating the end of a war turns aggressors into defendants, and defenders into plaintiffs.
Once achieved, of course, peace becomes “fragile,” as though war is the default state.
Peace as rhetoric becomes defined as an absence of war.
War brings “fog.” Peace requires a “roadmap.”
For most of recorded human history, peace is the space between wars. Peace interrupts war.
“Resting in peace” means you’re dead. So, then, “resting in war” must mean you’re alive.
Peace is passive; war is active.
War’s seduction is erotic, from the network-news money-shot first-strike explosion, to the post-war economic “stimulation” (war is how to have your Keynes and eat it, too). For many a freewheeling government (democratic or otherwise), war solves way more political problems than it creates.
Not only does war eliminate “enemies,” it staves off (or pulls a country out of) recessions and depressions, advances technology at hyper-speed, and offers convenient good v. evil rhetoric to use as a cudgel to keep people on board with state-sanctioned violence.
As a cherry on top, war coddles despotic daydreams to burn enemy firehouses.
War abstracts the world beyond war. War commands your full attention, whether you’re in the middle of it or just rubbernecking on Twitter. War survives because the idea of it — a total and final way to get your way — is alluring enough to risk its destructive reality and wanton abandonment of one’s humanity.