Thank you posthumously to all members of the military who have lost their lives for public safety, and to all of their loved ones who must deal with the challenges accompanying that honorable sacrifice.
While not a warrior in the militaristic sense, as a responsible entertainer, I sometimes operate as an informational warrior who understands that sometimes the “pen is mightier than the sword”.
I try to maximally responsibly risk my safety to challenge powerfully dominant conventional wisdom that superficially forms the image of public safety, while it demonstrates the opposite to primarily serve relatively powerful self-interests.
A key result of my serious path-paving effort spanning a bulk of my life and strongly counting (like working through brutally challenging terrain) is scientific constitutionalism.
Scientific constitutionalism is a seed of pure logical truth that, upon growing traction, brings the tried-and-true scientific method leveraged powerfully in technology to the area of constitutional law — so healthily growing absolute language constructs (e.g. naturally given and unalienable right to liberty) to form just law.
Logic (i.e. certainty) is critical, even despite the unpopularity of logic at times, because without logic, there can be no fairness, so no justice.
While logic can be abused via the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam, and that abuse must obviously be maximally negated, logic is the only path towards mutually peaceful understanding. Otherwise, persuasion must be achieved by some form of brute force (euphemized or not). In other words, irrationality is unavoidably the weaponizing of meaning.
When language is unclear, so inevitably too is law, and that is a horrible fundamental problem still being completely publicly ignored, at least for all intents and purposes.
The need to protect honorable members at risk of dying in combat is paramount, and that starts with improving human behavior.
That improvement cannot be coerced by elitists who sometimes launch military efforts to subjectively define risk and harm to form liberty-infringing law, both ostensibly to protect elitist power entrenchment in the guise of public safety.
That improvement comes from society educating society about the basics of abuse itself in a manner that sensibly removes the incentive to be abusive to the fullest extent possible.
Those basics are universally anchored to what I call the Rule of Reality (RoR).
Not mysticism nor pseudo/junk science by any measure, the RoR is a purely scientific conclusion that matches reality’s need for balance to maintain its demonstrably flawless stability.
Literally all known systems (considered living or not), from the largest through tiniest scales, require balance for stability. And there is no reason to believe that reality itself (i.e. actuality as the totality of existence — logically the ultimate system of systems) is any different.
Ample scientific evidence proves that reality includes a balancing (so naturally fundamentally governing) force towards correcting abusive behavior — i.e. there can be no “free lunch” when it comes to being abusive (actually being dominant in general), hardcore scientifically speaking — as opposed to mystical or religious approaches easily dismissed by way of personal disbelief, so not always effective.
‘Every action is an opposite and equal reaction’ is a fundamental law of physics, and a major piece of evidence that supports reality’s need for balance.
Mainstream science only supplies evidence that reveals a reality of pure energy (one where the total amount of energy is zero due to balance) — i.e. from humanity’s perspective, reality is a balanced ocean of energy that seamlessly includes us all.
Moreover, the modulation of energy naturally includes balancing (e.g. a steady sine wave modulates up and down in equal, so balancing, measure), so forms another major piece of scientific evidence towards reality’s fundamental need for balance.
Prime examples that prove reality is pure energy come from Einstein’s most famous equation that provides mass-energy equivalence (as basically demonstrated by a nuclear explosion), particle/wave duality in quantum physics (i.e. particles act as waves), quantum field theory (which says particles are fields of energy), and string theory (a prominent theory stating a particle is a modulation).
Moreover, and unfortunately unpopularly, there has literally never been one objectively proven boundary, so any boundary is subjective, while the physical neurological (and/or computational) processes that form such subjectivity logically remain pure energy.
Pain is ultimately energy.
Pleasure is ultimately energy.
War is ultimately energy.
Peace is ultimately energy.
Domination is ultimately energy.
What too many people still fail to learn due to lacking education, or a preference for the “liberty” to be ignorant, is ‘suffering out’ is ‘suffering in’ (and ‘dominance out’ is ‘dominance in’) within a balanced reality, so nobody gets away with murder (for prime example), regardless of avoiding humanity’s punishment system.
There is literally no way to get away with corruption, hardcore scientifically speaking.
Feel free to read that last sentence, if need be to powerfully absorb it for life, and then invitingly share it with anyone basically of any age who is capable of that absorption and sharing.
In other words, if you cannot handle being the tortured, then do not be the torturer, because dominance is always spent and solely fully paid for via being dominated in strict accordance with reality’s need for balance — regardless of any cleverness and/or such.
Always spend dominance as wisely as possible, even despite the unavoidably relative nature of that wisdom.
Time has been experimentally proven to be a dimension of space. To the extent that we move within familiar three-dimensional space is basically the extent that we slow down in time (the fourth spatial dimension) — again with primary posthumous thanks to the brilliant Dr. Albert Einstein.
For spatial consistency, that must mean that all time exists simultaneously as the only moment that actually exists, which is (dramatic pause) this one.
Full mental rest (what too many people erroneously conclude as “ignorance is bliss” in this case) is the meditative sensation of that oneness — the resting of the boundary-drawing part of the brain — so logically the ultimate peace due to the absence of literally any possible opponent.
That sensation is also synonymous with supreme composure, and we all must understand that composure is required for competence in the absence of luck.
All possible future and past experiences are seamlessly happening now, so while an abusive person may not instantly feel balancing suffering due to perceiving time as a flow, the resulting impact is actually simultaneous, and relatively ripples (or curves, without time as a flow) maximal justice within reality.
Abuse is ironically a compensation mechanism against unhealthy stress (as opposed to healthy stress from a positive workout), and we all engage in abuse (e.g. our vices) due to the inevitable imperfection within reality that serves the sole perfection equal to reality’s stability.
Fortunate people understand the RoR, so understand the need to most promptly responsibly adapt to the fullest possible extent upon their abusive exercise.
Otherwise, the reckless belief in preventing the suffering of abuse payment is like people tragically watching the ocean deeply recede and dancing around happily upon the wet recently exposed land. Meanwhile, the wise understand the looming tidal wave of correction, and conduct their lives in a manner to minimize that correction (immediately seek higher ground).
The wise responsibly embrace the righteous burden as a priority to minimize the correctional impact of their abusive ways, and learn a valuable lot in the process, while also forming opportunities to earn credibility, which is obviously essential for survival and “thrival”.
Abuse itself never ends, but presents the prime choice for each one of us throughout our lives.
The ‘lemons to lemonade’ approach is my preference, and it matches the righteous need to understand that abuse, relatively speaking, is an opportunity for humanity’s progress — e.g. my abuse inclusively prompts my positive involvement in helping other people better manage abuse throughout posterity.
When it comes to toughness, I draw a firm (albeit subjective) distinction between responsible toughness and thuggery.
The latter opposes civility by fear, while the former understands that civility is logically critical towards at least their line of work.
Civility is needed for science and technology to thrive, and that likely results in better protection for anyone on the front line of violent encounters.
In short, better civility means that more lives are likely saved within military circles and beyond.
No future event ends reality, as simply confirmed by experience — i.e. if reality dies in the future, then reality cannot occur now, as time is spatial (only one spatial moment exists — this one). That sensibly explains why the RoR is supreme in its inevitability (reality cannot possibly be defeated).
Moreover, another law of physics states that energy cannot be destroyed, so the energy of reality and its indestructible stability is mainstream-scientifically evidently reinforced.
Death within a seamless existence of energy is not scientifically proven to be the end of personally experiencing the boundless reality (where the only “boundary” is reality’s supreme balance), at least to the furthest reach of the scientific method during the authoring of this sentence.
Because no scientist has ever proven the existence of even one objective boundary (i.e. particles are blurry in quantum physics), then I can confidently scientifically state, and you sensibly should find a fitting amount of powerful attention to fully absorb, that you are objectively reality — i.e. you are objectively the totality of existence.
To avoid a god complex, anyone or anything else is also equally objectively reality.
Given that a whopping 95% of the observable universe is made up of something (i.e. dark energy and dark matter) that our species cannot even technologically perceive (at least as of the authoring of this sentence), the unimaginably overwhelming majority of who you really are is beyond your humanity.
Reality is our true base (what I call the logical soul), and it can be returned to from any situation of being lost, simply by understanding (if unable to experience) the ability to rest the boundary-drawing part of the mind.
Death is subjective (even if agreed upon by all of humanity — i.e. humanity’s net-resulting subjectivity), minuscule at the cosmic scale, and ultimately energy.
Energy is not just a resource to power technology, but the entirety of existence from humanity’s perspective and beyond.
Energy efficiency is not limited to technological processes, but literally everything involving survival and “thrival”.
Abuse is equal to energy inefficiency, so progress becomes tied to energy efficiency — i.e. stress management (for efficient communication, using the physics definition of stress, which is synonymous with change, while importantly noting that change is ultimately energy).
Logically the worst form of abuse due at least to its mainly broad (and sometimes horribly, if not also deadly, deep) scope of destruction is the abuse of law — the form of abuse that our nation was established against, according to our most famous national declaration herein the United States of America.
Yet law abuse is rampant these days, because too many people refuse to acknowledge the serious cost associated with granting our community leaders the authority to judicially manage risk — which is undeniably irreconcilable with a genuinely unalienable right to liberty (i.e. to define risk is unavoidably to define liberty).
At least sensibly speaking, that fundamental right is supposed to be judicially protected via the tragically unpopular ninth constitutional amendment (i.e. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”), even despite the obvious and illegal judicial disarming of that critical catchall amendment.
In short, to judicially define risk is to unavoidably judicially define liberty against the unalienable property of that fundamental right, which is supposed to be judicially unacceptable, nationally speaking.
In honor of that critical fundamental right, risk must remain solely within the area of education, while law is leveraged to address maximally conclusively (not subjectively, nor weakly scientifically) defined harm.
Live and let live is an inherent part of that key right without discrimination, yet the entire duration of our national history is horribly littered with judicially sanctioned discrimination and persecution even upon absurd grounds (e.g. skin color, gender, sexual orientation, recreational drug choice, and whatever non-rights-infringing else that I may be missing offhand).
Yet there is a legitimate need to have traffic laws, for solid example, which are risk-based laws. Our Constitution therefore needs to be amended to introduce societal contexts. There needs to be the personal, private property, and public contexts. The public one allows for risk-based laws that do not intentionally (explicitly nor implicitly) impede upon harmless liberty within the other two contexts.
That sensibly necessary update to our Constitution is unfortunately admittedly imperfect due to the absence of any objective boundary, so leaves us with a challenging grey area.
For solid example, setting a speed limit can arguably hinder the amount of time spent within a private property context, so can be considered liberty-infringing. However, a speed limit undeniably creates safer roadways, so provides the liberty for more people to come home safely. This exemplifies why the word “reasonable” is often used in law, but always remains the “breeding ground” for abusive law and its growth via legal precedence, so that word must be minimized in favor of lingual certainty whenever appropriate (scientific constitutionalism).
To basically quote Thomas Sowell, there are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.
As there are no objective boundaries, the boundaries of language and law (nonetheless accountability) are always subjective, and human behavior defines that subjectivity for leverage.
Minimizing the abuse of boundary-drawing to the fullest possible extent genuinely improves public safety (i.e. improves that leverage for us all).
As the past is happening now within the only moment that exists (this one), and mental thoughts apparently ripple as energy back inclusively through time (relatively speaking), I offer my best positivity for all of the honorable beings throughout all wars (past, present, and, if tragically needed, future) with the understanding that a reality of pure balanced energy means that they all come (actually, they all are) home safely.