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.
The 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. truly irrefutable reasoning) 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).
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 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.
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 dominance in general), scientifically speaking — as opposed to mystical or religious approaches easily dismissed to the realm 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 purely energetic reality — i.e. from humanity’s perspective, reality is an ocean of energy that seamlessly includes all of us.
The modulation of energy naturally includes balancing, so forms another major piece of scientific evidence towards reality’s need for balance.
Prime examples of the purely energetic reality come from Einstein’s most famous equation in effect revealing that mass is condensed energy (as basically demonstrated by a nuclear explosion), particle/wave duality in quantum physics (i.e. particles act as waves), and string theory (a prominent theory stating a particle is a modulating string of energy).
Moreover, and unfortunately unpopularly, there has literally never been one objectively proven boundary, so any boundary is subjective — hardcore scientifically speaking — while the physical neurological processes forming that subjectivity logically remain purely energetic.
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 balancing 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 into your 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 hunted, then do not be the hunter, 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 mind — 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 energetically happening now, so while an abusive person may not 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) inevitable 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 extent possible 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 is an opportunity for humanity’s progress — e.g. my abuse 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 via 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 lines of violent encounters.
In short, better civility means that more lives are likely saved within military circles and beyond.
No future moment ends reality, as confirmed simply 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 created nor destroyed, so the energy of reality and its indestructible stability is evidently reinforced.
Death in a seamlessly energetic existence is not scientifically proven to be the end of personally experiencing the boundless reality (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 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 and/or anything else is also equally objectively reality.
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 exercise) 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), and death is 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 (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 here in 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.
That fundamental right is logically 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 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 latter allows for risk-based laws that do not impede upon harmless liberty within the other two contexts.
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 likely genuinely improves public safety (i.e. improves that leverage).
As the past is happening now in the only moment that exists (this one), and mental thoughts apparently energetically ripple back inclusively through time, I offer my best positivity for all of the honorable people throughout all wars (past, present, and, if tragically needed, future) with the understanding that a seamlessly energetic reality means that they all come (actually, they all are) home safely.