Of all human behaviors, the kind of stupidity that disgusts me the most is war. Given how much mindsets have evolved, you’d think we’d finally be done with this tragedy. But no! Quite the opposite, humanity has poured colossal resources into modernizing this barbarism, to the point where the self-destruction of our planet is now within reach.

Our societies are so steeped in current and past wars that those wars have almost come to feel like an unavoidable part of life. Even something ordinary, for anyone not directly affected by an armed conflict. And yet, nothing about it is inevitable, because all it would take is a serious dose of political courage to put an end to this practice from another age, once and for all. Like every collective solution, it starts with individual awareness. That’s exactly what we’re going to dig into in this article, whose purpose is to prove once again that another world is possible.

When the horror of war hides behind numbers

You’d think some movies actually show the horrors of war… except they don’t even come close! Because if a film genuinely showed the horrors of war as they really are, with nothing censored, I can tell you every military recruitment office out there would be in serious trouble.

So why all this prudishness when it comes to showing the real face of armed conflicts? Maybe because if mainstream media actually showed what’s left of a town after it gets bombed, people would finally say: so this is the kind of barbarism a huge chunk of my taxes is paying for? And those same media outlets could also show the real terror felt by a population caught up in a war. Personally, I don’t feel like getting into the details, just thinking about it makes me sick.

Of course, there will always be a tiny percentage of full-blown psychopaths who stay numb in the face of the unbearable. Unfortunately, those are exactly the kind of mentally ill people that voters far too often put in power, because they confuse the ability to handle a crisis with authoritarianism. Because yes, to drag a country into a war you have to be both a psychopath and totally incapable of dialogue.

All those leaders who pump up their egos by spreading large-scale devastation will stop at no manipulation to sell their carnage to their own population. Quite simply because everyone has the horrific stories of the two World Wars and the Vietnam War firmly in mind, and Vietnam in particular got far less of a sanitized treatment than other conflicts. So obviously, after all that, you don’t find many people willing to sign up for that kind of quagmire that nobody walks away from unscathed.

So to get around that resistance, the population gets sold easy adventures, like wars that can be won in three days. And to make it even more marketable, all you have to do is call it a special operation, or give it some dumb name like Desert Storm. Then you have wars that supposedly aren’t wars, since the enemy is so weak in conventional military terms that the whole thing gets sold as a walk in the park. And too bad if it drags on for decades, as long as enough people are willing to think it’s all just fine.

But the gold medal for cynicism goes once again to the United States, which is always first on the podium when it comes to sheer stupidity. To understand why, you have to go back to 1991 and the first Iraq War. At the time, this little “masterpiece” by Bush senior was sold to us as a “clean war,” that wonderful oxymoron. To pull it off, they showed us green flashes of light on TV and explained that the plan was unfolding without a hitch. Except the result of this “clean war” was over 100,000 dead on the Iraqi side, not counting those mutilated for life and the mass destruction of essential civilian infrastructure like hospitals and water treatment plants. But the worst part of the story is the use by the USA of depleted uranium ammunition, which contaminated both sides of the conflict. Sorry, but as far as “clean” goes, we’ve seen better!

Since then, a war has to be declared “clean” to be acceptable. So they present it like a video game. A plane or a drone flies through the sky. It drops its bomb. Then, a day or two later, you get shown a destroyed building. Maybe a quick shot of people crying over their loved ones. But really just a few seconds, so it doesn’t kill your appetite for the ads that come right after.

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. (Howard Zinn)

So this is what we’ve been reduced to: being treated like idiots! But above all, being the unwilling victims of mass desensitization campaigns. How does it work? Quite simply, by throwing numbers at you with no context. For example, they announce 10,000 dead in some war or another… As far as your outrage goes, what does it actually change whether it’s 10,000 or 10,001 or 100,002 or 1,000,000? Not much, because in your head these are just numbers. The same as the number of homeless people, the number of AIDS deaths, the number of people dying of hunger… Now imagine being dropped, even for just a single day, right in the middle of one of those tragedies. Needless to say, you’d be cured for life of the habit of stopping at the numbers. So the manipulation we’re being subjected to is about pulling us as far away from reality as possible, by getting us used to seeing the unacceptable as insignificant. And if you ever have the bad taste to question this pattern, plenty of people will be lining up to call you a buzzkill.

No war without propaganda

No war has ever started with a population’s spontaneous enthusiasm. That’s exactly why an enemy always has to be manufactured beforehand, and made out to be as terrifying as possible. While they’re at it, an existential threat and an imminent danger that leaves no choice. Fear is therefore the universal weapon, with a decisive advantage over every other political tool. Quite simply because it short-circuits thinking. A frightened population no longer weighs the pros and cons, it just looks for a protector, even if that means signing pretty much any blank check.

The instruction manual for manufacturing consent to war was best explained by Hermann Goering. The scene took place in 1946, in his cell in Nuremberg, a few months before he was hanged. When journalist Gustave Gilbert asked him how you could convince an entire population to march off to war with enthusiasm, the disgraced Nazi official answered with a chillingly cool detachment: “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders who determine policy. And it’s always easy to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism.” And you can’t help noticing that this method of manipulating the masses still works just as well today.

The mechanics of propaganda are very simple. You stir up fear, you point to the culprit, and you discredit anyone who dares to doubt. Every pacifist becomes a traitor, every critical mind becomes a foreign agent. This applies to every country, democracies included, the moment it’s about settling matters through brute force.

But this basic propaganda is only the visible layer of the system. The deep layer, the one that makes everything else possible, is the warrior culture that gets pumped into kids from the playground onward. Plastic soldiers in the toy aisle, first-person shooter video games where you mow down Russians, Chinese, or Arabs depending on the bogeyman of the moment. Then of course there are the history textbooks that glorify past battles while glossing over all the atrocities that came with them, the national anthems that sing about spilled blood, and the military parades where children are taught to admire weapons of mass destruction. That’s how you shape minds that find war normal, even desirable, well before they’re asked to go and die in it. As heroes, of course.

Once the machine is rolling, there’s no need to push the propaganda effort very far. The mechanism feeds itself, because every atrocity suffered serves to justify the atrocity committed in return. Reprisals call for more reprisals. Hatred thickens with every cycle, and each generation inherits the grievances of the ones before. That’s how you end up with conflicts that drag on for decades, where the original cause is nothing more than a historical footnote drowned under thousands of dead waiting to be avenged.

War is a story of males and domination

Statistically, war is a male affair. The ones who start wars are men, the generals are men, the soldiers are overwhelmingly men. This isn’t a biological coincidence, it’s a fact that deserves to be looked at head-on instead of being politely sidestepped the way it’s been for centuries.

Masculinity, the way it’s been built across pretty much every civilization, rests on three inseparable pillars. Physical strength, the ability to dominate, and courage in the face of violence. A “real man” fights, conquers, defends his territory, expands his influence, and is willing to die if he has to in order to prove his courage. The whole warrior mythology, from The Iliad to Rambo and the like, including American Sniper, tells one and the same story: that of the man who fulfills himself through legalized violence. And what holds for the storytelling holds even more for military institutions. Because armies are all schools of masculinity that produce men in the patriarchal sense of the word, through humiliation, brutalization, and the erasure of any sensitivity considered feminine.

The logic of domination that underlies war is exactly the same one that underlies patriarchy. Asserting your power through force, expanding your control, crushing whatever resists, and humiliating the defeated. When a state invades another state, it’s applying on the international scale what the dominant male applies on the domestic scale. The same mental drivers, the same compulsive need to impose your power in order to exist. By the way, the worst warmongering regimes in history have always been overflowing with misogyny. And that’s no coincidence, because war and the domination of women run on the same operating system. That’s no doubt what explains the staggering number of rapes that take place in war zones.

This obviously doesn’t mean that all women are pacifists or that all men are brutes waiting to be unleashed. There have been hawkish female heads of state and there are men who devote their lives to peace. But as long as the patriarchal system remains the dominant mental horizon of our societies, war will always find its justification within it. So putting an end to wars means, above all, dismantling the macho operating system that makes them possible and desirable.

The myth of triumphant heroes

The official narrative knows only one storyline. The soldier who comes marching home in glory, after defeating the enemy. Except this story has never matched reality, even on the side of the supposed winners.

The numbers speak for themselves, as long as we actually look at them. For example, in the United States, since Vietnam, the number of veterans who have died by suicide vastly exceeds the number of American soldiers killed in combat over the same period. On the British side, more veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have taken their own lives after coming home than were killed on the battlefield. In France, veterans of overseas operations show PTSD rates that vastly exceed the national average, and the Ministry of the Armed Forces long refused to publish its own figures on military suicides.

On top of that you have the mutilated bodies that no ceremony ever really shows, the addictions that often come with the return to civilian life, and the domestic violence that broken men end up dumping on those closest to them. Without forgetting the homelessness that hits a disproportionate share of veterans in every wealthy country. That’s the reality hidden behind the medals and the commemorations. The military hero has never been anything more than a guy sent off to kill other guys on behalf of a third group, one that stayed safely out of the way. That third group is obviously made up of politicians and the industries that cash in fully on the sacrifice of the human beings they sent off to the slaughterhouse.

The huge scandal of military budgets

In 2024, global military spending crossed the 2.7 trillion dollar mark in a single year. The increase has been steady for ten years and nobody is seriously thinking about reversing it. Quite the opposite, every geopolitical crisis serves as a pretext for yet another budget hike, and every hike becomes the new floor below which it would be “irresponsible” to go back down. The United States alone is spending over 900 billion a year, China over 300, Russia around 150, France has crossed the 60 billion mark, and the numbers keep climbing all over the world.

Meanwhile, the planet is burning. Literally. The IPCC reports have been piling up for thirty years to explain that we should be massively investing in the energy transition, energy-efficient retrofits of buildings, reforestation, ecosystem protection, and the adaptation of societies to the climate chaos that’s coming. The amounts needed to put a real ecological policy in place get costed out regularly, and they look big until you compare them to military budgets. And then you realize they only represent a fraction of everything that’s being thrown into the void to spread death and devastation on an industrial scale across the entire planet.

Meanwhile, in every country, hospitals are shutting down departments for lack of resources. People are dying on stretchers in emergency room hallways. Public schools are falling apart, teachers are burning out, universities are rationing their budgets… Basic research is dying a slow death because no ministry can come up with the few billion that would let it deliver groundbreaking discoveries. Social housing isn’t a real concern. Entire families are sleeping in their cars in the wealthiest countries on earth. Food banks are overwhelmed, homeless people are dying on the street to total indifference… What a disgrace!

No money to save the climate, no money for healthcare, no money for housing, no money for food security, no money for education, no money to fight poverty, no money for research… But 2.7 trillion a year to keep the option of slaughtering each other on a massive scale alive! And barely anyone speaking up about the scandal! At this point, it’s no longer a poorly calibrated budget priority. It’s a moral shipwreck of insane proportions, and the only mystery is that it seems normal to a large majority of the population.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate expression of human stupidity

Nine states own enough nuclear weapons to make the planet uninhabitable for centuries. Everyone has known this for three generations, and there’s hardly anyone left who actually gets worked up about it. Because after being talked about for so long, the threat has ended up fading into the background, as if humanity had accepted the idea of its own programmed extinction.

The official principle is called deterrence. The idea is that nobody will attack anyone as long as everyone has the means to retaliate by blowing it all up in return. Sure, fair enough… Except even if we assume that this strange logic holds up, two or three bombs per nuclear power would be more than enough to dissuade anyone from launching an attack. Because no rational leader is going to launch an offensive against a country capable of destroying two or three major cities in retaliation. Deterrence is therefore reached with a small number of delivery systems. The threat should stop right there.

Except instead of two or three bombs per power, we’ve got over twelve thousand of them on a global scale. The United States and Russia share the bulk of them, with around five thousand warheads each. The other powers fill in the rest of the picture. Compared to those insane numbers, the rational justification for deterrence ran out sixty years ago. So why do we keep this absurdity going without any serious debate ever taking place on the matter?

And as if the situation weren’t already absurd enough, we’re now starting to let algorithms into the decision-making process. Detection systems are being automated, threat analyses run through AI, reaction windows are shrinking down to a few minutes, and the pressure to hand over part of the decision chain to machines grows every year. For anyone who’s seen Terminator, this is starting to look an awful lot like Skynet. Except that in the 80s we laughed about it at the movies, and today we’re busy building it in defense ministry basements. And yet, since the invention of the atomic bomb, top scientists have been sounding the alarm non-stop. And nothing budges! The Russian nuclear arsenal is being left to rot while other countries play sorcerer’s apprentice. Not to mention the USA and China, who have nothing better to bring to human civilization than the instruments of its own eradication.

The hegemony that wipes its feet on international law

International law exists on paper. The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, non-proliferation treaties, and Security Council resolutions. That’s a whole framework painstakingly put together since 1945 to give a legal structure to relations between states and to keep us from resorting to war as much as possible. But sadly, in most cases, it’s just hot air.

Because in practice, these safeguards get largely trampled every time a major power figures its interests demand it. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 without a UN mandate, on the basis of lies fabricated from scratch, nobody was put on trial for it. While Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 in flagrant violation of every principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, it still sits on the Security Council as a permanent member. China, for its part, has been ignoring international rulings in the South China Sea for years. Meanwhile Israel keeps pursuing its colonization and its military operations in ongoing violation of countless UN resolutions, sheltered behind the systematic American veto. The list of breaches of international law could fill thousands of pages.

The central mechanism behind this impunity is the right of veto on the Security Council. With five permanent members who can block any collective action against themselves or against their allies. We’re talking about the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. In practice, this means that none of these five countries can be held accountable before the very institution that’s supposed to guarantee world peace, because each one of them has a red button to cancel any decision that gets in their way.

And as if this permanent sabotage weren’t enough, Donald Trump took the joke a step further by announcing the creation of his own homemade “Peace Council” to handle major international issues by short-circuiting the UN. With this farce we hit peak contempt for international institutions. But what else could we have expected from a megalomaniac mobster.

In the end, as long as the UN veto system stays in place, no fundamental issue can be resolved. Because every major planetary problem demands real international cooperation, not totally lopsided asymmetric relationships.

To prevent conflicts, the right to self-determination of peoples must be recognized.

The map of the world as we know it today has nothing natural about it. A century ago, it looked radically different. Because most current borders were drawn with a ruler and a pencil by European colonial powers that didn’t really know the territories involved, the peoples living there, or their historical, linguistic, and cultural realities. In Africa, there’s even a name for this disaster: balkanization. The word refers to absurd carve-ups that scattered homogeneous peoples and forcibly lumped together populations that had no desire to live side by side. The result is well known. Endless ethnic conflicts that have been going on since independence and that kill tens of thousands of people every year in near-total indifference.

The principle of self-determination of peoples, which has supposedly been a pillar of international law since 1945, should make it possible to fix these aberrations. Except that in practice, it’s applied in exactly the opposite way to how it should be. It gets brandished when it suits the dominant powers, and gets buried as soon as it gets in the way of their interests or those of their allies. The Kurds have been waiting for their state for a century. The Sahrawis have been living in refugee camps for fifty years. The Tibetans have been drowned in the Han majority through a systematic colonization policy. The Catalans, the Scots, the Tamils, and many others are demanding the right to decide their own destiny. But all of them run into a flat refusal in the name of the “national sovereignty” of the country that’s keeping them locked in.

And yet, in the vast majority of cases, what would actually change for the rest of the world if a people gained their autonomy? Nothing essential. The human benefits would be massive, and the geopolitical drawbacks would come down to redrawing some administrative lines and renegotiating a few treaties.

Except for states that consider themselves the owners of “their” minorities, the very idea of giving up the slightest piece of territory triggers absolutely disproportionate reactions. This ranges from routine police repression to civil war, passing through ethnic cleansing and outright genocide. Sovereigntist paranoia is a political pathology that has killed far more people than most interstate conflicts.

And yet a solution exists, and it’s disarmingly simple. International recognition of every people’s right to organize a self-determination referendum under UN supervision, with validation of the results by the international community and an obligation for the country of origin to respect the verdict. And to head off the classic objection that this would shatter the world into thousands of unmanageable micro-states, it’s worth recalling that a referendum can produce several middle-ground outcomes. A region might very well choose not to become fully independent, but to become a federated state with broad autonomy while keeping institutional ties to the larger entity it used to be part of. Most of today’s identity-based conflicts could find an acceptable outcome through this path.

And when we talk about the benefits of such a reform, we have to remember what war actually entails. As we already saw, it’s not just deaths piling up in columns of statistics. It’s also the systemic misery that hits displaced populations, the torture practiced on a massive scale in conflict zones, rape used as a weapon of war by pretty much every army in the world the moment the opportunity arises, and entire generations of children growing up in camps with no possible future. Recognizing the self-determination of peoples isn’t some diplomatic nicety. It’s about pushing back an ocean of suffering that we stubbornly let exist out of pure political cowardice.

How can the UN actually be reformed?

Pretty much everyone agrees that the UN in its current configuration doesn’t work. Grim assessments have been piling up for decades, reform commissions come and go, and the reports gather dust. And the reason nothing budges is that the system is locked down by the very people who’d have the most to lose in a reform. Because obviously, the five permanent members of the Security Council aren’t going to vote themselves out of their veto rights.

But this dead end only holds if we keep thinking about reform as concessions to be politely negotiated out of those in power. Whereas the solution is to flip that perspective around with a deep, bottom-up reform of the UN. In other words, through a revolt by the majority of states fed up with the permanent gridlock, who could collectively decide to push it through anyway.

Out of the 193 UN member states, five hold the veto right. That leaves 188 countries on the receiving end. Most of those countries have grievances built up over decades against a system in which their interests get systematically swept aside the moment they conflict with those of the five permanent members. The entire African continent has no permanent seat despite its 1.4 billion inhabitants. Latin America doesn’t either. Neither does South Asia. India, Brazil, Nigeria, and Indonesia all carry far more demographic and economic weight than France or the United Kingdom, and yet have absolutely no say in the big decisions that shape the international system. The frustration this generates is massive and long-standing.

The actual balance of power is heavily in favor of a reformist coalition. Because a qualified majority of states pushing together for an overhaul of the UN charter would carry overwhelming demographic, economic, and moral weight. Up against that, the United States, Russia, and China combined, despite their nuclear arsenals and their media noise, account for roughly 1.9 billion people. The rest of the world has more than 6 billion. So the question isn’t whether such a coalition could impose a reform. The question is whether it’ll have the political courage to organize for the fight.

Either way, at some point, we’re going to have to learn how to tell the great powers to get lost. If the United States doesn’t want to follow, screw them! If Russia sulks, let it sulk. If China threatens to walk out, let it walk out. The diplomatic and economic isolation that the rest of the world would impose on these states would be extremely costly for them. Far more costly, by a long shot, than holding on to their current privileges within the system. Because no economy, even the Chinese or American one, can thrive in isolation when 6 billion people are cutting it off from the resources it needs to function.

UN reform won’t be a gift handed down by the powerful. It’ll be a collective takeover initiated by the countries that have had enough of being kept in second-class status. That requires organization and a willingness to fight a power struggle that will last several years. But it’s the only realistic path, because all the others have been tried and they’ve failed.

Coordinated disarmament and an international force

We’ve just seen that a reform leading to the end of the UN veto right would already have very positive effects. But we shouldn’t stop along the way. If we really want to be done with war, we need a real reform that makes it structurally impossible.

That starts with the outright abolition of national armies. Because they wouldn’t have any reason to exist anymore once international law is actually applied. As long as they stick around, the risk of aggression between states stays intact and an institutional reform serves no purpose. So they have to be dismantled, which means coordinated disarmament on a planetary scale.

The principle is simple. All member states will progressively reduce their armed forces according to a negotiated timetable, verified by international inspectors with full and unannounced access to every military installation. Conventional arsenals will shrink in stages, nuclear arsenals will be dismantled under independent oversight, and defense budgets will converge toward a residual level limited to the needs of civil protection and crisis management. And after a few decades, national armies as we know them today will simply have ceased to exist as instruments of geopolitical aggression.

Of course, there will always be a possibility that guerrilla-type armed conflicts might still break out. It’s precisely to handle these situations that a permanent international intervention force will need to be created, placed under the direct authority of the UN. It can only be activated through a majority vote following the strict rules of the new charter. This force will be made up of contingents provided by all member states based on a fair distribution. Its use will be governed by precise rules of engagement that make it impossible to divert it for the benefit of any specific interests.

This force will have two main missions. The first will be to impose an immediate ceasefire and to secure civilian populations as soon as a conflict threatens to break out. The second will be to step in against any regime that violates UN decisions. We need to be clear about one thing: within this new framework, the argument of the “country that wants war” no longer holds. Because when a leader wants to go to war, it’s never the entire population that wants it with him. And up against that isolated leader, you no longer just have a few worried neighbors but every other state in the world committed to enforcing international law. Under those conditions, the balance of power is such that dialogue will be the only possible path to settle political disputes anywhere on the planet.

In the end, getting out of the cult of national armies is exactly like coming off a hard drug. The first few years will be tough, because centuries of warlike reflexes won’t be erased in a single generation. And then will come the moment when humanity will look back at its militaristic past in dismay and ask itself how it could have stayed hooked on something so stupid for so long.

Countries without an army are already a reality

The idea of a world without national armies often makes reactionaries scoff. They all think it’s nice on paper but can’t possibly work in the real world. Except in reality, this concept has already been in place for decades in several countries that are generally doing a whole lot better than their militarized neighbors.

The most emblematic case is Costa Rica. In 1948, this Central American country simply abolished its army. Seventy-seven years later, Costa Rica has never been invaded by anyone. The colossal sums saved have been massively reinvested in education and healthcare, which has made Costa Rica one of the most stable and best-developed countries in the region. And while its neighbors were sinking into bloody civil wars fueled by oversized armies, Costa Rica became a peaceful and prosperous democracy. The Costa Rican economic miracle owes a huge amount to that decision. So nothing surprising about it, it’s just a matter of sound logic applied to running the country.

Costa Rica isn’t an isolated case. Panama abolished its army in 1990. Iceland never had one. Liechtenstein dissolved its own in 1868. Several Pacific island states have been running without armed forces since their independence. Nobody has invaded them. Nobody is seriously planning to. The proof is right there. The army isn’t a factor of development, it’s the exact opposite.

While we’re at it, let’s note the monumental hypocrisy of the Swiss, who spend their time selling their “neutrality” as a moral virtue while keeping one of the most expensive armies in Europe per capita and hosting a flourishing arms industry. Swiss neutrality is therefore just a marketing gimmick, not a pacifist policy. The truly neutral countries are the ones that have abolished their armed forces, not those that arm themselves to the teeth while swearing they’ll never use force.

The other classic objection to the idea of abolition is that a country without an army would be “naked” in the face of a possible attack. This seemingly knockdown argument is actually completely hollow. To see why, let’s ask ourselves what most countries’ armies are concretely good for. Belgium, Portugal, Romania, or Chile have absolutely no chance against a real major power that wanted to invade them. Their armies would be flattened in a few weeks, even a few days. The actual function of these armies isn’t effective defense against a major attack, because they’re incapable of providing it. So it’s just extremely costly window dressing and cheap national prestige. Quite simply because the real protection of these countries rests entirely on international alliances and on the fact that nobody really has either the interest or the desire to invade them.

And then there’s an early warning sign worth highlighting because it says a lot about the current trend. The world’s armies have been running into unprecedented recruitment difficulties for several years now. United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia… Same thing everywhere, the armed forces are struggling to hit their targets and are having to lower their criteria. This comes from the fact that younger generations are massively less motivated than their elders to put on a uniform and risk their skin for causes whose legitimacy they question. Which means the traditional arguments about honor, the homeland, and duty roll off them like water off a duck’s back. And there’s a strong chance this is the early sign of the end of the great military circus. Not by UN decree, nor by some grand international conference, but simply through the depletion of the human fuel. And by extension, through the massive drop in support for war across the generations.

Conclusion: Antimilitarist and proud of it!

Sorry to have ruined the surprise, but it turns out that by the end of this article, I’m proud to announce I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to fight for any country. Which leaves me zero chance of ever getting a medal. But honestly, that’s more of a relief. And if anyone wants to call me an antimilitarist, thanks for the compliment! It proves I have a brain, unlike certain people who make do with a spinal cord to blindly obey orders and swallow political lies.

If you happen to think that everything laid out in this article is just nice talk, sure, we can always sit back and do nothing, and 10 years from now we’ll be at exactly the same point, if not worse. But we can also act intelligently. To do that, politics in the noblest sense of the word is a top-tier path. Starting from that principle, you can vote for candidates in elections who openly stand for pacifism. There are some in a few countries, you just have to look around a bit. And what if there aren’t any? Well, in that case nothing’s stopping you from launching a political movement in your country that defends this cause along with other progressive proposals. Maybe it’ll lead nowhere, but maybe it’ll work. It really comes down to how much energy you put into the project. Personally, all I know is that when you throw yourself into a project and put your whole heart into it, there’s a very strong chance it ends up producing good results.

I spent a lot of time writing this article. So in return, please remember to share it so others can benefit from it too. Feel free to spread it through your networks, and even print it out to pass it around. It’s copyleft 🙂 And while you’re at it, please consider supporting the site, because we have big projects in the works that will surely be useful to you. Now that I’ve done my job on the call to participate, all that’s left is to wish you Love & Peace to wrap this up.