Defining my terms:

FORCE: herein the term FORCE will refer to any aggressive action one party takes to defeat the ends of another that takes place outside of appropriate action, which here means outside the limits of what is accepted culturally, legally, or ethically by the involved parties or their networks.

VICTORY: the term here describes the state of any party that has satisfied their objective or realized their goals, whether ideological, emotional, or physical.

DEFEAT: this term describes the state of a party that has ceased to pursue their objectives without realizing them, whether or not their objective still remains attainable.

the introduction to the essay:

throughout my limited and blissful existence (which i began counting in december of 2008,)
i have known many pleasures and emotions which were and remain extremely potent, the centerpiece of which is my (continuing and unstoppable) love for Kat Kerr. unfortunately, this feeling was only ever genuinely uncontested and accepted by all involved parties for a duration of four hours at a school dance. at all other times our relationship has been beset upon by her parents for a multitude of (some bad, some logical) reasons. this unhappy period will one day be seen very clearly bisected by an event that happened not long ago, in may. these events are not relevant to the essay or to it's final implications, but it is this event and the lessons that i have learned from it that i am drawing upon to explain my revelation.


the essay:

when one group exerts force upon another, it is a signal of defeat for the aggressive party. it's very much like a cornered, wounded animal or a retreating army with no support. the exertion of force outside the parameters of logical action express a lack of capability to solve an issue without said force. it signals that the mechanics and plans of one party have been exhausted without avail. an example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. the united states had just engaged in the largest military undertaking in world history, and rather than trying to recoup enough to allow it's conventional means of warfare to handle the problem of imperial japan in the second world war, we applied force that defeated all logic or reason- regardless of military prowess or cunning of command or force of will, there is no defense to an atom bomb. if we had invaded the island nation, the loss of life for both sides would have been simply too much for the united states to bear, and the coastal and naval defenses even of a near-defeat japan made the probability of an american victory in such a scenario relatively low. therefor, we broke the rules of warfare and attacked civilian populations in two cities, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives that had never held a gun. from this example we can derive that the only time when the use of innappropriate force becomes appropriate is when the alternative is the admission of defeat, which means that the use of such force is, itself, such an admission.

why would a man knock a chess table to the ground, if there was any chance at all that he could win? he simply wouldn't. which leads us from my first point, which is the basis of my revelation, to my second objective in writing, which is to explain and describe the nature of human force on a personal level relevant to my current (and only) cause.

aggression, no matter who the aggressor, is unsustainable. much like torture, aggression is a war of attrition. the aggressor must crush the victim, and he must do so before he runs out of the stamina necessary to sustain his application of force, or even his last, desperate act will be utterly in vain, as it will leave the victim nothing but room to recover. like humanity as a whole and all of it's works, aggression is subject to the flaws of those who perpetrate it. only a perfect mind can create reliable force and only a perfect machine of human labor or action can bring that force to bear. that said, there are very few perfect minds and there are NO perfect organizations, which means that in practice, there is no unstoppable force, which makes a wholly IMMOVABLE object unnecessary. all that must be done to combat the force is an equal or greater application of resistance. another example from the second great war is the french resistance, who survived all of the aggressions of the german army. this is not wholly by virtue of the cunning of the French resistance- the germans simply did not have a strong enough force to overtake them. no force exists which can truly DEFEAT another party or person, defeat is something a person may elect in the face of aggression, but he can not be denied access to his goals by the rash action of another group.

which brings me to my final point, the PRACTICE of negotiating the force of a defeated opponent.
he IS defeated, but YOU are not his victor. HE is. he has squashed himself by choosing to pursue your destruction instead of the goals which have led him to become at odds with you in the first place. YOU will be victorious, only if you choose to pursue victory in the face of his aggressions- by counterracting them you choose defeat, however temporary.
the only solution to someone who is impressing force upon you is to simply OVERCOME their aggression by living your life and completing your goal anyway. it seems like an insurmountable task, but if they had any way of ACTUALLY stopping you, they would have. they haven't. instead they have chosen to snipe at your life or happiness with punishment or isolation or any other application of force. it is a show of weakness. so meet it with a show of strength, and do not humor the other party with conflict- this will only harm them more. ideally, you will see their force as a surrender and offer them perpetually the olive branch- they will eventually become unable to perpetuate this violence and their only available course of action will be to grasp it firmly.


in closing- by trying to force us apart, they prove that they can't separate us. by acting as they do, they demonstrate that in pursuing OUR victory- not over them or any other party, but simply the achievement of our goal, this happy life together- we will not be harmed or molested by their efforts. they will grow to accept what they cannot change.