|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 33,388
Rep Power: 0
|
On Kings
Quote:
There is no real determinate of victory in war, because victory doesn’t exist. Victory is simply the name of the void left when there is no defeat. The factors that act as the winds of destiny in the field of war are too numerous, too inconsistent, and to variable for victory to be broken to an exact science. All one can do is provide cause and effect for various factors in order to expand one’s knowledge on war which can serve as pawns to be manipulated by players in whichever fashion they deem appropriate to achieve set objectives. All conflict comprises of a King and a King maker. The King is the symbolic figurehead for the opposition. A king can be an actual tangible human being, an abstract concept, or group, but the single determining factor of what element is the King in the situation is the fact that whichever element or aspect of the conflict it is, it will always be the ‘symbol’ for the opposition. The King represents the forward motion of a cause. The King is a driving factor, the source of and/or vanguard or moral, and the embodiment of the will to continue. When dealing with the King in the form of a living being, it is important to know that the death of a king is not the death of a movement. Once a human being is made the symbol of the oppositional movement, the being is immortalized. Though the being can still be destroyed physically, the symbol is still alive. Forces can still rally around the dead, the cause of the dead, the wants of the dead, and so forth. The life and in fact death of the King can only serve to make the cause which the King vanguards stronger. The physically destruction of a King serves best in disarming your ability to kill the symbol. A King’s destruction is not physical because a symbol is an abstract thought shared by a people. A King’s destruction must therefore be as the King’s existence is. Abstract. Destroying a King in the abstract is the only way of truly killing the thought and symbol of a King. When a King’s presence is becoming burdensome to your chance at victory, it is most strategic to, by any means in your disposal deemed appropriate, force the King to kill his own ‘legend’, destroy his own movement, or dethrone himself from his symbolic pedestal. From this concept the practice of formal surrender is born. A General issues a surrender and all forces are withdrawn. The King has spoken, the symbol of your force and fight has denounced your force and fight and though the King is still alive in the flesh the symbol is dead, and with it the oppositional movement. The physical death of that very general cannot ensure victory. The forces he led can be strengthened by the death, become driven by a fiery angry, fight with less regard to their own personal welling being and rational setbacks, and all around become more passionate. There is no longer a single source that can bring their surrender. If you kill half of them, the remaining half will continue to fight. If you kill all of them the posterity will still be inspired as their fathers were by the death of their King or symbol. By physically eliminating a King, the ability to achieve permanent victory is no longer guaranteed as long as a single soul is left living in your wake. True victory against Nazi Germany was not in the physical defeat of the German Army, or the occupation of German land, it was the victor’s gained ability to write the history of the war. When faced with the ideal of Nazism and Adolf Hitler whom served as the King in this situation, physical defeat wasn’t enough to ensure lasting peace. It was the move by US forces to videotape atrocities in the concentration camps and walking the German people through liberated concentration camps that won that the war. By doing this they kill Hitler as a symbol. They paint him as something the common people don’t want to rally around. His cause goes from glorious and promising to the German people to shameful and grotesque. The symbol was killed and the King was buried in the dirt of editorials and camera reels. A classic example of the inability to properly dispose of the King was in the United States with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. By physically killing MLK, the opposition to his movement lost their key to victory, a living symbol. Without a living symbol the movement was uncontrollable and immortalized. In order to truly end it, the opposition would have had to kill or silence every single person opposed to them which was for obvious reasons an impossible task. Worst of all, the opposition stood for what the defined as order, tradition, and civility. Once the civil rights leader was brutally murdered, it was nearly impossible to prove that MLK’s opposition was standing for the civility, the order, and the tradition, it stood for. With death MLK won what he needed to win the grand battle, sympathy and justification and by gaining this he effectively killed the King of the opposition; it’s symbolic legitimacy.
If a torch is left in a forest, and the forest sets fire, pouring water on that torch well after the blaze has set is not going to stop the fire. In conflict there is no such a thing as victory, only loss.
|
fuck whors
|
11-26-2010, 04:21 AM
Linear Mode
