Lasecki: a separate conviction on the war

I am against engagement on the side of Ukraine not due to the fact that I am any fantasy-cantist increasing something about "a perpetual peace".

I am a Darwinist-‘lorentist’, so I do not believe in (a) the anticipation of eliminating force from human relations, (b) the legitimacy (also ethical) of eliminating aggression from human relations.
Violence is like the law of universal gravity – it simply exists, even as potential. We don't see her all day due to the fact that we're all afraid of military and police force in case we start utilizing force ourselves. However, the fact that we do not see force does not mean that there is no violence, due to the fact that even as a possible it modifies our behaviors in a visible way, just as fear of falling causes us not to effort to jump off the roof of a skyscraper.

In interstate relations, non-violence occurs only in hegemonic systems – there were no wars between the feudal feudal Indian peninsula under English rule, just as present they are not in Western Europe under Yankee rule. However, this does not mean that force has ceased to be a real law (as opposed to imaginary “human rights”) governing human relations.

The condition of aggression in turn is designation of the differentities of the entities. There is no interpersonal aggression in the shoal of sprats or in the anthill. Aggression occurs only in species that have developed awareness of individual distinctness and individual differences. Thus, today’s “biopower” and technocracy combine the drive to destruct aggression with the drive to destruct “toxic” masculinity, group identities and general intellectual collectivism and egalitarianism.

Aggression belongs to the essence of humanity and defending humanity against the System, we must besides defend aggression; including wars as a way of resolving interstate disputes, due to the fact that the law of war defines a sovereign (e.g. Japan, after its unconditional surrender, was banned from conducting wars and inactive has it entered into the constitution), thus getting free of it – we get free of independence.

In order to neutralize the destructive possible of aggression, it is necessary, as Konrad Lorenz advised us, to ritualize and enter into culture. This was the case in archaic societies (e.g. thousands of socio-political entities of pre-colonial fresh Guinea), where kidnapping of wives or looting expeditions and wars were almost everyday, but they were mostly almost bloodless.

I am besides not against Ukraine's commitment due to Russia's concerns. I am not afraid of Russia's aggression due to the fact that Russia: a) is not curious in absorbing Poland; b) is not able to endanger us. To know these 2 things, it is adequate to know anything about Russia and to look at it without affirmative or negative prejudices.

I am against Ukraine's commitment due to the fact that it is simply a commitment to extend the system/global demoliberalism/Western civilization/postmodernism to Ukraine, and a commitment against those concentrations of force that are competitive. Ukraine has been attacked and has the right to defend itself and to search support outside, but unfortunately it is on the incorrect side of the conflict for the future of the world, so support for it is support for the strategy and the strategy (demoliberalism/biopowers/globalism) must not be supported.

Ronald Lasecki