God dont like beautiful

It all started with a bang that progressed into man ... I say it started with man and regressed into a very big bang ... Its obvious that God don't like beautiful because its ugly. We have proven our superior ability to create destruction which appears to justify the notion that humans are set to self destruct.

Over time we have always managed to find a way to disagree and we have skillfully developed new methods of violence to escalate these disagreements. The fist became a stick and the stick became a stone, the stone became a bow, then a sword, then a gun. We grew our campaign of destruction from local to global, gassing and nuking ourselves to an all time low. During our endeavors a continent was pillaged and its inhabitants enslaved, 6 million people were murdered for being circumcised, we got more creative and introduced temperature to determine the type of war being fought, two towers fell and so did two countries, oh and a celebrity lost her dog ... (Just a quick brush on the topics that made the headlines)

Lets face facts, much of what we uphold to be the centerpiece of the human civilization is nothing more than a hypocritical assault on logic. The premise that humans are in someway smarter and less barbaric than other animals is somewhat flawed in my opinion. We are probably the only animals on planet earth that have sat down and intricately authored our own destruction ... We made our peace with death and came to realize that life was a much more formidable foe.

A very slippery slope: The Trotsky predicament

The turbulent history of humans and humanity is filled with epic tales of gain and loss. Regardless of ones moral, social, or political convictions, we all have at least one historical event that we view with pride and nostalgia. whether 10 or 1000 years ago, historical events that we strongly relate to are often offset by tragedy caused by strategic blunders. Responses to these historical events (or the lack of it) has often been the subject of great debate and contention. "Did they do enough" "did they do too much" are questions that often arise. Drawing a conclusion on many of these events is in my opinion a very slippery slope, What gave rise to an analogy i call the Trotsky predicament.

Many have argued (including myself) that rationally reasoning with an irrational man reflects the ultimate form of irrationality on the part of the proponents of such action. The concept of balanced negotiation and the dynamics of democratic principles would have meant nothing to Stalin and thus Leon Trotsky should have, in true defense of his Marxist ideologies, confronted and neutralized Stalin while he had the power to(considering the fact that He held command of the red army until the rise of Stalin). Others might stand in sharp contrast to the above affirmations claiming that loyalty to ones fundamental principles remains paramount to the individual`s true moral and ethical stance. Thus, despite Stalin`s subsequent reign of terror and derailment of the fundamental essence of the revolution , Trotsky remains vindicated by history.

Edmund Burke is often quoted as saying "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Since i personally contend that it is extremely difficult to uphold a single definition of "good" or "evil", I prefer to modify this quote as "the only thing necessary for the triumph of one side is the failure of the opposing side to act appropriately in response" ... This I believe to be very true. Therefore, the ultimate judgment of Trotsky and people of his likes will lie in how we choose to define "act appropriately in response". Do we see the "stick to the basic and fundamental values even in view of dire consequences" policy as an appropriate response, or do we see the more flexible "if they choose to threaten my peaceful conduct with a knife i will respond with a bazooka" policy as an appropriate response ?