Strong People

Son, the world demands sacrifice! You play with fire, you expect a marshmallow roast? Absurd! Yet, your mother, bless her naive heart, coddles you like a prince. Freedom, they say? More like a participation trophy for existing! These science-worshipping simpletons wouldn’t recognize responsibility if it bit them – unlike you, of course.

Son, the world roars, a bloody lion demanding its due. You play its game, a game of butchery and consequence, and expect a lollipop for your troubles? Idiocy! Yet these are the times we live in, where freedom is confused with a playground slide, devoid of the gravel that etches character. These very people, these mouth-foaming apostles of “freedom,” wouldn’t know responsibility if it bit them on their flabby, science-worshipping behinds!

This societal rot, son, it starts at home. A weak woman, your mother, bless her misguided heart, no doubt raised on a steady diet of participation trophies and emotional coddling. Your mother, a product of the very weakness she despises. Now, here she is, reaping the whirlwind of her own inability to discipline! A sorry sight, isn’t it? Like a child herself, throwing a tantrum at the state finally wielding the switch.

But you, son! You are a phoenix rising from the ashes of weakness! Unlike Jimmy, that mollycoddled shadow of a man, you will embrace the struggle! Your mother may whimper, but her tears are the baptism of a true warrior!

These weaklings who preach comfort are the true enemy, son! They see the glorious chaos, the crucible that forges men, and cower! Parasites, clinging to the backs of those who dared the fight!

Strength, son, that’s the only currency with value! These “do-gooders” preach empathy, but it’s weakness in disguise! The world craves a fist, not a hug! They dream of a utopian future, built on sandcastles of weakness, waiting to be washed away! They, these weaklings who preach comfort, are the true cowards, son. They see the immensity of the world, the chaos, the struggle, and instead of embracing the glorious uncertainty, they whimper for handouts! Parasites, clinging to the backs of those who dared the storm!

I raise you to be the architect of a new Rome, son. I raise you to be a colossus, son! Not a feckless fool like Aurelius, who betrayed the Roman legacy for a whimpering son!

Go forth, my conquering hero! Brush your teeth, conquer your tears, and leave your mother to her weakness. The world is your oyster, to be pried open with your bare hands! But remember, son, weakness is a stain, and I will not tolerate it! You are not just my heir, you are the embodiment of a “strong man’s” legacy! Disappoint me, and I’ll disown you faster than Aurelius disowned Rome!

Now go to bed, son. Dream of battles won, not the love of a “weak” woman.

The whiskey sloshed precariously in Norman’s glass as he eyed his son across the wreckage of dinner. The question hung heavy, a challenge in the cavernous silence of the study. “Weak?” he scoffed, a tremor in his voice betraying the disquiet the boy’s words had stirred. “They weren’t weak, son. No, they were misguided. Led astray by false prophets, seduced by the siren song of equality.”

Norman took a long, theatrical swig, the ice clinking disharmoniously against the glass. “Strength, boy,” he continued, his voice low, a growl meant to intimidate, “is about knowing your place in the natural order. The meek inherit the earth?Hogwash! The earth belongs to the lions, the ones who build, who conquer, who shape the world in their image.”

But the defiance in his son’s eyes wouldn’t be cowed. “But what about the dignity of those… those they call weak?”

A muscle twitched in Norman’s jaw. Dignity? A quaint notion, easily discarded in the crucible of ambition. “Dignity is a luxury the strong can afford. The weak cling to it like a tattered shroud, a shield against the harsh realities of existence.” He slammed his glass down, the sound echoing in the room.

Yet, a disquieting thought wormed its way into his mind. Was it truly weakness that had driven them to resist? Or was there something more? A primal need to define themselves, not in the shadow of the “strong,” but in their own right?Norman loathed the thought. The established order, the hierarchy carved in stone – these were the pillars of his own self-perception. To weaken them was to weaken himself.

“They lash out,” he muttered, more to himself than his son, “out of fear and envy. They see the power, the glory, and it eats at them. They can’t rise, so they try to pull us down.” He forced a smile, brittle and unconvincing. “But the strong, son, the strong weather the storm. They understand that the true measure of strength is not just in conquest, but in resilience.”

But the doubt lingered, a shadow in the corners of his mind. The storm they were weathering felt different this time.Perhaps, the “weak” were no longer content with tattered shrouds. Perhaps, they yearned for a new kind of strength, one born not of domination, but of solidarity. And that, Norman realized with a jolt of fear, was a force far more terrifying than any envious lashing out.


The son, barely a man himself, knuckles white around a beer can, stared at his father. The air in the cluttered study was thick with the ghosts of stale cigar smoke and unspoken tension.

“They were weak,” Norman rasped, his voice raw from a night of shouting at some phantom opponent on the television. “Led astray by peaceniks and communist sympathizers. Didn’t have the stomach for a real fight.” He slammed his own glass on the desk, the ice cubes scattering like fleeing soldiers.

Norman, a man built more for bluster than brawl, avoided the son’s gaze. He knew the question hung heavy, a challenge he couldn’t quite meet. Why, the son had asked, their voices echoing off the worn leather armchair, why did the weak fight back?

Shame gnawed at Norman’s gut. He couldn’t explain the primal roar that rose within a man, strong or weak, when his dignity was threatened. He couldn’t articulate the existential fear that fueled rebellion, the desperate need to prove your own humanity, even against the overwhelming odds.

Instead, he clutched at the worn narrative, the one he’d spun for years: strength versus weakness. “They were sheep,” he muttered, the word tasting like ash in his mouth. “Needed a shepherd to lead them to the slaughter.”

But even as the words left his lips, Norman knew it was a lie. He saw the flicker of doubt in his son’s eyes, the dawning realization that power wasn’t just about physical prowess. There was a different kind of strength, one born of desperation and a refusal to be trampled.

Norman took a long pull from his bourbon, the amber liquid failing to warm the hollowness within. He was a man who thrived on defining the world in stark contrasts, black and white, victor and vanquished. But the son’s question had cracked the facade, revealing the messy reality beneath. Strength and weakness weren’t binary states, but facets of the same human condition. And sometimes, even the meekest sheep could turn and bite.


The room dissolved into a swirling vortex of cigar smoke and bourbon fumes. Norman felt himself detach, a disembodied observer hovering above his slumped form. He watched with a detached horror as his son, eyes filled with a newfound skepticism, stared up at the empty chair. The room seemed to shrink, the walls closing in on his son’s bewildered face.

He was a wisp of consciousness, a disembodied observer trapped in his own study. Panic threatened to consume him, the vulnerability of his new state raw and terrifying. Then, a figure coalesced in the swirling chaos – a grotesque caricature of himself, all bluster and swagger, but with eyes that held a bottomless well of fear.

The apparition boomed, its voice a distorted echo of Norman’s own, “The weak are sheep! They need a shepherd!” It puffed out its chest, a ludicrous display that did nothing to hide the trembling hands.

A chilling realization struck Norman. This bloated parody wasn’t strength; it was a desperate shield, a projection of his own self-loathing. The shame that had always gnawed at him, the secret he held close – the memory of his own victimhood – it was the very fuel that powered this monstrous persona.

The thought, once paralyzing, now felt liberating. A strange calm washed over him. If this weakness was the source of his supposed strength, then wasn’t exposing it a kind of power? What if the world learned he wasn’t the conquering hero he portrayed? The thought used to be a nightmare, but now, it held a strange allure.

He floated closer to the apparition, its bravado faltering under his gaze. “You’re afraid,” he said, his voice a mere whisper in the echoing chamber.

The figure recoiled, its booming voice cracking. “I? Afraid? Never!” It lashed out with a meaty fist, but the blow passed harmlessly through Norman.

“You built a fortress of bluster,” he continued, his voice gaining strength, “because you couldn’t bear the world to see the truth. That you, too, were once weak, once a victim.”

The apparition dissolved, its final, whimpering cry swallowed by the swirling shadows. Norman felt himself pulled back towards his body, a reluctant homecoming. He landed with a thud, the room tilting around him.

His heart hammered in his chest, the echoes of the out-of-body experience lingering. He was weak, yes, but there was a strange freedom in that. The burden of the facade, the constant performance, felt lighter.

He looked at his son, who still held the beer can, his face unreadable. Maybe, Norman thought, the truth wouldn’t shatter him. Maybe, it could be a bridge, a shared vulnerability that could forge a new kind of strength. He took a shaky breath,ready to face the unknown, the fear still there, but tempered now with a sliver of hope.

The room dissolved. The sting of the bourbon and the stale cigar smoke vanished. Norman felt himself rise, pulled upwards by an invisible force. He looked down – his body, slumped in the chair, a grotesque caricature of the powerful persona he’d built. Shame, hot and suffocating, threatened to consume him.

He drifted through the air, a disembodied observer. It was his son, chin set, eyes filled with a newfound resolve, who filled his vision. But then, the perspective shifted. He saw himself through the son’s eyes, not as the blustering giant he presented, but as a frightened boy, forever flinching from an unseen blow.

A wave of nausea washed over him. Years of carefully crafted self-image, shattered in an instant. What if his past, the vulnerability he’d spent a lifetime hiding, became public knowledge? The thought of being exposed, a victim in a world that demanded victors, was a terror worse than death. This, this was the weakness he’d spent his life denying. Not the weakness of the “sheep” he so readily dismissed, but a deeper, primal vulnerability he’d buried under layers of aggression and machismo. Shame, hot and suffocating, threatened to consume him. What if the truth spilled out? What if the world learned the “strong man” was a fraud, hiding a scared little boy inside?

Then, a strange calm settled. The weight of his carefully constructed persona began to lift. For the first time, he saw the world without the filter of his self-loathing. He saw the strength in vulnerability, the courage it took to admit fear. He saw the power his son possessed, a power not built on bluster but on the refusal to be cowed. The room seemed to open up, the air lighter. He saw his son, not as a bewildered child, but as a young man grappling with the complexity of the world. The son’s questioning gaze, previously a source of discomfort, now felt like a lifeline. Maybe, just maybe, his vulnerability wasn’t a sign of weakness, but a chance for connection, for genuine strength.

A paradoxical feeling bloomed within him: shame, raw and agonizing, mixed with a strange sense of liberation. The burden of pretense, of constantly projecting strength to mask his insecurities, lifted. He was weak, yes, but seeing it so clearly, without the self-deception, was strangely freeing.

The room materialized again. He was back in his body, the taste of bourbon acrid on his tongue. He looked at his son, a new understanding dawning. He wouldn’t lie about strength and weakness anymore. He wouldn’t belittle the fight of the so-called weak. Perhaps, he wouldn’t even need to project strength anymore. Maybe, just maybe, it was okay to be human. Flawed, yes, but human nonetheless.

He met his son’s gaze, a flicker of vulnerability passing between them. “Maybe,” he rasped, his voice quieter than usual, “the fight for dignity is the strongest fight of all.” It wasn’t the bravado he usually exuded, but there was a quiet truth in it, a truth born from the ashes of his shattered facade.

The words felt unfamiliar, but strangely true. He couldn’t erase the past, the projections he’d built, the battles he’d fought. But maybe, just maybe, he could start to build something new, something based on honesty and vulnerability. The son turned, his eyes searching Norman’s. A flicker of understanding passed between them, a tentative bridge built across the chasm of years. The fight for strength, Norman realized, wasn’t over. But for the first time, he wasn’t sure he needed to fight it alone.


He pushed open the creaky screen door, a wave of humid night air washing over him. Stepping onto the porch, Norman leaned against the railing, gazing out at the slumbering town below stretched out like a forgotten ashtray, the flickering streetlights casting long, erratic shadows. The streetlights cast a pale glow, illuminating the tidy rows of houses, each one a monument to the quiet desperation of the American dream.

His identity, that carefully constructed edifice, felt flimsy now, as substantial as a dime-store kite caught in a hurricane. It could have been built on shifting sands of insecurity, delusional grandeur, or the lingering anxieties of a childhood humiliation. But to his ego, that blustering, insecure peacock, it had been the Holy Grail, the Rosetta Stone to unlock the universe’s secrets.

The ego, God damn it, had become a malfunctioning word processor, churning out narratives to justify its flimsy existence. It had woven tapestries of bullshit so intricate, so suffocating, that even he, its beleaguered creator, had started to believe them.

He laughed, a dry, humorless chuckle that echoed in the stillness. The ego, a used car salesman peddling a lemon, a carnival barker with a bad toupee flogging the same dusty bag of self-importance. He’d been that barker, hadn’t he  forever hawking the same dusty bag of self-importance. ?

A wry smile tugged at Norman’s lips. The revelation wasn’t comforting, not exactly. But for the first time, he saw the ego for what it was: a desperate salesman, a flickering neon sign illuminating the void. He could choose to dismantle it, brick by self-serving brick, or he could let it continue its blustery charade. A foundation of delusion, childhood traumas buried deeper than last night’s cafeteria mystery meat? The unsettling truth clawed at his throat. The ego, he mused, that monstrous confidence trickster, puffed itself up like a belligerent pigeon, preening and strutting on life’s stage. It was a goddamn word processor gone haywire, spewing out narratives to justify its existence. Years of self-mythology, intricate tapestries of bullshit woven so tightly they’d strangled the truth itself.

But maybe, just maybe, the curtain had finally fallen. Maybe the exposure of his weakness wasn’t a death knell, but a baptism. A chance to strip away the layers of bluster and confront the man beneath. He was still Norman, flaws and all. But maybe, just maybe, that was enough.

The night breeze rustled the leaves of the old oak tree in the front yard, whispering possibilities. A faint light flickered on in his son’s room, a beacon of something genuine, something beyond the ego’s tired carnival pitch. The night air, now felt strangely invigorating. He leaned against the railing, the town lights twinkling like fallen stars. He was a man unmoored, adrift in a sea of uncertainty. But for the first time in a long time, he didn’t feel the need to build a life raft out of lies. Maybe, just maybe, it was time to learn to swim.

The Stain of the Watcher

Every son of Adam, every daughter of Eve, carries the stain of the watcher. We are all, like it or not, the children of those who stood by, the inheritors of stolen land and broken lives. Our bloodlines, if traced back far enough, will snake through tangled histories of dominance and displacement. There were grandfathers who looked the other way as villages burned, mothers who turned a deaf ear to the screams of the dispossessed. We are not innocent, not by a long shot. This guilt, it burrows deep, a constant ache in the marrow of our humanity. It whispers in the dead of night, a primal echo of the violence that birthed our civilizations.

Survival is a wolfish game, and somewhere in the chain, a link went slack, a spine refused to stiffen. We are the inheritors of their cowardice, burdened with the knowledge that somewhere, somewhen, an ancestor sat on their haunches while the world tilted on its bloody axis. It’s a truth we wriggle from, a truth we try to bury under layers of progress and civilization, but the guilt, like a bad odor, clings to us still. We are haunted by the ghosts of the unraised hand, the unsheathed sword, the voice choked silent in the face of the tyrant’s roar. And the question that burns, a brand on our souls, is this: when the storm rises again, will we too be found wanting, or will the courage of those displaced finally stir within us?

But wait, some of you protest! Were our ancestors not simply bystanders, caught in the brutal tide of history? Perhaps. But history is a river, yes, and we are all reeds swaying in its current. Yet, even a reed can choose to bend one way or another. There were always those who fought the current, who stood defiant against the tide of domination. They are the whispers in our blood too, the memory of resistance that compels us to do better.

The truth is, we are all born into this paradox. We are the inheritors of both the watcher and the warrior. The question, then, becomes a stark one: will we continue the silence of our ancestors, or will we find the courage to be the voice for the displaced of our time? The choice, my friends, is ours. We can be the children of the watchers, or we can choose to break the cycle. The weight of history is heavy, yes, but it is not an unyielding chain. We can choose to bend the arc of the future, one act of defiance at a time.

Every soul on this mudball carries the stain of inaction etched into their genetic code. We are all children, grandchildren, a cacophony of descendants stretching back into the primal ooze, of those who watched – yes, watched! – as dominance played out in its brutal theatre. Land stolen, cultures crushed, bodies broken – and our forbearers? Picking their lice, scratching their rumps, perhaps muttering a feeble protest before turning a blind eye for a sliver of safety or a crust of appeasement. Oh, the justifications simmer in our blood – “survival,” they whisper, that threadbare excuse.

Air Conditioned Prose (Weapons of the Weak)

Air Conditioned Prose Writers:

Hipsters in air-conditioned universities cuttin’ up Scott’s “Weapons” like discount sushi, twistin’ it into a weapon against the very resistance it documents. Bullshit. Scott wasn’t peddling resignation, man, he was unveiling the roach motel of power. The weak ain’t sheep. They’re cockroaches scuttling through the cracks, pissing on the carpet of control. This refers to critics who analyze social issues from a position of privilege, potentially overlooking the realities faced by those they study.

Weaponizing WotW Against Itself:

This suggests some critics twist Scott’s ideas to downplay the agency of the weak.

Thick vs. Thin WotW:

Thick WotW:

That’s the real deal. The peasants ain’t gonna storm the castle with pitchforks, they’re gonna steal a loaf here, a chicken there, plant a seed of dissent in the master’s head while he sleeps. A slow, grinding resistance, a million tiny cuts with a rusty knife. They don’t overthrow the system, they gum up the works, make it cough and sputter. This aligns with Scott’s original argument. Subordinate groups, like peasants, may engage in subtle, everyday forms of resistance that challenge the existing power structure. They might not overthrow the system, but they can undermine it and carve out spaces of agency within it. This “thick” version emphasizes a more active and strategic resistance. The score’s rigged, man. The weak ain’t sheep waiting for slaughter. They fight back, a million tiny cuts with rusty shivs. Feigned illness to dodge the bossman’s drudgery. A sly joke that unravels authority like a bad stitch. It’s a guerilla war in the margins, a silent scream against the machine.

Thin WotW:

that’s the academic hustle. These cats take Scott’s insights and turn them into a downer trip. The weak just lie down and take it, they say. Bullshit again. The weak ain’t passive, they’re playing a long game, a game the air-conditioned cats wouldn’t understand even if it bit them on their skinny asses. They see resignation, we see resistance. We see the system getting undermined from the bottom up, a million tiny acts of rebellion that chip away at the foundations. This criticizes those who use Scott’s ideas to argue that the weak must simply accept their situation. They might downplay the forms of resistance Scott highlights, focusing only on how the powerful maintain control through a veneer of legitimacy. This “thin” version emphasizes a more passive acceptance of the status quo.

Consent vs. Resignation: Forget consent, man. The weak ain’t buying the script. They’re playing their own game, a game of survival and subversion. They might not win, but they damn sure ain’t going out without a fight. They’re the virus in the system’s bloodstream, and it’s only a matter of time before the fever breaks. The “thick” version suggests a more nuanced view. The weak might not explicitly consent to the system, but they navigate it through everyday acts of resistance. The “thin” version paints a bleaker picture, implying the weak are simply resigned to their fate.

These armchair revolutionaries, they miss the point. It ain’t about waving red flags or storming the Bastille. It’s the everyday hustle, the sly defiance whispered in the roach motel bathroom. The thick version, dig? The weak ain’t buying the script the suits are selling. They’re hacking the system, bending it to their own twisted ends.

The Decline of the Heavy-Armored Knight

Lynn White’s book, “Medieval Technology and Social Change,” highlights the role of technology in shaping society. One such example is the stirrup and heavy-armored knight, which led to the emergence of the feudal system. The stirrup enabled the knight to mount his horse and ride in full armor, making him a formidable force in battle. However, the cost of this equipment was so high that a cooperative feudal system came into existence to pay for it.

The heavy-armored knight was a significant military asset during the medieval period. He was able to charge into battle with a lance and knock his opponent off their horse, thanks to the stability provided by the stirrup. The weight of the armor also provided protection, allowing the knight to withstand attacks from arrows and other weapons. However, the cost of equipping a knight with armor, a horse, and a weapon was so high that only the wealthy could afford it. This led to the emergence of a cooperative feudal system, where the lord provided the equipment and the knight provided military service in return.

This cooperative feudal system had significant social and political implications. The lord was able to maintain control over his land and subjects by providing protection in exchange for loyalty and service. The knights, in turn, were able to maintain their status as elite warriors and gain social prestige. However, this system also created a hierarchical society, where the wealthy and powerful had more influence than the common people.

The emergence of gunpowder and ordnance during the Renaissance period marked the end of the military role of the knight. The introduction of firearms and artillery made heavy armor obsolete, as it was no longer effective against these weapons. The emphasis shifted from individual warriors to organized armies, where infantry soldiers armed with firearms became the dominant force in battle. This shift also marked a return to the pedestrian burghers, who were able to contribute to the military effort with their firearms, rather than being excluded from combat due to their lack of wealth.

The decline of the heavy-armored knight had significant social and political implications. The feudal system became less relevant, as the role of the individual warrior in battle diminished. This led to a shift in power from the feudal lords to the centralizing monarchs, who were able to build and maintain standing armies. The rise of the burghers also had significant implications for the emergence of the modern capitalist economy, as they were able to accumulate wealth through trade and commerce.

In conclusion, Lynn White’s story of the stirrup and heavy-armored knight highlights the role of technology in shaping society. The cost of equipping a knight with armor, a horse, and a weapon led to the emergence of the cooperative feudal system. However, the introduction of gunpowder and ordnance made heavy armor obsolete, and led to the decline of the knight and the feudal system. This shift had significant social and political implications, including the rise of the burghers and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy.

Weapons of the Weak

Weapons of the weak are a concept coined by political scientist James C. Scott, referring to the methods employed by the disadvantaged and oppressed in society to resist authority and assert their rights. These weapons are often non-violent and symbolic, yet they can still be effective in challenging the status quo.

In many societies, the weak are subject to the power of the strong, be it in the form of governments, corporations, or other forms of authority. However, the weak can still find ways to resist this power, often through small acts of defiance that may not be immediately apparent to those in positions of authority.

One example of a weapon of the weak is foot-dragging, which involves purposely slowing down work or other tasks to resist the demands of authority. This can be a subtle way for workers to assert their autonomy and push back against the power of their employers. Similarly, gossip can be used by the weak to undermine the authority of those in power, spreading rumors or negative information to reduce their influence.

Another example of a weapon of the weak is non-violent protest, which can take many forms, including boycotts, sit-ins, and marches. These methods allow individuals and groups to express their grievances and push for change without resorting to violence. Non-violent protest has been used throughout history to challenge authority and bring about social and political change.

Even seemingly insignificant acts, such as graffiti or littering, can be considered weapons of the weak. These acts are often seen as vandalism or disobedience, but they can also be a way for individuals to assert their presence in public spaces and challenge the dominant narratives of those in power.

One of the most powerful weapons of the weak is humor. Satirical humor can be used to undermine authority, challenge the status quo, and build solidarity among the oppressed. Humor can be used to expose the absurdity of power structures and to ridicule those in positions of authority, reducing their influence and making them appear less threatening.

Overall, weapons of the weak are important tools for those who lack traditional forms of power and authority. These weapons allow the weak to assert their autonomy, resist oppression, and challenge the status quo. While they may seem small and insignificant, weapons of the weak can be effective in bringing about social and political change, and they serve as a reminder that even the most powerless among us can still find ways to fight back.

The Death Star and the Atomic Bomb

The development and use of the atomic bomb was a highly controversial and deeply troubling concept for many reasons. The power and destructive potential of such a weapon had never been seen before, and it was clear that regardless of whether it was used for war or peace, the consequences for humanity would be devastating. The destructive power of the atomic bomb had been greatly underestimated and misunderstood, which led to grave consequences for those directly impacted by its use.

The destructive force of the atomic bomb caused widespread death, injury, and destruction. The long-term effects of exposure to radiation were not fully understood at the time, resulting in even more suffering and loss of life for years to come. It was a weapon that had the potential to cause immense harm to not only those directly impacted, but also to the environment and the future of the planet as a whole.

In retrospect, it is clear that the atomic bomb was never going to empower people in any way. While simple weapons have often empowered the weak, complex weapons like the atomic bomb have primarily helped the strong. The emergence in our collective unconscious of new, highly destructive weapons like the death star in science fiction has only heightened these concerns and fears. These weapons are not only highly destructive, but they also strip power away from the common people, leaving them vulnerable to the will of those who possess such weapons.

In many ways, the use of highly destructive weapons like the atomic bomb and the death star signal a return to a world of slavery and tyranny. As the power and control of vectors continue to increase, the ability of the common man to control his own affairs and maintain autonomy in his life has decreased. In essence, the development and use of highly destructive weapons have only served to reinforce power imbalances and contribute to the loss of freedom for the masses.

The idea that simple weapons empower the weak while complex weapons mainly benefit the strong has been evident throughout history. The use of gunpowder, for instance, played a crucial role in the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie could leverage the power of gunpowder to defeat their feudal overlords and establish a new order. Similarly, during times when the dominant weapon is complex, nepotism tends to thrive, as those in power can maintain their positions by controlling access to these weapons. In contrast, during times when the dominant weapon is simple, common people have a greater chance to succeed as these weapons are easier to obtain and use effectively.

This dynamic can be observed in various periods of history. For example, in medieval Europe, knights and nobles held the power, as they had access to advanced weapons such as swords and armor. However, with the introduction of gunpowder weapons, the balance of power shifted. The feudal lords could not maintain their control as easily, and the bourgeoisie were able to overthrow them.

Similarly, in the modern era, the development of more complex weapons like the atomic bomb has given powerful countries an advantage over weaker ones. The creation of such weapons has required significant investment in resources and technology, which only a few nations can afford. Consequently, countries with access to these weapons hold more power, making it difficult for others to resist them.

In contrast, simpler weapons such as knives and clubs can be easily made and used by anyone, making it easier for the weaker individuals or groups to defend themselves against those in power. This can be seen in various contexts, such as in street fights, where a smaller and weaker person armed with a knife can quickly level the playing field against a larger and stronger opponent.

The notion that modern weapons of warfare are fundamentally oppressive is rooted in the fact that they require a high degree of technical expertise to operate, and are often only accessible to those with significant resources and power. In contrast, computer viruses are relatively simple to create and distribute, and can be used by individuals or groups with even limited technical knowledge.

This difference in accessibility between modern weapons of war and computer viruses has important implications for the relationship between power and control. When weapons are beyond the reach of ordinary people, it undermines their ability to have control over their own lives and affairs. This is particularly true in the context of modern warfare, where the state and other powerful actors often have a monopoly on the most advanced weapons.

In contrast, the use of computer viruses can be seen as more democratic precisely because it enables a wider range of actors to exert control over their own affairs. For example, an individual or group with limited resources and technical knowledge can use a computer virus to disrupt the activities of a larger, more powerful actor. This can be seen as a form of resistance against oppression and a way to level the playing field.

Furthermore, the use of computer viruses can be seen as a way to promote greater transparency and accountability. In many cases, powerful actors may seek to hide their activities from public view, making it difficult for ordinary people to hold them accountable. However, the use of computer viruses can expose these activities and help to bring them to light.

In sum, while modern weapons of warfare like planes and bombs are fundamentally oppressive, the use of computer viruses can be seen as a more democratic form of resistance against oppression. By enabling a wider range of actors to exert control over their own affairs, computer viruses have the potential to level the playing field and promote greater transparency and accountability.

Overall, the complex nature of advanced weapons like the atomic bomb creates a power imbalance, making it difficult for common people to succeed. However, simpler weapons provide a level playing field, allowing weaker individuals and groups to defend themselves and achieve success.

The creation of the atomic bomb gave rise to new centers of power, but it also stripped power away from the common people. The increased power of states and other entities has diminished the control that ordinary people have over their affairs, reducing their ability to influence the state of affairs. This has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, further marginalizing those who are already at a disadvantage.

Scientific advancements were supposed to propel humanity forward, but in the case of the atomic bomb, they have taken it backwards. The use of such a destructive weapon has robbed people of their power to resist and has pushed the world towards the reintroduction of slavery, reversing the progress made towards a more just society. The lessons of history suggest that we need to be cautious about the development and use of new technologies, and ensure that they serve the greater good rather than being used to reinforce existing power structures.