You Fuel What You Fight

Whatever you oppose, you energize. You make it more. You give it life. You give it force to exist. Individuals want to fight things that they consider unfair, but when they do so, they encourage those things. There's a major paradigm shift that has to happen in order to change this.

As individuals, we have to learn how to decide on our own. A decision is pure and powerful when it's not contingent, when it's not linked to other ideas and other people, holding other ideas. To do this, we can't agree with other people. And we can't oppose other people. Instead, we make independent decisions.

Other people want you to agree with them. When you don't agree with them, they think that you're opposing them. Disagreement isn't opposition. Disagreement means that two individuals hold ideas that aren't compatible with one another. It doesn't follow, however, that those ideas, or the people holding those ideas, are in opposition. Disagreement doesn't mean conflict. It doesn't mean that you have to fight. Not fighting doesn't mean that you're agreeing, either.

The thinking is that if you don't oppose someone who's being unfair, you're tacitly submitting to them. This is incorrect. Submission is submission. Submission is opposition because you're agreeing through coercion, which isn't agreement at all. You're conforming against your will. That makes it opposition.

Not agreeing with another person, while not fighting them, is not submission because you don't conform. When you disagree, without opposition, you remain steadfast in your decision. You're loyal to your idea, your outlook, your actions, your position. You don't modify, and you don't fight.

We're taught that we have to answer another person's opposition to us. We hold an idea. Another person opposes our idea, and we're supposed to address their opposition. But we're under no such obligation to address another person's intolerance. That's their job. It's their work to address to their choices. It's not our work to address to other people's choices. Let's take an example.

I practice religion A, and you practice religion B. You want to eradicate religion A and all individuals who practice religion A. I want to continue to practice religion A. We're taught that this disagreement in perspectives means that we're in opposition. However, your position opposing me doesn't mean that we're in opposition. It means that you're in opposition. We can't be in opposition unless I oppose you, and making my own choice isn't opposing you. Making my own choice is making my own choice. It has nothing to do with you.

Your opposition to me doesn't mean that I have to oppose you. If I fear you, then I'm opposing you. If I believe that we need to agree, then I'm opposing you. If I believe that I need to take action against you, then I'm opposing you. If I believe I need to conform to your wishes, then I'm opposing you. If I decide to practice religion A without regard to your behavior, then I'm not opposing you.

Your choices don't apply to me unless I make them apply to me. I can refuse to put my decisions into question. I decide, and my decisions aren't open to discussion. I let other people express whatever desires they wish to express, but their desires don't apply to me because they don't get to make my decisions.

"But I'm threatening you," you reply. "I'm putting you in harm."

You're only putting me in harm if I put myself in harm by opposing you. Otherwise, you have no power over me, whatsoever. My decision doesn't oppose you. I'm only in opposition to you if I try to oppose your desire to stop me from practicing my religion. If I don't believe that you have any say in the matter, we're not in opposition. Your threat can only harm me if I oppose you, thereby putting myself in interaction with you. Up until that point, it's a one-sided interaction. You're interacting with yourself.

The reason that you believe that I have to address to you is that you believe that your ability to threaten me means that you have control over my life. But you don't have control over my life. I'm not your property. I'm not an object that you own. I'm not a possession. You have no claim to me. All of my decisions belong to me, and I get to decide if I'll practice religion A or not, and you can't do anything about it.

"I can hurt you," you reply.

You can't create a consequence for me. If you could create a consequence for me, that would mean there was no free will. That would mean that you control my safety and security. That would mean that you control my life. That would mean that you own my life. It's called my life because it belongs to me. It's not called your life. It doesn't belong to you. You don't control my safety and security. You don't control my life. I can choose to be safe and secure and practice my religion, and there's nothing that you can do about it. You can't punish me unless I make the practice of my religion a debate by opposing you. Then I'm putting myself in relationship with you. I have to do this by making my decision an issue that involves you. If I don't put my decision in question, if I don't involve you, then you have no power to do anything about me or my choices.

These are new skills. Obviously. If everyone was already practicing disagreement without opposition, there would be no conflict on the face of the planet. Most people don't know what decision without opposition is, much less how to practice it. One way to look at it would be that non-opposition means that your're stubborn about your decisions without defending them. You don't argue about them, give reasons why your position is valid, explain your decisions to others, try to convince anyone to take your side, or otherwise take an interest in how other people view your decisions. You make your decisions and gently support them without controversy because you don't leave your decisions open to debate.

You're reading by Samantha Standish. If you want to learn more about what happened in my out-of-body experience, my book, "Equal," is available for a nominal amount at,

Popular posts from this blog

Buckle Up, Dorothy, Standardization Is Going Bye, Bye

Skill Games 1: Feeling The Emphasis

Skill Games 2: Codebreaking