It's been ages since I read this book and it was interesting to re-read the part criticising the idea that "violence never settles anything". This is something I've been thinking about recently - this idea that "violence never settles anything" or "violence is wrong" has seeped into our culture and become engrained. It is so engrained that the media has to report violent protests as "most peaceful" in order to ensure public support of said protests, and all the media needs to do is suggest that other protestors are "violent" to make people turn against them.

It certainly makes false flags very easy to implement. But my thinking goes beyond this - this idea that "violence never settles anything" is greatly beneficial to the elites who seek to control the population. This is because violence is the ultimate leveler. Everyone bleeds, everyone dies. While the elite may have far more resources than most people have, and be able to shield themselves from many negative consequences of their actions, the one thing they can never truly shield themself from is harm itself. So what better way to ensure their own safety then to convince the population that it is somehow morally wrong to use force against them?