Military spending is the typical topic exploited by the commentators of the day—that is, those who must make a comment anywhere and under any circumstance—to criticize anti-militarists and, above all, to accuse the belief that we can live in a world without armies and in peace as naive. However, for now, the only thing that is certain is that we live in a world with armies that is not at peace. A world under the permanent threat of world war, with conflicts breaking out in different parts of the planet. A world that suffers from stratospheric social inequalities and allocates an equally disproportionate amount of money to so-called defense services that only defend the interests of egomaniacs incompetent in diplomacy. Democratically elected megalomaniacs, some more than others, who receive the votes, paradoxically, of those who will suffer the most from the consequences of their policies and who will be the jailers of their own prisons. We live in a land that constantly revolves around the same mistakes without resolving them and falls again and again, as if it were an inevitable physical fact. A land full of graves of lives that were full and have suddenly been emptied by these weapons and bombs that we must buy and must have to defend ourselves against our enemies. A defense that must also be acquired under threat, because if you don't buy it, they coerce you into not buying it. From the outset, they already put the gun to your chest. It can't be said that they aren't consistent. But that's what security is all about: constantly threatening you. So the question is obvious: What should we really defend ourselves against? Are we safe in a world where bombs don't fall on us directly but we see them annihilating other human beings? Will we be much more at ease if we rearm and allocate taxes to camouflage uniforms and supersonic aircraft, which are equally susceptible to being shot down but will die killing? Who do we want to enrich the most, apart from the corrupt? Who, as always, is benefiting from so much killing, so much destruction, and so much threat? Is it really naive to start standing up to all this? Maybe it's impossible to do, but isn't that what everyone should really be thinking?
Obviously, all of this has nothing to do with defending the position of the Spanish government, a government that right now has enough work to do just standing on its own two feet and maintaining its own model of corruption and repression. It has to do with the real alternative to a world that is making us increasingly afraid, and we are unable to stop its drift of sinister characters who manage to make us not want to leave our comfort zone and say yes to everything as long as they don't touch what we have, even if it's just a little. It's extremely hard to see and acknowledge how they subjugate us time and time again, and on top of that, having to listen to the comments of those who always side with the winner, as if there really were a winner. Only losses are written in the tombs.
But the pacifist option is for the naive, who don't understand what world we live in, they say. When it's precisely the opposite, because it's the most revolutionary option: when the world is best understood, it becomes most necessary to commit to disarmament. Especially because these individuals are nothing without a court that supports them and armies that receive orders. We've seen it when they fell, when they fall. And we've had enough of our own internal battles, against which, by the way, no army is worth anything.
