Peace and pacifism lead to complacency.
And the opposite, war?
Conflict, the foundation of all existence.
Um, no.
Give and take is the foundation of all existence.
You cannot give something without first taking it. Love is not free, people need to eat in order to have a beating heart.
All is not a conflict though. I think the lipstick you wear has oozed chemicals in that mind of yours, unable to see the truth that clearly. For instance, if a woman gets off to being cut in half, and she sacrifices herself willingly, where is the conflict?
I see a lot of taking. Giving? Not so much.
I dunno about you, but I’m gettin’ money. Somebody had to give me that money, as well as build the thing to print the money, which was taken from steel inside the Earth.
Both giving (for example in order to get peace) and taking (for example in order to get peace) are two sides of the same thing: on the one hand war is behind you and peace in front of you, on the other hand peace is behind you and war in front of you. There is always the same or at least a similar situation; the duration is different, but the question is always merely: what is next?
In order to give to some you must take from another.
Peace? Class warfare anyone?
It’s known. Take this: In order to take from someone this someone must be someone who has already taken. 
That’s the discredited Malthusian/game theory (“zero sum”) viewpoint, which is just an illusion created by capitalism*, rather than a necessary fact of life.
Peace doesn’t really exist and pacifism is for pussies.
No, that has nothing to do with capitalism so much as it does with the necessity of survival and nature.
One man’s peace is another’s tyranny and one man’s civility another’s barbarism or still yet existential horror.
Senile? Nah, that’s too nice of a word. I prefer the words hysterical or delusional in its place for intended added emphasis.
Oswald Spengler is one of my favorite writers by the way.
Hey! Very good. Congratulations. I can say the same, because Oswald Spengler is one of my favorite writers.
What and when did you read which and how many of his books?
I’ve read his book Decline Of The West. It is of course his most popular book.
Other books of his that I haven’t read yet but are on my list eventually would be Man And Technics along with Problem Of World-History And The Destiny Of Mankind.
Yes, of course.
I also recommend: “Preußentum und Sozialismus” (translation: “Prussiandom and Socialism”), 1919. This book can be read as a the direct continuation of his most popular book.
What’s that book about?