Promises

Promises are only good when they are made freely. When either force or deception (ideological force), are used it must be expected that one is dealing with an enemy defined by the violation of the establishment of optimum, mutually beneficial relationships. In other words, one party stands to lose benefit available from alternative courses of action while the other stands to benefit too much. Lacking the best interests of the former party (the victim/slave), the promise holds no force and actually faces a resistive force. Establishing undue/unearned gain for the latter party (the thief/master), there exists great forces advancing the maintenance and strengthening of the inequity by force. This further releases the thief from obligation to the original promise.

No person may be expected to honor any commitment with any party which poses a threat to one's health or one's prosperity. Promises require trust and establish dependency, both of which are undermined by those who would advance their agendas by force. Negotiation with one's enemies (as has been the common practice with terrorists before 9/11) implies the desire to establish promises and commitments with one's enemies. This policy is insane because it denies inherent distrust and independence required for relationships with one's enemies. Anything which strengthens an enemy, even if it hurts another enemy more, must be considered an added threat to oneself. Of course, negotiations are preferred if one's enemies may be convinced to release their evil desires against oneself, and prove their loyalty.