Monday 10 October 2022

Pacifism is acceptable, within-System, dissent - which Christians should recognize as a red flag

In the post-1945 'Western' world; there is a sense in which to desire 'peace' has always been regarded as an acceptable - if not approved - opinion. 

We can see that by the fact that pacifism has always been afforded a platform in the mainstream media and politics, and is allowed as a subject of discussion - even when it is subject to official disapproval, and argued against. 

This continues, even under the current system of unprecedented discourse-control; and this should alert us that for a person in public discourse of 2022 to argue for peace is a red flag. And RF both in terms of showing that something is 'off' (e.g. that the pacifist is being used or manipulated for pro-System purposes) - and possibly that this is also a red flag in the sense of a pro-leftism fake or deception. 

Pro-peace discourse is an alluring deception, because peace (as opposed to war) is something that almost everybody wants as an outcome - and as soon as possible. 

Nonetheless, its public expression in terms of complete- or partial-anti-war pacifism, or putting peace as The Priority; is also something that is nowadays routinely deployed by those who have engineered war and are actively working to escalate war.

Unless that fact is understood explicitly; then the desire for peace is an unconscious instinct that can- and will-be - and is being - used against-itself

It is characteristic of our time that instincts are almost-always being (Systematically) harnessed and used against themselves - eg. sexual urges, the desire for freedom or tolerance or dignity, the yearning for security. 

Systems that are purporting to generate more of these, in actuality eventuate in less of them (while claiming to have promoted them). 

Therefore, peace and pacifism are not just red flags, but red herrings! They are small scale and tactical distractions from what needs to be understood at the large scale; and as distractions from what ought to be done, they passively-promote (actively-allow) the opposite of what their supporters want to be done.

When a society's metaphysical assumptions are false and evil (as in our case), and that society therefore understands wrongly the nature of reality, and thus wants what is fundamentally wrong; then this deep problem cannot be solved - but will instead be worsened - by aiming to implement-directly superficial and short-termist motivations. 

1 comment:

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Phil (edited):

1.) Good things cannot be put first. "When they shall say, 'peace and safety'..." sounds really good, but that's what allowed the Birdemic. Compare also with (Fire Nation's enemy) Z's exhortation to bring peace by a pre-emptive strike.

2.) Red herrings?
After the revolution, the Bolsheviks were one of several parties. All the parties agreed that the Fire Nation couldn't just stop fighting, as they would loose territory & the resident citizens. Except the Bolsheviks; they said, "Stop the War!!", & won the election. It worked so well that they tried it again in the USA during Viet Nam. It may have been the right thing to do, but the Reds were able to use a good cause to demoralize the country.
Evil hides behind good; it always has.