The Gospel Of War, If You Want Peace Prepare For War E-Book

davide appi

• Herausgeber: Tektime
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Seitenzahl: 324

Beschreibung

The Gospel Of War, If You Want Peace Prepare For War
From ambassadors of conflict to messengers aware of peace

True Peace is not only the absence of war, but also of all the emotional negativity of the human being. Harmony and serenity already dwell in us, as well as truth and positive qualities, it is only necessary to hear again, to listen in silence, and all the most precious inner treasures will blossom in unison.

The actual armed confrontation is only the visible tip of the iceberg, a striking aspect of the war, the one that moves the minds that suddenly rise from the sofa and say: ”Putin is a criminal, it is not acceptable to invade a foreign country and make massacres of innocent women and children”. But these people need to understand that, the tanks that invade a country, is just the final act of something that is being prepared day by day, starting from our consciousnesses, the war is a social structure, a way by which we have organized the entire society, because education itself is separating and teaches conflict.

So the war has become a philosophical, spiritual, psychological, social, cultural and economic structure, born of our own consciousness, of our ”false self” that feels separated from itself, from others, and this is the feeling of division that is the source of war.

To be pacifist does not mean to go to the streets to protest against the war or to be indignant before the television, for the criminal invasion perpetrated by the despotic of the moment, but to work on ourselves to dissolve that nature of conflict that we already have inside, that we express in our daily lives, when we clash with the people around us, and show aggression towards those who attack us.
True Peace is first of all a journey within us, in search of all those stimuli, in most cases unconscious, that make us react aggressively when we feel attacked. It’s a huge but essential work, we should base a new education on this key of inner pacification that further on will transmits outside as well.

Can we change the fate of our destiny?

Currently the world we live in seems to be addicted to violence, and like the worst addict, it requires stupidly, unconsciously, and automatically its dose of cruelty, of arrogance, of malevolence, and the drug system itself is not interested in the destructive consequences of these behaviors, for him the priority is to appease his addiction.

But war is a self-destructive choice born from a sick conscience, incapable of understanding itself and its own models of functioning.

Faced with this situation, the pacifists seem to be silenced, unable to respond to the completely rational and logical discourses of those who preach: ”let us take up arms to defend ourselves” or ”If you want peace prepare the war”. It seems more than ever to be back in fashion the famous: ”Let's arm ourselves and go”, while the patriotic heroism regains strength as in the good times...

But now let’s ask ourselves carefully, ”It's truly like this?”
Must we convert to the logic of violence, brush up from the museum of prehistory the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth of Mosaic memory?
Can we ever live in a peaceful world?
What can we do against the war?

Leseprobe

THE GOSPEL OF WAR

IF YOU WANT PEACE PREPARE FOR WAR

FROM AMBASADORS OF CONFLICT TO MESSAGERS AWARE OF PACE

DAVIDE APPI

Copyright © 2022 Davide Appi

All rights reserved.

EMAIL: [email protected]

Translated by Ivan Alexandra

If you want peace, prepare for war!

Under the control of our conscience we are ambassadors of war, because the same war is already inside us. We are therefore called to transform ourselves into Messengers aware of Peace.

DAVIDE APPI

If we do not take Peace as an inner fact, then we will have only an outward vision of the problem, and thus a superficial perspective of the phenomenon. DAVIDE APPI

We Revolutionaries are the immune system of humanity, we have the task of neutralizing violent individuals who are like cancer.

DAVIDE APPI

We are ONE, why make war on us?

DAVIDE APPI

PREMISE

In these months of war in Ukraine I felt the desire to write this book, to respond to this peremptory return of all pro-war propaganda and heroism linked to the defense of the homeland. In particular, the repetition, as if it were a mantra, of the phrase now increasingly popular in these times of war: "If you want peace, prepare for war!"

The power, to condition the masses and lead them to reason in a functional manner to their own interests, always resort to media propaganda, so as to inculcate the appropriate patterns of thought and convince people to endorse a certain ideology, rather than a certain conviction or truth. Therefore, repeating a slogan relentlessly, in order to make it introject to the masses, is a classic device to condition millions of brains to reason according to a certain perspective.

On the other hand it is the same mechanism of advertising: repeat and repeat the same speech, in order to make it penetrate into the unconsciousness of people, and once installed in the most remote part of the mind, the same concept will become a properly installed thought pattern in the individual, who will think that this concept is his own way of reasoning and thinking, without realizing any more that, in reality, it is a conditioning coming from outside, and that the same ends up enduring passively and uncritically.

This is how the bleating flock of millions of people is formed, first of all conditioned by the mass media propaganda, and then in the bar discussions they influence each other enhancing the original message coming from the media.

But let us return to the popular mantra in this period: If you want peace, prepare for war!

How many of us know Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, passed down to posterity only as Vegetius? Perhaps a few; or maybe many; but from him in many we certainly know the famous proverb, raised to the maximum: "Si vis pacem, para bellum!" ; or: "If you want peace, prepare for war!"

So it was the ancient Romans who coined that motto, which then became a real hinge of their culture and their politics, but given the proverbial belligerence that animated the ancient Roman Empire, we can already deny this maxim and return it to the sender. The ancient Romans who lived by the logic of "If you want peace, prepare for war" were hardly peaceful, and they never built a true nonviolent civilization. Therefore, since the failure of the Roman Empire, we already have a compelling proof of the failure of this doctrine. Faced with a fiasco so obvious why should we today, from the museum of prehistory, exhume this stupid

maxim lacking conscience that does nothing but follow a doctrine of endless war, in favor of the Powers who want to dominate the world?

The "Roman" style peace is not at all such, it is simply the armistice of the powerful, who have their own personal interpretation of what peace means; for them it is the possibility of perpetuating their interests without anyone disturbing them. As long as no one disturbs their affairs then they consider it a peaceful situation, otherwise, if they are threatened in their possessions and wallets, then, to safeguard their personal interests, they are also prepared to unleash a war which is not really about restoring peace, as they would have us believe, but about restoring their control.

Kings, Sovereigns, dictators and politicians have done, and continue to do, their convenient and their underground wars for Power, even if all this is at the cost of the welfare of the masses. Unfortunately, the ruling class has always done its own business careless of the problems of the people; in the past Emperors and Kings wallowed in the most unrestrained luxury, caring mainly about their belongings, while the people were dying of hunger.

Today the political class, in the so-called democratic countries, are clearly in the pay of a financial elite, so instead of looking after the interests of the people who voted for them, they legislate in favor of the multi-billion-dollar caste, promoting laws and regulations that deliberately transfer wealth from the bottom up, from those who work to those who speculate, from the poor to the richest.

So whether it is the past or the present, of kings or modern politicians, they have always been, and still are, promoting criminal policies that starve the people, and generate suffering and despair. As long as people swallow the bitter pill and endure the shameful conduct of politicians, then they speak of a country in peace, stable within it, of a united nation, while in reality it is a situation of false pacification, It is actually a war of the ruling caste against the nation itself.

In the past we have seen, for example during the French Revolution, that the oppression of the Sovereigns against the people has produced, at the height of popular endurance, a further violence of the masses against the rulers themselves. Today the situation is the same: we have a political class indifferent to the people, they deliberately carry out policies of impoverishment of the masses to benefit themselves and the richest. This criminal behaviour threatens to trigger not only in the poorest countries, but also in the rich ones, a violent reaction of the people in an attempt to restore a glimmer of social justice.

In all my writings I always condemn violence, so I am against its use even when, reasonably, we are in a situation of blatant injustice that repeated itself for centuries , it is a system in which the interests of the

richest have always been at the expense of the masses. So I'm opposing to a re-edition, “with a modern taste”, of a French revolution, but I think it is necessary to expose a system that governs the world and people with violence.

The despicable aggressiveness is not only that of the endless violent revolts of history carried out by the nations, but also that of an intrinsically cruel system that produces anger and hatred in the masses, which, not finding a better way to resolve the situation, have always let themselves be guided by despair.

Today we must avoid falling back into the trap of violence, and for this we must expose and delegitimize a system that produces hatred and injustice, but that its eminent representatives deny producing. In this regard, there are certain speeches that we have heard in recent months, in which our politicians speak of a united country, when in reality, thanks to their policies, implemented in particular during Covid and not only, they have produced division and anger among people in ways they were never seen before. Politicians create hatred, division, and resentment among the people, but publicly they fill their mouths with fine speeches, how fortunate we will be to live in a democratic nation, that ours is a great country, and that all is well. They create evil and deny doing so by pretending that everything is running smoothly.

In addition to delegitimize the current system, which knowingly fabricates violence, we must also reject the reactive, blind, and desperate aggression from us mere mortals.

Unfortunately, society has always been biased on these hinges, on one hand there's the ruling class that invisibly produces anger, and on the other is the common people who, at the height of endurance, let themselves go to the brutality of a hateful counter-response; but we are here to reverse this polarization and pursue a third path: that of absolute non-violence as an instrument of change. Absolute non-violence implies denying the system, the political class serves the same, but also the same popular anger, perversely functional to our “world system” inherently violent, structurally based on war, briefly, being revolutionary means being for nonviolence without ifs and buts. It is the solution to this “warmongering world” because, instead of relying on the ego-war, it refers to a relational view with others, capable of unifying instead of dividing, which brings peace rather than instigating anger and resentment.

STARTING NOTE

In this book I talk about consciousness, ego, ego-consciousness, Superconsciousness, anthropology.

To make clear the exposure of the concepts included in this book, I make an overview of these terms, to render the reading more understandable.

If we look at a dictionary we find the following definition of consciousness:

“Awareness is the subject has of itself and of the external world with which he is in relationship, of his own identity and the complex of his inner activities.”

Or, “the ability to assess your own skills and aptitudes.” In a more general sense, consciousness is associated with knowledge:

“the understanding of one’s actions through reflection and analysis”.

“The realization of a particular thing, the ability to evaluate one’s own skills and attitudes.”

As for the ego we find:

The term ego is used primarily in Italian to refer to the inner self of an individual, or alternatively as a derogatory term for a person with excessive determination and arrogance.

Then we have the definition of ego-consciousness:

The ego-consciousness is a mechanism of the mind with whom we identify. It’s the individualized consciousness that makes us believe that we are something separate from everything else. In this text I alternate the term ego-consciousness with other voices, such as ego, ego-self, war-ego, conflict-ego, all expressions I use as synonyms of ego-consciousness.

While for Superconsciousness we find:

The definition of Superconsciousness given by Swami Kriyananda, disciple of the great Indian master Paramhansa Yogananda, is as follows: “Superconsciousness is the greater dimension of our consciousness, which allows us to draw upon unlimited resources and potentialities. This is the magical and hidden mechanism of our mind operating behind intuition, physical and spiritual healing, problem solving and deep inner joy. In this book I use different terms to talk about the same thing: Superconsciousness, Superconsciousness, true self, "I AM".

As far as anthropology is concerned:

The term “anthropology” comes from the union of two Greek terms “Anthropos” and “logos”, which means “human” (meant as “humanity” or “human kind”) and “study”. So anthropology, by definition, is the study of mankind from a cultural point of view.

INTRODUCTION

Who is without sin cast the first stone

(John’s Gospel)

We are at war in Ukraine and Mr Mario goes to the bar to discuss with his old friend Pierino, about how bad and evil Putin is. Mario is peremptory in his analysis, he condemns the Russian invasion in no uncertain terms and he says convinced: "It is the right thing to send weapons to poor Ukraine to defend itself.”

Mario is outraged and says: “In 2022 you can not see tanks crushing cars ... It is not possible to see cities reduced to heaps of rubble, to accept the death of innocent women and children ...”

Mario is convinced that something must be done, we cannot leave the poor Ukrainians at the mercy of the Russian bear, and if necessary it is right thing to send them military aid, because it is their right to defend their homeland. Mario continues: “If you want peace, prepare for war”, so it is right to take up arms and defend themselves against the aggressors.

Pierino, faced with Mario’s sermon, feels unarmed, his speech seems to be absolutely right, reasonable, and sensible, an invaded people must defend themselves against aggression, and we have a moral duty to help the Ukrainians, including sending weapons if necessary. So this seems, to the conscience of Pierino, a legitimate speech, shared, and then he feel that he must support the reasoning of Mario, despite the fact that he would love peace and the mere thought of having to defend and arm for him is morally unacceptable.

But Mario’s words seem to make inroads into his brain, how can you be pacifist when the aggressors invade your country, the cities are reduced to piles of rubble, and you lose friends, family, and relatives?

Pierino now seems totally convinced: "Better to abandon all pacifist ambitions, it is right to defend oneself and it is important to send military aid to Ukraine to defend themselves against the Russians."

In the meantime, Giorgio has witnessed Mario’s anathema to Pierino and objects: "I am for the peace and absolute non-violence, so I am opposed to sending weapons". At this point Mario and Pierino, now united on their position, make “understand” that in front of an advancing tank, the beautiful pacifist philosophies have no sense, you can not think of stopping an enemy soldier with a bouquet of flowers ...

Here is that poor Giorgio, always considered at the bar as a kind of a freak, a visionary dreamer, a naive who did not understand how the world works, seems to make the figure of a fool, by making a nice speech but that does not seem realistic in the current war situation in Ukraine, or

more generally in any war context. Giorgio’s fine words seem completely senseless given the war situation.

Probably, this above imaginary discussion, has already really happened in a thousand bars around the planet, and for pacifists it seems to be a period of a cold streak, their ideas and visions of an idyllic world without wars, poverty, and atrocities, seem to be once again denied by reality; this situation seems to be the recovery of the belligerent spirits that, below, have never digested the paternal pro-peace and sermons on no to war. The war consciousness of millions of individuals seems to be growling, in the face of pacifists: “Here you have seen that in this world if you want peace you must prepare for war?”

No more pacifist rhetoric, we must defend ourselves with weapons, if today we allow the Russians to conquer Ukraine, soon other countries will be attacked by Putin, so we must start already now to defend Ukraine and consider heroes those who, at this moment, are dying in war to defend their homeland.

Faced with this situation, the pacifists seem silenced, unable to respond to the completely rational and logical discourses of those who preach: “let us take up arms to defend ourselves”. It seems more than ever the famous motto is back in fashion: “Let's arm up and go”, while the partisan heroism regains strength as in the good times...

But now let’s ask ourselves carefully, “Is that really true? Must we convert to the logic of violence, brush up on the eye by eye from the museum of prehistory, tooth by tooth of Mosaic memory? Can we ever live in a peaceful world? What can we do against the war? Are we destined to self-destruction?”

These are just some of the answers we will try to find in this book.

Enjoy the reading!

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1:

CHAPTER 2:

CHAPTER 3: PEACE IS RIGHT

CHAPTER 4: THE EGO-SELF TO THE RESCUE

CHAPTER 5: THE WARMONGER SYSTEM BY NATURAL CALLING

CHAPTER 6: WAR POLICY

CHAPTER 7: MILITARISM, RECKLESSNESS AT THE SERVICE OF THE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 8: THE MEDIA WAR AND THE BIASED MEDIA

CHAPTER 9: SUICIDEL ECONOMY

CHAPTER 10: THE BLINDNESS OF THE CULTURE

CHAPTER 11: EDUCATION FROM DARWINIAN MEMORY

CHAPTER 12: PEACE IN WARTIME

CHAPTER 13: THE OLD EGO’S WAR AGAINST THE NEW ONE

CHAPTER 14: EGO-CONSCIOUSNESS VS RELATIONSHIP

CHAPTER 15: THE PEACE IN THE WORLD IS THE PEACE IN OURSELVES

CHAPTER 16: WHAT WE CAN DO FOR PEACE

CHAPTER 17: THE MEDITATION FOR PEACE

INFORMATION ON THE AUTHOR

OTHER TITLES PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR DAVIDE APPI:

AUTHOR’S NOTES AND CONTACTS

CHAPTER 1:

CONSCIOUSNESS VS SUPERCONSCIOUSNESS

ON THE CROSS

Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.LUKE'S GOSPEL

SUPERCONSCIOUSNESS RAISES US ABOVE ORDARINESS

In this book I refer to both consciousness and Superconsciousness, so it is important to understand the difference between the two:

Consciousness is our thinking brain, based on thought and the past. Superconsciousness is that part of us that can consciously connect with the whole. To better understand the difference between these two we can make the analogy of the net.

The net is formed by the set of all the nodes that compose it. Thus, by analogy, everything present in the Universe can be assimilated to a node, which can live in the mirage of being a separate part from the rest; this is in fact the great illusion of consciousness, the existential mode in which most individuals live, they think they’re knots, isolated from everything else.

I am myself, and this leads me to believe that others are disconnected from me. This feeling of separation is the manner in which consciousness operates.

To return to the analogy of the net, the Superconsciousness feels the connection with the whole, knows that it is at the same time both the node but also the net itself as a whole. Superconsciousness knows that it is individualized in what we can claim to be our personality, but at the same time feels connected and interconnected to the rest of the net.

The consciousness, therefore the ordinary individual, consequently lives its existence believing that it is a separate node from the rest of the net; the Superconsciousness is aware that it is both the node and the totality of the net, such it is able to link us to a wider reality than the purely limited reality of an ordinary consciousness.

Thus, by its nature, the illusion of separation renders the conflictual and warlike consciousness, while the Superconsciousness creates unification by feeling one with the infinite. And it is this feeling of communion with all, experienced by the Superconsciousness, that gives our existence a

level of well-being, calm, and inner happiness absolutely unknown to the ordinary consciousness.

CONSCIOUSNESS: OUR “FALSE I AM”

It is not a sign of good mental health to be well adapted to a sick society.Jiddu Krishnamurti

We are in living in a profoundly unjust, anxiogenic, and sick world, this seems to be quite obvious, but our ordinary mentality seems to be one that lives according to this logic: “Ok this is the planet on which I live, how can I adapt to this situation?” “Which is the best strategy to survive in this asylum?”

This attitude reflects a willingness to adapt and conform to reality, rather than wanting to change it, and this is typical of consciousness, our “false I am”, which has a great capacity for adaptation and thus succeeds, in some way, to adapt to any circumstance and situation, living not in line with their ideals and values, but according to the perceived external reality. The consciousness, instead of living according to its own convictions, adapts to the outside world and education has a profound influence on it, since the consciousness itself is structured and functions on the basis of the information it receives from the outside, it is therefore inclined to learn, process, and store the acquired knowledge.

Consciousness, adapting to schizophrenic society, becomes itself paranoid, in the image and likeness of the alienated external environment. This leads to a symbiosis between consciousness and neurotic society, an unconscious "world-consciousness" collaboration, in which the latter becomes the controller of our consciousness.

A deranged world produces a sick consciousness, which gives us our own hysterical personal life. For this it becomes fundamental to succeed in transcending the perfect trap "consciousness-external world", to immerse ourselves in the calm and serenity of the Superconsciousness, able to make us find our balance, and lead us to that serenity that takes our attention away from all illusions. It is our inner refuge from the socially correct frenetic confusion, and it is the only possible way of change for both ourselves and the society.

If we understand that war cannot be the solution to world problems, and only true pacification can lead us to peace, then only Superconsciousness can lead us to a new non-violent civilization. Our ordinary consciousness

is constantly in the grip of mental confusion, in fact it is enough to listen to us for a moment to understand that we are subjected to a continuous, chaotic and disordered flow of thoughts that we cannot control.

So how can the consciousness perpetually immersed in chaos produce peace? Simply it can’t, and we’ve got the counter-proof of that by looking around.

On the other hand, how can a tool dominated by confusion and negativity, since most of our thoughts are naturally negative, be able to solve problems? How can those who live in the conflict of their own consciousness, produce harmony and pacification in the world? They simply cannot!

It is a fact of coherence: consciousness immersed in confusion produces discord, dissatisfaction, and war. Superconsciousness being by nature bliss, joy, and unconditional love creates harmony, compassion, and peace. Our Superconsciousness being at peace with itself is also able to be in harmony with the rest of the creation.

And that is why consciousness produces war, while Superconsciousness creates peace.

CHAPTER 2:

CONSCIENCE AND REASON:

THE GREATEST PRODUCERS OF WARS AND CONFLICTS

OUR OWN SELF WAR

Our ego consciousness, our conflicting self, is the inner counterpart of the outside world, are the two sides of the same coin, so it is our own ego-consciousness that creates our present society. Our conflicting self being separated from itself, and its fellows, it cannot but create a belligerent world, as well as social, affective, and professional relationships that will show its intrinsic belligerent nature.

This binomial between the conflictual self and the external environment, this “world-consciousness” collaboration is born within the split, the duality, born of the same conflictual self and reflected in the world. This is, if you want, the real original sin from which every personal and global problem arises, because the inner suffering generated by this feeling of separation we inevitably project it outside, in our family relationships, in our emotional, work and social relationships.

This causes our ego-consciousness to be structurally distorted and to produce a sick world.

THE FALSE EXTERNAL CHANGE

Secularized religions and political systems have always claimed to change mankind and even the world, but without changing the operating mode, better without making the transition from consciousness to Superconsciousness, so they tried changes without the necessary conversion, and obviously they failed tragically. Once again the real change starts from us, if we do not change our being we cannot achieve a real transformation.

If we keep remaining in the domain of consciousness we cannot change anything, but simply we can recycle the past, deceiving ourselves that we are making who knows what revolution, while we are perpetuating the same secular failures.

How can we arrive at World Peace starting from a consciousness that is structurally of its warmongering, both with itself and with the rest of the world? Of course you can’t. How can we reach justice, happiness and love starting from a conscience that is not capable of feeling these feelings?

Of course we can’t.

These short-sighted attempts at change have failed because they claimed to do good starting from evil, they wanted to create justice starting with injustice, give love from those who are not able to love, lead us to freedom in a context that imprisons us even more, propose new solutions from those who are only slaves of the past, and make peace but preparing for war. All the totalitarianism of the twentieth century had, as their underlying ideology, the hope of creating a New World, and we know well what those promises of a better future have produced...

Those pseudo-changes could only end tragically, because they were guided by the ego-consciousness, which deceives itself believing that it is awake, intelligent, capable, and in its ramblings deludes itself to be the savior of the world and the long-awaited Messiah. Secularized religions and ideologies have generated millions of deaths claiming to bring good to humanity.

REASON JUSTIFIES THE VIOLENCE

We all are ideally pro peace, but can we maintain a coherence between thought, word and action?

How many people in front of images of destruction, gutted cities, broken lives are indignant and declare that violence is an inadmissible madness, but then in front of someone who overtakes them by car, or a parking place stolen with cunning, or a little mischief of our partner react badly, often angry and counterproductive?

Why is it that, although we declare ourselves against war, which presupposes that we are against the use of violence, we still use force in certain circumstances to restore a situation that does not correspond to our expectations?

Why do we have double standards?

Why do we profess peace on certain occasions while in others we come to think, to threaten, or even openly resort to violence, when obviously we are still the same person? What causes us to make gestures that contradict our declared pacifism?

Undoubtedly there are unconscious mechanisms, that summarily we could define our “uncovered nerves”, if these are solicited by certain situations or by certain people, they push us to an aggressive reaction, with a peace of mind of our flaunted pacifism.

For the ordinary person it is quite simple to be a pacifist when he thinks that something is right, you can hardly tolerate the destruction and death caused by an armed conflict, so it becomes easy to try to oppose it. Also because the war scenarios are in most cases far from us, they do not directly affect us in our affairs and in our daily lives, not being directly involved makes it easy to be preachers of justice and goodness. But the problem for the same person, good at “preaching well” when he opposes to a war far away to him, is what generally called “scratching badly” in everyday life, when his level of awareness is really put to the test.

Starting from the observation of many people who openly declare themselves pacifists, against the last step of the “scale of violence” that we call war, I have often noticed that the same people have, in their daily lives, aggressive and violent attitudes that in fact contradict their declared pacifism.

But what is it that creates the inconsistency between circumstances in which we are opposed to violence and other forms that we quietly resort to? We are always the same person, but why do we have double standards, why can’t we be consistent with our good intentions?

Surely there are several elements at play that push us to the inconsistency between right thinking, right words, and right action, but here I want to put the emphasis on a precise aspect: the belief that you have reason on your side, it is the fruit of a thought that comes from the conscience, it can induce to generate acts of violence. Therefore, a basic motivation, which is a primary cause of violence, seems to be the conviction of being “right”.

The ordinary person seems to justify and legitimize the use of force, when the same person believes he is “right”.

Emblematic are some typical expressions formulated with the intention of justifying, then confirm, an aggressive reaction towards someone, and just to give some examples we can quote: “I punched him because this is not how we behave...”; “We came to blows because he lied to me ...”

Most people are like that, even if they think they are peaceful, actually when they are sure that they are on the right side, that they have the right view of the situation, they become very accommodating and willing to use force, and are good at justifying aggressive behavior because the same people believes to have "reason on their side". For some this process may have nothing to compare to the decision of a head of state to invade another nation, but in reality it is always the same mechanism, the

same violence that leads us mere mortals to attack someone from the top of our belief that we are right, and that drives a ruler to the military invasion of a foreign country, convinced to make a right choice.

Obviously it is more serious to send tanks to the front, rather than give a punch to a motorist, guilty of having "stolen" our parking spot, as it is more regrettable to make sanctions against another state, that will cause hunger and poverty in the nation that suffers from this criminal choice, rather than beating our partner, guilty of betraying us, but in any case the underlying mechanism is still the same.

It obviously depends on our position: if we are ordinary citizens our aggression will produce limited damage, while if we are people with great responsibilities we could create huge problems. It’s the rung of the social ladder in which we are that will determine the severity of the damage we could cause, but the underlying logic is always the same.

Thus reason, the fruit of the consciousness that thinks, analyzes, and reflects, becomes the main promoter of violence, wars, and crimes, whether it is the common pinprick or the most powerful man in the world, there are always consciences that feel entitled to resort to bullying in order to restore peace and justice. This is the perverse basic mentality that dominates the vast majority of people: using force to achieve Peace and justice.

History amply demonstrates that, the use of violence does not lead to any positive results and, despite the "concrete facts" against this conviction, war continues to be promoted as means of pacification, which is obviously a folly, typical of ego-conscience that can mainly produce conflicts over conflicts.

Often, individuals easily inclined towards an aggressive behavior as soon as their "nerves are tested", they make noble speeches in which they exalt their "wisdom", and obviously the world would be better if they were the ones to govern. You have certainly heard speeches like: "If I were in government I would know how to do good by the people ..." These individuals are not aware that, on a smaller scale, they are victims of the same, often unconscious, mechanisms that lead heads of state to war.

This is an important point to understand, if we want to change society, we must become aware that we too have latent violence, and we express it as soon as the opportunity presents itself. So if we don’t change ourselves, we are no better than those who govern us today and who are so good at criticizing.

So the problem is the basic aggressive mentality that animates us, and it finds its logic in a society that lives under the protection of consciousness, in perpetual competition with others, and always eager to be the best. If we think we are the best, the smartest of the others, then it becomes easier

to discharge the responsibilities "of the world that goes wrong" outside of our selves, to believe that others are wrong and we are right, and it also becomes convenient to find the right reasons to justify our violence, which from our point of view is legitimate.

In practice, for the ordinary individual, violence is wrong when others use it, while it is permissible if it is he, at his discretion, to use it; the man of the street, believing he is a wise and intelligent person, he thinks he knows when it is right to resort to force ...

This is the play that goes on every day on this planet: there are eight billion people, the majority of them are convinced that they are smarter than the others, so they are all good at blaming others' misdeeds, and at the same time are wise to justify and legitimize their mistakes, their aggressive behavior, because from the top of their wisdom they believe they are right.

We can safely say: "It is the very nature of consciousness, inclined to separation and competition that inevitably leads us to be in conflict with others". If we want we can also be more precise: It is the very nature of ordinary conscience that leads us to violence and war!

This explains why our civilization has always lived in suffering, in atrocities, and violence seems an inextinguishable evil. We are prisoners of ourselves, of our much vaunted conscience, whose nature is inevitably conflicting, for which war is its inevitable logic and its very mode of expression.

PACIFISM VS CONCRETE FACTS

Here I want to resume what was said in the previous paragraph:

"This is the perverse basic mentality that dominates the vast majority of people: using force to achieve Peace and justice. History amply demonstrates that the use of violence does not lead to any positive results and, despite the "concrete facts" against this conviction, war continues to be promoted as a means of pacification, which is obviously a folly, typical of ego-conscience that can mainly produce conflicts over conflicts."

Those who currently make great decisions and rule the world are used to reason, think, reflect, in short, use their intelligence, that is, their

conscience, to decide and take what they consider the "right" decisions. For them it is obviously correct to sabotage the economy of another nation, as when are being combined economic sanctions, just as it is right for them to militarily invade their neighbour, with the claim to be right and therefore, thinking they are right, they feel entitled to use any means to restore order and "peace".

This mentality as we said is very frequent, there seems to be a moral consensus on the use of force, when the right motivations are on their side or better, when our beliefs lead us to conclude that we are right, and therefore this leads us to justify the violence, to accept it as the correct remedy to put things right, and even in some cases to bless the military intervention, in case there is precisely the reason on your side that legitimizes the recourse.

In the current case of the Ukrainian conflict, some say: it is right to arm Ukraine because it is right to defend against an invader. So, protecting yourself from the enemy, seems like a "good reason" to resort to weapons.

I am not at all convinced of this logic because we are always in the vicious circle of violence, which always calls for more violence, and this is therefore not the solution but the problem itself. Brutality becomes an endless loop, we have been waging wars for thousands of years and we are back here debating yet another ongoing conflict.

If we want to break the chains of hatred we must resort to Love, to forgiveness, and not to the sword. Only nonviolence can cure violence itself. It is not by beating harder than our "enemy" that we will heal the evils of the world.

Some might think: this speech is the classic ideological reasoning, beautiful in words but that does not have its concrete feasibility; easy to utter noble intentions when the Ukrainians are dying under the bombs ...

But I would like to point out that nonviolence is not just an ideology and straws in the wind, but represents a way of being and a strategy that aims to avoid the problem, rather than having to face it once it has arisen.

Prevention is better than cure, so nonviolence is more effective than war, because if it is properly applied it the problem wont rise at all .

According to the most important military doctrines, war always has a defensive nature, so from this perspective there is no battle to attack the enemy, but always a military action to defend against those who are perceived as a rival.

"The best defense is a good offense."

Proverb

The above-mentioned proverb is disarmingly simple, it expresses in a summary manner the mode of functioning of our ego-consciousness-ego for which, the best way to defend oneself, is to anticipate the attack of another person attacking it first.

An example of this dynamic is the doctrine of preventive attack. In fact, what in English is defined as first strike, that is the first nuclear strike, is a theoretical strategy of a possible nuclear conflict; this involves a preventive surprise attack by a nuclear power, that suddenly launches a devastating offensive in order to disarm the enemy, in order to neutralize its nuclear response capacity. So this strategy involves defeating the antagonist nuclear power attacking it first, catching the opponent unaware, to neutralize any possibility of counteroffensive.

So, the first to attack would have the theoretical chance of surviving, accepting some collateral damage that he considers acceptable. The theoretical approach consists in carrying out an aggression against the enemy’s launch systems, destroying ports, airports, and atomic weapons depots, so that the assaulted is no longer able to respond, nor by conventional warfare, nor by an atomic counteroffensive.

This doctrine of preventive attack admirably reflects the logic of the ego-conscience: to attack first, to defend against the enemy. This is what we all do, both in our daily lives as mere mortals and those who decide the fates of the world.

It is in the same logical nature of the attacking ego-consciousness to defend itself, so do you understand the danger of still being "guided" by our ordinary consciousness?

Under the control of our consciences we are afraid, aggressive, and violent to defend ourselves because we feel attacked. It’s the perception of being under attack that generates fear, so it makes us react and it leads us to attack the other as a form of defense.

"The best revenge is forgiveness."

Proverb

The proverb: "The best revenge is forgiveness" emphasizes that the best answer we can give, to a wrong suffered, is to forgive, as forgiveness extinguishes the vicious circle of aggression and extinguishes the spiral of violence. Obviously, this proverb is incomprehensible and intolerable to the "normal-warlike" consciousness, only the Superconsciousness is able to understand and really implement such a teaching. Yet it would be the solution to every form of wrong suffered, and the end of the vicious circle of violence.

We have said that conscience always feels threatened by other consciences, therefore by its own kind, and this always puts it on the defensive, therefore always ready to attack as a form of defense.