The Bipolar Blog

Si vis pacem, or is there universal peace?

September 13, 2013


Dear Reader!



 



Sometimes a diseased mind cannot distinguish one from another, and here you will not find a conversation in its common sense, but something extremely odd. Both Dr. Fox and Sir Popper are here, enchained into one text.



 




The topic is war & peace, but main point is that everything is biased, and the way a person comprehends something (including such a positive idea of peace) depends mainly on one’s point of view, despite the message. Even if this person is good at reading between the lines (as, I suppose, you are, my Reader), usually he or she chooses only one set of these lines, but it doesn’t mean, that there are no other ones.



 






 



Today, on the verge of a new conflict, it is becoming obvious that the US,

as a part of the international community that search peace and democracy, not

wage ruthless wars that undermine international law and human rights, realizes

the possible destruction of such states, which is not desirable; still some believe

it is inevitable to use force or coercion in the Syrian situation. We understand that

there are powers and persons who think that war means something that is

more than destruction – there is a need for justification. But we know that peace

is beneficial for us, the humanity, in many ways. I sincerely believe that war

will be forgotten on Earth someday, as such is the human nature, struggling and fighting

the idea of war, biased by medieval politics, that still prevail, will be gone. We have hope

while the global powers lead the world. (do they?)



 



Humanitarian intervention is already a (sorrowful) precedent. It’s not that

I suppose that military actions suffice anyone’s interests. I don’t think that

everything can be solved by the use of force. While looking for peace, be prepared -

you should consider peaceful negotiations as well. It is unwise to assume that

the powers that be wage wars because they can win; due to their power, I believe that

they can bring some change. Tolerance and mutual understanding,

such simple ideas of tolerance and understanding that others consider to be

just words, without any serious power or institution supporting them,

useless, but they show the new course of human evolution. One can say:

“Human nature have changed very little throughout the centuries”.

Well, I believe that we are not those blood-thirsty animals, and I can’t say that

we are driven solely by egoism, survival instincts and mutual mistrust, and

we can’t cooperate. I hope I’m not the only pacifist who does not think

he or she is the one of the war-craving individuals, feeding on chaos, who declare

that humanity is doomed to kill itself someday in the agony of its own ignorance:

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”.



 



Many Latin-speaking thinkers are adorable, but we should move on and stop

preparing for war every time we want peace, fighting in the name of freedom, stop

clinching to the past that brought so much pain and suffering. If we do not even try

this – we would be dead as millions before us, during any period of human history,

millions, who burned in the fire of their wrath and arrogance, would be just as us.

War, force, coercion, power are effective means for many desperate aims, but

can they suit for the future welfare of humankind, for the world of our children?

I doubt anyone can change fast, and the rivers of our planet will still be full of blood,

but when I contemplate about progress and evolution, I want to say as loud as I can:

“Hear me, human, and remember the good-ol’ saying ‘si vis pacem, para bellum’.

I hope that it, the idea of a ‘good’ war, will be replaced someday by



si vis evolutionis, para pacem’!”



 






 




If you still think that there is only one way to read this text, try reading between the lines.