On Peace

 

“Blessed are the peacemakers,” runs one of the Beatitudes.

But who are the peacemakers? 

One naturally thinks of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is given for making peace, right?

Officially, it is given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

It is dubious that the reduction of standing armies leads to peace. That was a dream of the 1920s—and arguably, World War II was the result. Disarmament is an invitation to invasion.

The logic is akin to the logic of defunding the police.

“The holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Here too we have a problem. Often enough, indeed almost inevitably, the same guys who started the war sign the peace. Yasser Arafat and Menachim Begin are previous laureates: both arguably terrorists.

Among recent laurates were Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Which seem invisible to many not on the Nobel committee. And Al Gore, "for efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.” Whether or not you worry about climate change, what does this have to do with peace? Why not, in this vein, a Peace Prize for campaigning against tooth decay?

People do not seem to have a clear idea of how one makes peace. Perhaps people do not have a clear idea of what peace means.

St. Augustine defines peace properly. Peace is “the tranquility of order.” Peace comes with all things in their proper place, with clear lines, rules, and boundaries: passing on the right, stopping on red. No left turn. One can imagine if no one knew or kept such rules.

Peacemakers are those who establish clear boundaries, advocate for clear boundaries, and administer and enforce them consistently. Those who respect the rules.

The lawgivers, the peace officers, the justices of the peace. The honest referees.

The inclination of our postmodern world is instead to obscure all boundaries: the roles of husband and wife, of men and women; the distinction between male and female; the significance of borders; the distinction between citizen and non-citizen; the distinction between beauty and ugliness; between truth and opinion; even between right and wrong. 

This is satanic. This is pandemonium.

Peace, Order, and Good Government

 

In Shakespeare’s MacBeth, MacDuff flees to England to join forces with Malcolm, the rightful Scottish heir, in hopes of overthrowing the tyrant MacBeth, Malcolm tries to convince him that he would be the worst king possible. It is a subterfuge, but, among other things, it allows Shakespeare to define good and bad government. He summarizes a bad ruler in these words:

“Nay, had I power, I should
Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell,
Uproar the universal peace, confound
All unity on earth.”

The purpose of government is, in a phrase, to keep the peace. It is to promote unity among citizens, to settle disagreements. “Peace, order, and good government,” in the words of the BNA Act.

Multiculturalism obviously goes directly against this, by emphasizing differences among groups of citizens. Pandering to and favouring special interests, whether women, gays, blacks, indigenous people, or some professional elite, obviously goes against this, pitting one group against another. Even any “activist” government goes against this, as any dramatic change is a breach of the peace.

But Shakespeare is surely right about this. The very word “devil,” “diabol,” implies division—to put things apart. Compare “symbol,” to put things together.

The Trudeau government in Canada is thus a classic case of bad government. Trudeau declares there is no Canadian mainstream; there is no Canadian unity, and unity is actually undesirable. He slanders opponents as “Nazi sympathizers,” an “unacceptable fringe.” He picks fights with the premiers and with foreign governments. He panders openly in his rhetoric to any and all special interest groups, from Lavalin to aboriginals. He keeps promising handouts.

More broadly, leftist government today seems to be intrinsically bad government.

When, in the Beatitudes, Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers,” this is what he is talking about. He is not endorsing pacifism or “peace at any price”; these stances are immoral, and lead to more war. He is endorsing those who make and enforce just laws; for the purpose of laws is to preserve the peace. He is blessing those who, given any social influence, use it justly rather than stirring up trouble. Those who do not gossip or flatter or pander.

All of us are, sooner or later, in such a position—not just those in government. It applies in the family, the essential social unit. An evil parent will play one child against another, sowing tumult and dissent. A decent parent will treat their children openly and fairly, rewarding and punishing only as warranted for their own ultimate good.

This is one more sense in which the Biblical edict “by their fruits you shall know them” applies. Or the story of the blasted fig tree. Whether a man or woman is good or bad is hard to determine. Most evil is done in secret. A good test is to ask, are their children happy, ”well-adjusted,” and on good terms with one another? 

The End to War All Wars

 

I am left uneasy by a poetry reading I attended last week. There was no planned theme, but perhaps unsurprisingly, given events in Gaza, poems tended to focus on the horrors of war. My own contribution too, actually. What troubled me was how the moderator, summing up, suggested we were all, by saying war was bad, speaking out boldly to end war and change the world.

That, it seemed to me, was offensive. I cannot go so far as to say everyone agrees war is bad; the Fascists liked it. But it is the opposite of controversial to say so. By saying so, the poet is accomplishing absolutely nothing for anyone but himself, by washing his hands of the affair. Such a stance ought to be condemned, not praised. It is the stance of Pontius Pilate.

It further annoys me that people put such emphasis on killing civilians—as though it is perfectly okay that any number of soldiers die. The average soldier has no more control over war and peace than the average woman or child; killing him is just as wrong. Unless men’s lives don’t matter.

The necessary task is to propose how we might end this war, or war in general. Simply lamenting war is doing more harm than good: it gives succor to the aggressor.

In my defense, my own contribution proposed, in poetic terms, that all life is war until and unless we turn to God.

And that was a problem for those assembled: it violated “the separation of church and state,” one participant observed.

Not that “separation of church and state” is in the Canadian Constitution or Charter of Rights, or for that matter the US Constitution. And certainly not in Britain’s, which recognizes an established church. Not that that is a basic liberal principle that would have been propounded or recognized by John Locke. But all references to God or morality are now excluded from public discussion. Or rather, they are excluded unless you are Muslim.

Which is fatal to social and individual peace, because they are the solution to literally everything. And I mean literal in the literal sense.

The Cause of War Unwound

 

A reasonable compromise, and war is averted.

The novel Unwind, omnipresent in the schools, is faithful to the woke “narrative” at every point. Men are always acting impulsively, the beasts, and some woman has to take them in hand and set them straight. But women are not just more rational than men. If any character shows compassion for the less fortunate, it will be a woman. If a black character is featured—sorry, “sienna,” because the word “black” is apparently pejorative--he must have an IQ of 155 and a strict moral code never to steal. 

Predictably, it cleaves to the familiar line on the issue of war. War is always and under all circumstances wrong on both sides.

“You see, a conflict always begins with an issue—a difference of opinion, an argument. But by the time it turns into a war, the issue doesn’t matter anymore, because now it’s about one thing and one thing only: how much each side hates the other.”

Wars, the book implies, are caused by some misunderstanding. The war starts because both sides lose their temper, apparently at the same time. And the good guys are the ones trying to broker a compromise.

This theory of war requires us to believe that governments, groups of people generally chosen from their peers for their good sense and level headedness, are prone to suddenly lose their temper for no good reason and send thousands or millions of their fellow citizens to their death. Possible, but not a likely explanation.

In the real world, among individuals or among nations, so long as both sides feel they have a legitimate argument for their position, they will keep arguing. Only when one side loses the argument do they stop negotiating. Then the loser must back down, or resort to force. That is when and why a war starts. As Clausewitz says, "war is a continuation of policy by other means." It is entered into not in a fit of temper, but to achieve some political purpose, in cold blood.

And one side is almost certainly right, and the other side is almost certainly wrong.

Accordingly, those who want to negotiate a compromise are not the good guys. They are doing the Devil’s bidding. It is as though the police, called to a crime, tried to negotiate a compromise between the thief who took the wallet and his victim. Or refused to intervene, as both parties must be at fault for the misunderstanding.

The sure result will be more injustice, and more wars.

And that is what our kids are being taught to think.

Paxil In Terra

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

 “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

 Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

This, last Sunday’s gospel reading, is an essential corrective to the “gentle Jesus” lie.

My local priest insisted in his sermon that of course this did not mean that Jesus or God wanted division. Jesus indeed came to bring peace. The division was that some would not listen to his call for peace.

Too clever by half. Besides, it contradicts Jesus’s actual words: “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing.”

Had Jesus really called for peace, he would not have been crucified. The established powers would be delighted, as they embrace that message today.

If all you want is peace, Buddhism is the religion for you. Hakuna Matata. For Christianity, that is cowardice and acedia. Christian existence is an eternal war of good against evil. The Christian is, in St. Paul’s words, to “work out his salvation in fear and trembling.” The goal is not peace and acceptance of what is, but justice and the heavenly Jerusalem.

Peace

 

Nitobe Japanese Garden, Vancouver

In the wake of Remembrance Day, comrade Xerxes asks, “What is peace?”

He is right to point out that peace does not simply mean the absence of war. But we also need to go on and say what it does mean. To leave the meanings of words vague is an open invitation to the Devil. He will twist the word to his own purposes, to the extent of Orwell’s “war is peace.” This is why Confucius said that the first and most important task of government is to use terms properly.

If one consults the dictionary, the first meaning of peace is indeed not the absence of war. Oxford online gives it as “Freedom from disturbance; tranquility.” Hence “Mental calm, serenity.” I’m pretty confident the primary meaning of the Hebrew “shalom” or the Arabic “salaam” is the same.

As to what peace sounds or smells like, the experts on this are the Chinese. Feng shui is designed to bring such mental calm. The sound that most brings peace is that of gently running water; or the light tinkle of glass on glass, wood on wood, or metal on metal. The sights that most bring peace are those seen in a Chinese or Japanese tea garden: not roses in regimental order, and not random wilderness, but nature coaxed, a use of contrast always slightly off-balance. Always an odd number of elements. Never two things at equal distance, but also never at distances too dissimilar. Never two things the same size, but not vast differences in size.

Peace.

No Justice, No Peace; No Money, No War

Trump has now brokered three peace deals in quick succession: Kosovo and Serbia, UAE and Israel, Bahrain and Israel. Trump is a professional deal maker. Business is about “busy-ness,” about finding ways to get things done. I think we are seeing the value of entrepreneurial skills in government.

The prospects seem good now for an overall end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a dangerous sword dance that has lasted since 1948. The prospects are also good for an end to Islamist terrorism; the existence of Israel, and the West’s backing for the Jewish state, was the main complaint. We could be seeing another moment like the moment the Berlin Wall fell. The Middle East may fully join the modern world.

For one thing, the rise of Islamism looks a lot like culture shock. Traditions, like people, go a little hysterically nativist on first contact. Culture shock in the face of globalization is a good explanation for Nazism in Germany; perhaps too for Stalinism in Russia, Juche in North Korea, and Maoism in China. These things pass, sooner or later, and things calm down, as the new and foreign grows more familiar. Ideally without Holocausts and world wars. Perhaps this explains the troubles in the Balkans as well--suddenly exposed to the winds after decades behind a curtain of iron.

Along with this, and Trump’s talent for dealmaking, there is another critical factor. Do you remember, gentle reader, when “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland seemed insoluble? They went on for decades. Then they suddenly ended in 1998, with the Good Friday accord. Now all anyone worries about is whether there will still be an open border, without any kind of border check, after the UK leaves the EU. What happened?

The money ran out. The IRA was funded by the Soviets, then by Libya. Gaddhafi pulled the funding. The IRA wilted, and Sinn Fein was forced to go the political route. To everyone’s benefit, including Sinn Fein.

A similar consideration probably stands smiling deferentially behind the present peace agreements. Thanks to fracking in the US and elsewhere, the money is running out to fund the eternal conflicts in the Middle East; and Islamic terrorism worldwide. The wasta, the leverage, the Gulf States had over the rest of the world, that needed their oil, was considerable, and is now gone. If they are going to keep their profitable economies going, they need to work harder at making and keeping friends, at encouraging investment and trade.

Bahrain joining in the deal feels significant. Bahrain is nearly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabia. During the Arab Spring, the Saudi Army went in to restore order. Bahrain would not have signed on without Saudi prior approval, and so looks like a stalking horse. Probably the Saudi royals are watching public reaction before committing themselves.

With the Magic Kingdom in, the rest of the GCC is overwhelmingly likely to follow: Oman, Kuwait, Qatar. Along with Egypt and Jordan, already signatories to peace deals, this is the centre of gravity for the Arab world. Others will probably come in as well.

A general Arab-Israeli rapprochement then puts critical pressure on Iran, already in financial trouble and vulnerable to civil unrest.

All this raises a further consideration.

The eternal conflict in Northern Ireland, the Middle East quagmire, and Islamic terrorism around the world, depended heavily on funding, generally funding from abroad. So heavily that, funding withdrawn, peace breaks out.

Who is funding the current conflict in the USA, from Antifa and Black Lives Matter?

Someone certainly is.

The New Polytheism

The Great God Nature.

“Peace” and “diversity” are becoming dangerous idolatries. Not that they are the only ones; they join many other false gods in the modern polytheistic pantheon, like “democracy,” “nature,” and “science.”

Both are, of course, conditionally good, both peace and diversity—that is, good depending on context. Diversity is good; lack of diversity is bad. But unity is also good, surely to an at least equal extent. And diversity is close to being the opposite of unity. Accordingly, there can be too much diversity without unity, and too much unity without diversity. This is lost once “diversity” becomes the idol. The US motto is good in this regard: “e pluribus unum”; roughly, “out of diversity, unity.” The Christian doctrine of the Trinity also seems to strike this balance.

So too with peace. Peace is always preferable to conflict, if these are the only two factors in the equation, and not even for moral reasons. It’s easier and more profitable for everyone. But these are never the only two factors. If they were, the issue would never come up. Everyone wants peace.

In truth, whenever there is a conflict, it is usually, in the normal course of things, because one party is in the right, and the other in the wrong. An honest person must assume this. Cases where it is all due to a “misunderstanding” are quite naturally in the minority; this is an intrinsically less probable reason for any disagreement to occur, let alone to come to blows. To pretend otherwise is both cowardly and dishonest. Because, after all, it is not true, and it is the easier path.

In cases in which morality is on one side in a conflict, most cases, demanding peace unconditionally is always acting in support of the aggressor or the party perpetrating injustice. One is then fully guilty as well of that injustice or aggression. None so guilty, someone said, as the “innocent bystander.” Especially if they are going to condemn the victim on grounds of false morality for resisting being knifed. This is then both participating in the knifing, adding a further assault, and debasing the moral currency generally.

Or, as Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”