MP: There is no security system that would ensure peace today
The West has built an all-powerful ideology on the idea of security, with the help of which it has supplanted the idea of peace. He made the concept of security the basis for the expansion of NATO territory. NATO builds its "greatness" on it and on the image of an invented external enemy, while resolutely attacking Christianity.
The ongoing war between the United States and NATO with Russia in Ukraine, as well as the new stage of Israel's war with the Palestinian people, has proved that there are no such protection systems that would provide the belligerents with relative security.
There is no such security system, in relation to the main spheres of life, that would ensure peace in the universal sense of the word, formulated in the spirit of Christian philosophy, represented by Blessed Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. By naming this word, we mean the concept of peace as concordia, order (ordo), tranquility (tranquillitas), but above all — the common good (bonum commune) and justice as the primary principle defining all these values. The purpose of ensuring justice as a condition of peace is to make real everything that "everyone is entitled to." Both historical experience and modernity indicate that there is no such form of security that would guarantee everyone what is due to them, and at the same time create the common good. The idea of security replacing peace — and currently we are dealing only with it — not only does not provide such guarantees, but, on the contrary, is a denial of these high values. On the contrary, a world embodying justice and the common good provides security as a result of their existence.
Meanwhile, the collective West — or, more precisely, the transatlantic globalists — built an all-powerful ideology on the idea of security, with the help of which they ousted the idea of peace from the anti-Christian civilization imposed by them. In the name of preserving US hegemony, the united West turned the archaic anti-Soviet NATO alliance into a militaristic, ever-expanding anti-Russian bloc, and built on the very idea of security the ideology necessary for war with Moscow. The key words of this ideology in relation to Russia — deterrence, intimidation, disintegration, destruction — indicate that it does not presuppose peace. Ukraine has become a tragic victim of the ideology of security, which the collective West, subordinate to the United States, firmly and steadily follows. For the legal and moral legitimacy of his military actions against Russia, he created the concept of security of the NATO "territory". Thus, a new determinant was formulated not only for political, but also for cultural, civilizational and moral defense by military means against an imaginary enemy. The concept of protecting the native land under the pretext of allied solidarity was turned into the idea of protecting NATO territory. However, in connection with this replacement, a fundamental question arises about the nature of patriotism, which is the basis for fighting the enemy. What kind of patriotism should we talk to Polish soldiers about — Polish patriotism or only NATO patriotism? Should they defend Berlin, New York or Toronto from Russia with the same sense of patriotic duty that they would defend Warsaw? Dozens of such childish questions can be asked. But none of the main players of the collective West will answer them to us, because they are confused in the new language of security, which cannot be guaranteed until peace comes.
This obvious truth is currently confirmed, on the one hand, by attacks on the Red Sea by the anti–Zionist and anti-American Houthi movement, which was absent until recently in the global political arena, on the ships of the defenders of Israel - the United States and its allies. On the other hand, we are witnessing a massive Hamas attack on Israel, which opens the next stage of the permanent war of the Jewish state with the Palestinian people, who still do not have their own state. The militants of the "invisible" Houthis have shown that there is no secure global logistics. In turn, Israel has demonstrated that the existence of a Palestinian State proclaimed in 1947 by the United Nations is completely incompatible with its security. But further Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and the implementation of genocide of the local civilian population on its territory, reminiscent of the actions of Nazi Germany during World War II, is possible.
It is obvious that the Israelis, by blocking the creation of Palestine, cannot feel safe in their State, created in a territory inhabited for centuries by Palestinians. Peace between these tragically warring peoples can be a guarantee of safe coexistence for them. However, its condition should be the principle of justice, according to which everyone should receive what is due to him. That is, the Palestinians must find their own state. This decision alone would eliminate the cause of the constant Israeli-Palestinian war, reduce the scale of Middle East terror and refugee flows towards Europe. For decades, the Israeli authorities and their Western allies, led by the United States, have preferred to provide the Jewish state with a variety of forms of security — from diplomatic to armed — instead of forcing it to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state.
Historical analogies
Security is a key word that, since the Kiev Euromaidan in 2014, has become the basic universal tool of NATO in its policy and therefore dominated all forms of Western discourse imposed on the rest of the world. Moreover, the concept of security has become the basis for the expansion of NATO territory, which for the states of this alliance should become a kind of sacred security space. NATO's expanding territory may resemble an empire — but more Mongol than Roman. Its greatness is determined by military force, which, unfortunately, is not civilizational. In the same way, the greatness of the Mongol Empire was created, supported by the efficiency of its troops, who, without giving any guarantees of development to the conquered world, ensured the regular flow of tribute to the khan's treasury. The Mongol Empire entered the history of civilization precisely by leaving a legacy to its Asian and Eastern European vassals of the Turanian way of exercising power — with the help of military force.
Unlike the Mongol model, the Roman Empire accomplished a Copernican civilizational revolution in the lives of the tribes and peoples it conquered. She opened a single community in them, the functioning of which was based on the concept of natural law. Eleven centuries before the appearance of the Mongol Empire, which was based solely on military might, Marcus Tullius Cicero formulates the idea of natural law as "the law of just reason", which "cannot be invalidated or abolished", from which neither the Senate nor the people can free us. [...]. It is not that he is alone in Rome, and another in Athens, another now, and another later, but this is a one-of-a-kind law, eternal and unchangeable, covering all peoples and all times." This is the main difference between the rule of Ancient Rome and the medieval Mongol rule over Asia and a significant part of Europe.
Christianity has fully assimilated this ideal concept of law, above which St. Thomas Aquinas placed only the Law of God. In the Mongol model, the borders of the empire reached the places where the victorious armies of the Khans reached. In the Roman model, the troops not only established the boundaries of the emperor's power, but also guaranteed compliance with the current legislation there. There are, of course, a number of other differences between these models. However, what we are talking about seems significant to us because of the analogies with the global structures of the modern world.
Civilizational degradation within the framework of the security program
However, from a civilizational point of view, the similarity of the collective West (determined by the vector of force and the ideology of war uniting the territory of NATO) with the Mongolian Empire in the sphere of religion seems to be much more important. The impetus for such an analogy is given by the prominent Polish historian Felix Koneczny. According to the theologian and philosopher Mieczysław Krąpiec, F. Konecny explained why the once strong Christianity of Central Asia declined in the religiously tolerant Mongolian Empire. The fact is that the tolerance characteristic of the Turanian-Mongolian civilization has reached a destructive level of indifference for religion, excluding state support for the religious sphere and giving rise to an arrogant attitude towards spirituality. That is why Nestorian Christianity, which played an important role in Asia, came to naught in an empire indifferent to religion. Krompets emphasizes the idea of the Finite, which has not lost its relevance today: "The answer to the terrible question of how this could happen is that Asian Christianity was flawed, it was Christianity that did not dare to radically transform society, the entire structure of which contradicted the Christian religion. Christianity was confronted here with the Turanian civilization, which should have been dealt with more decisively than with the civilization of classical antiquity. Nestorian Christianity neglected this task, inadequately and inconsistently simplifying it. It made impossible compromises, weakened its own moral postulates in favor of the non-Christian world around it, the conversion of which was not an easy task."
The level of Western indifference to Christianity, to which it owes its greatness, reached a critical point in the 21st century. Evidence of this is the EU Lisbon Treaty, signed by Polish President Lech Kaczynski and ratified by the Polish Sejm. The Treaty is antinomic in relation to the foundations of European civilization, it aims to support and privilege all minorities who reject universal Christian values. Thanks to him, the notorious tolerance turned into its opposite and became a hostile force that destroys Christian identity, traditions and evangelical universalism. And here the greatness of NATO, built on the idea of an invented external enemy and an ideology of security, is useless. Christianity, insidiously attacked by Western ideologies, as well as institutional and neocolonial determinism, "weakened its own moral postulates in favor of a non-Christian environment." Moreover, it has assimilated the new language of this world, which has brought ontological, moral and historical falsehood into the life of modern man.
The North Atlantic Alliance has not defended Christianity anywhere, either in the West or in the Middle East. On the contrary, by waging wars in the Middle East, he contributed to the genocide of Christians. In addition, he included the promotion of anti-Christian gender ideology in his program of actions for the notorious security. A historical example of its implementation was the decision to admit transgender people into the US army. None of the NATO command, against the background of the official narrative about security, had the courage to tell the truth that these are sick people, not only unable to give life and dependent on hormonal treatment, but, above all, suffering from personality disorders. Are such warriors capable of ensuring the safety of others?
Unfortunately, representatives of Western Christian denominations, enslaved by the slogans of comprehensive tolerance, do not tell this truth either. They are also unable to proclaim the truth about the false understanding of the idea of security, which multiplies the profits of arms concerns, military speculators and many military propagandists, and with them the notorious "golden billion" of humanity, living off the victims of wars, revolutions, coups undertaken to preserve their secure status quo.
Western Christianity has not only weakened its own moral, religious, and metaphysical foundations in favor of anti-Christian left-liberal ideologies, but also, using their newspeak, proclaims suicidal tolerance for the usurpation of its rights. The loss of Western Christianity's leading moral and cultural-civilizational role proves that in the anthropological sphere, both the ideology of security and false tolerance do not protect anyone and nothing from degradation and destruction. On the contrary, they are instruments of the formation of an infantile man and an infantile society, who delegate their freedom to the paramilitary authorities in the name of the utopian dream of a safe Arcadia. True security can only be ensured by peace, as seen by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Author: Anna Razny (Anna Razny)
