Pacifism: The Path To All Injustice

[Hp. Hoodedcobra666]

Every community, especially ones that consist of empathic people, want peace, nonviolence and pacifism as they're the most sought out ideals in human history. Apparently, it has a strong basis in civilization. Pacifism, or non-violent activism, is a belief that war and violence should be condemned, and matters must be settled peacefully. Apparently, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were hailed as champions of nonviolent protest, using their voice; they speak with utmost conviction that love, compassion, and empathy would make tyrannical governments listen to the protesters message and have a change of heart. Unfortunately, pacifism and nonviolence, and more specifically, the perspective that people ascribe to, is not as effective as many people like to think. It's a socially great idea for people to go by on paper, but in practice, it only works when at least two parties are in agreement on a deal/treaty/declaration. It's not as (for lack of a better word) universal an ideal as people like to think.

A change of perspective must be in order: Eliminating the standard perspective of pacifism and nonviolence, a new, alternative, and admittedly more unorthodox view must be called into light, one that hasn't been explored before with a question: What if the opposition to violence and war is expressed not to bring peace and compassion, but lure communities into being oppressed and victimized instead? As far-fetched as this kind of view can be, it doesn't sound like something a pacifist would do... Unless they're the tyrant. How would a pacifistic person be a tyrant and oppress people if they don't fight themselves? The answer is obvious: Through lies, misdirection, laws that protect the pacifist, and (indirectly) drugs. When the pacifistic diplomat has more power over the people and choose to abuse it, they realize they can get away with any lie and and abuse of power as long as they say the right words to calm people down. This kind of pacifism makes other people drop their guards; a loose, pragmatic type of pacifism/nonviolent resistance, for lack of a better term. It's similar to fishermen using bait to catch a fish. Once upon a time, my father once talked to me and his friends about how barbaric fishing can be: you use a bait to catch fish, and the fish is attracted to the bait, lowering its guard. Once the fish is caught and reeled in, it could be killed and used for food. Thinking back to it back then, it's a great analogue that can be applied to empathic people. Hardworking people who are blindly empathic and compassionate tend to fall for this very often, and, because empathy and compassion are pushed more than necessary in the present day, they're little the wiser about it; they think they can solve everything peacefully, and pacifistic tyrants can simply spin everything about the information against them, claiming it to be a slander or a false report.

This pragmatic, unconventional outlook on pacifism is deceptive and unpredictable. No one else understands this viewpoint better than the Jew: The Jew knows they can't win in a direct fight, so they have to undermine the defense of victims. There's a question that has to be asked here: How is it that the Jews took down the Roman Empire after they were crushed militarily? My hypothesis is this: Through their claims that Christianity, and then Islam, is a "religion of peace." Because the Romans over-emphasized empathy and compassion and partially because they were rigid with the other part of reason owing to ignorance, a majority of the Roman officials took all the fictitious stories at face value, not realizing that these "teachings of nonviolence" from Christianity were meant to undermine Rome from within; Roman families had their guards dropped, allowing the Jews to conquer the Roman courts via infiltration and spying, then followed by laws (from banning meat to forbidding occult magic) that slowly weakened the Romans over time, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire itself. Islam, however, doesn't claim to keep up the peace as long as Christianity does. The Jews partially repeated this application of pacifism into the present day.

Thank you for bringing up this very important subject.

When there is too much pacifism, there will unavoidably be a breakout of major, large scale, blinded and illogical wars. Pacifism forsakes the power of control and says that one must avoid all conflict no matter what. This straying from conflict then becomes straying from internal conflict; you don't control yourself, you expect falsehoods that don't exist in the universe and you live in delusion. This delusion brings eventually death.

This power to be a non pacifist is also the power that acts as deterrence for wars. The way to peace is when people are too strong to wage wars and equally strong to restrain from doing this. Weakness of the passions will cause outbreak of wars with high certainty.

Pacifists are under a large scale delusion which is fully inconsistent with the nature of reality, beings, or existence in general. The existence of pacifism is not true in any of the kingdoms of the universe, human, animal or any other level. It's a state of living in denial of dangers because one is too cowardly to accept their valid existence. This cowardice is then cloaked with great words on how everyone "must be" a society of "little angels", yet all of these "little angels" who preach these messages are actually very evil and fearful themselves.

Due to high degree of fear and wanting to avoid any conflict, they want to neuter everyone else, hoping that this is what will let them have their peace. But this is against reality, it's only a matter of time until natural laws of brutality will encounter the so called "pacifists", where they will be found in a weak state, only fit for annexation or slavery.

Many pacifists are actually good people that want to avoid conflict, but the above denial makes them actually the perfect targets for any form of conflict or injustice. Through this stance, they perpetuate more injustice. The pacifism movement in the United States and other Nations tends to arise where there has been too much mindless and unnecessary warfare, as the other logical extreme. It's equally imbalanced and equally dangerous as the other aspect which is mindless war.

Pacifists thought that this was the way to make governments stop useless wars, but the reality is, that unless citizens are powerful enough to fight, the Nation also has no defense. And the government won't take seriously the pacifistic elements especially when it is a government built on terror. So the founders of the United States and other wiser men have put clauses in the Constitutions so that citizens remain aware, armed and strong, not only for deterring external threats, but also in case the civilization drops into barbaric states.

The barbaric states are conquered by higher states of power, which power in the best form should carry empathy and common sense in equal measure. That's the only way to restore order in societies. Same goes all the way down to a school or a family unit. This power here is not the abusive form of power that comes from barbarism, it's the opposite form of good power.

Pacifism is essentially suicide. Everyone must be war ready, war wise, but also simultaneously understand that wars are only the last resorts. Those who are war ready and war wise, are those who least want wars, but they are realistic enough to understand that they can actually break out and that one must be ready to handle them. Able and sane military is in this category.

The weakness inside which the pacifist dwells into, will eventually give rise to monsters from within one's self, reckless desires, and other dangerous forces, which were not fought in an internal war and were not commanded by logic to be managed. These things lead to brutal wars and other resentments which are a hundred times more poisonous than even declared wars.

The worst and most gruesome wars have been waged by the religions of "love" such as Christianity and Islam, which used the most sly and cowardly ways of war.

Pacifism is a brain virus that disables a being that was born by nature to be able to self defend, rendering it open to all attacks. Your immune system goes pacifist for one week, you will die pretty quickly. Ultra pacifism preaches that if you neuter human beings, then they will be good.

But if you neuter their combative or other drives, you will eventually die out or not progress, since the major impetus for growth which is of a combative nature, will be disappeared from mankind. Life has conflict whether pacifists or other asleep individuals want to accept it or not. Life is not "ALL CONFLICT", most of it is actually co-operation, but conflict unavoidably can arise due to clashes between beings.

The less reason, the worse the clashes can become. Pacifism is not a guarantee this won't happen, pacifism means that when this happens, you won't be ready and that you will be at the mercy of an evil force.

The idea of Spiritual Satanism is to take the combative force and instead of it being blind and destructive, to give it REASON and to turn it against evil, towards progress, creation etc. The Gods also teach Black Magick for retaliation, but the Gods [as I will explain in the fully updated Ethics section] do want us to use these wisely and not just throw these around for no reason. Wise use means not only to use these wisely but also use it when your life is under threat or where there are things that can destroy someone.

Beware of those who preach pacifism it's just disarmament of human beings. Then when everyone is disarmed, they annex them as slaves. Those who envision pacifism for humans the most are those who seek to enslave humans, they want easy prey. All the enemy rhetoric is about having zero defenses. Defenses make you strong and impenetrable to damage. Strong ethics also reassure you will survive and also respond in the sights which are detrimental to existence and that of others.

If we had stronger ethics and a non falling society, we would not accept children being taken in and dragged to have gender change before they even developed a logical judgement about this decision. People would not accept these practices. Since society is dwindling ethically, pacifism is the next consequential result: As there is no barrier of defense in the ethical human, so all other barriers give out, including also physical war barriers, borders and systems of filtration such as evaluating invaders with values contrarian to your own that come to conquer you and even enslave you.

It is power that saves from wars, power to self control, regulate reckless feelings, power to be sensible, power to see the light where the darkness whispers of mindless warfare that will lead nowhere.

Pacifists are not emotionally empathetic they are emotionally retarded as they don't understand creation and that certain things going out of hand such as them being annexed, will result in catastrophic consequences. Only rule of power and kindness based on divine wisdom and can truly avoid wars. But since that is rare most don't value it at all.

The more pacifistic the West has become the more crime and all other war conditions have arose in it's midst. That's not empathy that's being a monster and deterring one's responsibility to protect those who require protection, such as the weaker elements who need more empathy.

When the force of combat meets love and wisdom, this is where true justice can be created. All of these on their own represent perils in the extremes. That is the foundation of all the Ancient Greek philosophical thought. That's why Ares, the God of War, albeit respected, was called a blind destroyer. Athena represents the full power of Ares, which is about wisdom in war, non reckless wars, wisdom even in war, avoidance of war unless necessary for reasons of justice or for strong reasons.

The lesser the state of an evolving nation [the more it is disconnected from wisdom, knowledge and the supernal light] the more it will want to wage wars, because it will see parasitic formations of growth, instead of growth through positive means, co-operation, or investing in it's own citizens to develop it.

The same goes for a human being, the lower towards barbarity, the more one will engage in reckless combat and reckless wars, because they have nothing to "lose" and don't know how to create much of anything. This leaves the combative force blind and will consequently create only disasters for those around these human beings.

-High Priest Hooded Cobra 666

 

[AristocraticDragon666]

Thank you for bringing up this very important subject.

When there is too much pacifism, there will unavoidably be a breakout of major, large scale, blinded and illogical wars. Pacifism forsakes the power of control and says that one must avoid all conflict no matter what. This straying from conflict then becomes straying from internal conflict; you don't control yourself, you expect falsehoods that don't exist in the universe and you live in delusion. This delusion brings eventually death.

This power to be a non pacifist is also the power that acts as deterrence for wars. The way to peace is when people are too strong to wage wars and equally strong to restrain from doing this. Weakness of the passions will cause outbreak of wars with high certainty.

Pacifists are under a large scale delusion which is fully inconsistent with the nature of reality, beings, or existence in general. The existence of pacifism is not true in any of the kingdoms of the universe, human, animal or any other level. It's a state of living in denial of dangers because one is too cowardly to accept their valid existence. This cowardice is then cloaked with great words on how everyone "must be" a society of "little angels", yet all of these "little angels" who preach these messages are actually very evil and fearful themselves.

Due to high degree of fear and wanting to avoid any conflict, they want to neuter everyone else, hoping that this is what will let them have their peace. But this is against reality, it's only a matter of time until natural laws of brutality will encounter the so called "pacifists", where they will be found in a weak state, only fit for annexation or slavery.

Many pacifists are actually good people that want to avoid conflict, but the above denial makes them actually the perfect targets for any form of conflict or injustice. Through this stance, they perpetuate more injustice. The pacifism movement in the United States and other Nations tends to arise where there has been too much mindless and unnecessary warfare, as the other logical extreme. It's equally imbalanced and equally dangerous as the other aspect which is mindless war.

Pacifists thought that this was the way to make governments stop useless wars, but the reality is, that unless citizens are powerful enough to fight, the Nation also has no defense. And the government won't take seriously the pacifistic elements especially when it is a government built on terror. So the founders of the United States and other wiser men have put clauses in the Constitutions so that citizens remain aware, armed and strong, not only for deterring external threats, but also in case the civilization drops into barbaric states.

The barbaric states are conquered by higher states of power, which power in the best form should carry empathy and common sense in equal measure. That's the only way to restore order in societies. Same goes all the way down to a school or a family unit. This power here is not the abusive form of power that comes from barbarism, it's the opposite form of good power.

Pacifism is essentially suicide. Everyone must be war ready, war wise, but also simultaneously understand that wars are only the last resorts. Those who are war ready and war wise, are those who least want wars, but they are realistic enough to understand that they can actually break out and that one must be ready to handle them. Able and sane military is in this category.

The weakness inside which the pacifist dwells into, will eventually give rise to monsters from within one's self, reckless desires, and other dangerous forces, which were not fought in an internal war and were not commanded by logic to be managed. These things lead to brutal wars and other resentments which are a hundred times more poisonous than even declared wars.

The worst and most gruesome wars have been waged by the religions of "love" such as Christianity and Islam, which used the most sly and cowardly ways of war.

Pacifism is a brain virus that disables a being that was born by nature to be able to self defend, rendering it open to all attacks. Your immune system goes pacifist for one week, you will die pretty quickly. Ultra pacifism preaches that if you neuter human beings, then they will be good.

But if you neuter their combative or other drives, you will eventually die out or not progress, since the major impetus for growth which is of a combative nature, will be disappeared from mankind. Life has conflict whether pacifists or other asleep individuals want to accept it or not. Life is not "ALL CONFLICT", most of it is actually co-operation, but conflict unavoidably can arise due to clashes between beings.

The less reason, the worse the clashes can become. Pacifism is not a guarantee this won't happen, pacifism means that when this happens, you won't be ready and that you will be at the mercy of an evil force.

The idea of Spiritual Satanism is to take the combative force and instead of it being blind and destructive, to give it REASON and to turn it against evil, towards progress, creation etc. The Gods also teach Black Magick for retaliation, but the Gods [as I will explain in the fully updated Ethics section] do want us to use these wisely and not just throw these around for no reason. Wise use means not only to use these wisely but also use it when your life is under threat or where there are things that can destroy someone.

Beware of those who preach pacifism it's just disarmament of human beings. Then when everyone is disarmed, they annex them as slaves. Those who envision pacifism for humans the most are those who seek to enslave humans, they want easy prey. All the enemy rhetoric is about having zero defenses. Defenses make you strong and impenetrable to damage. Strong ethics also reassure you will survive and also respond in the sights which are detrimental to existence and that of others.

If we had stronger ethics and a non falling society, we would not accept children being taken in and dragged to have gender change before they even developed a logical judgement about this decision. People would not accept these practices. Since society is dwindling ethically, pacifism is the next consequential result: As there is no barrier of defense in the ethical human, so all other barriers give out, including also physical war barriers, borders and systems of filtration such as evaluating invaders with values contrarian to your own that come to conquer you and even enslave you.

It is power that saves from wars, power to self control, regulate reckless feelings, power to be sensible, power to see the light where the darkness whispers of mindless warfare that will lead nowhere.

Pacifists are not emotionally empathetic they are emotionally retarded as they don't understand creation and that certain things going out of hand such as them being annexed, will result in catastrophic consequences. Only rule of power and kindness based on divine wisdom and can truly avoid wars. But since that is rare most don't value it at all.

The more pacifistic the West has become the more crime and all other war conditions have arose in it's midst. That's not empathy that's being a monster and deterring one's responsibility to protect those who require protection, such as the weaker elements who need more empathy.

When the force of combat meets love and wisdom, this is where true justice can be created. All of these on their own represent perils in the extremes. That is the foundation of all the Ancient Greek philosophical thought. That's why Ares, the God of War, albeit respected, was called a blind destroyer. Athena represents the full power of Ares, which is about wisdom in war, non reckless wars, wisdom even in war, avoidance of war unless necessary for reasons of justice or for strong reasons.

The lesser the state of an evolving nation [the more it is disconnected from wisdom, knowledge and the supernal light] the more it will want to wage wars, because it will see parasitic formations of growth, instead of growth through positive means, co-operation, or investing in it's own citizens to develop it.

The same goes for a human being, the lower towards barbarity, the more one will engage in reckless combat and reckless wars, because they have nothing to "lose" and don't know how to create much of anything. This leaves the combative force blind and will consequently create only disasters for those around these human beings.

-High Priest Hooded Cobra 666

The very magnificent sermon!

The state and the nation must be strong, cultured, educated, that is, a spiritual, intellectual, military, sports, and cultural elite must be formed in it.

 

[Aquarius]

I once read from CentralForce, "If you want peace, then prepare for war".

 

[SShiva_fr]

I once read from CentralForce, "If you want peace, then prepare for war".

It's a Latin saying: " Si vis pacem, para bellum "

 

[Kitsunebi]

Beware of those who preach pacifism it's just disarmament of human beings. Then when everyone is disarmed, they annex them as slaves. Those who envision pacifism for humans the most are those who seek to enslave humans, they want easy prey. All the enemy rhetoric is about having zero defenses. Defenses make you strong and impenetrable to damage. Strong ethics also reassure you will survive and also respond in the sights which are detrimental to existence and that of others.

And this is why I am a fan of gun laws. As long as literal criminals don’t have their hands on any weapons and are in cells guarded by armed and loaded guards, things can go well with keeping really awful people from doing anymore harm to a society.

 

[Kitsunebi]

And I almost forgot! Just so I don’t get taken the wrong way.

Gun laws that allow citizens to possess fire arms only to defend themselves from injustice.

Armed guards that are mentally screened and verified that they won’t abuse prisoners with it and also a society that isn’t borderline sick and unstable, the soviet union is an example of one that’s sick and sick is just an understatement.

 

[Hellenic SS]

Hitler was asked why he created the SS if he wanted peace.

He replied that there are (((people))) who don't want this peace.

 

[HellGate]

I find it easy to attain inner peace after a decently long session of Dhyana, which comprises various meditations aimed at connecting with my higher self. However, in this state of soul, I do not perceive myself as a pacifist but rather as a wise individual who possesses clarity in decision-making, thinking rationally and objectively, unbiased by emotion or experience.

Post-meditation, I no longer harbor feelings of hatred or any other emotion towards anything or anyone. My focus is solely on self-improvement and elevation. It is a sensation that is challenging to properly determine and articulate in words – a harmonious meeting of wisdom and the essence of nature within oneself. This experience is particularly beneficial for maintaining composure, essential for concentration, and holds a productive impact on the practitioner.

Pacifism is a consequence of failing to attune the higher self to contribute to the mind. It is a belief system that has evolved over centuries of dread, aimed at solidifying this perspective. The rigidity associated with pacifism can only be dismantled through thoughtful and critical reflection.

While adopting a pacifistic attitude is commendable when necessary, it can only thrive in an advanced society where actions such as violence and other detrimental influences are contrary to the collective well-being. However, abstaining from self-defense and refraining from contributing to societal progress through pacifism may not be advantageous for the overall advancement of humanity.

Individuals who have not engaged in meditation and introspection may struggle to envision a world conducive to the affairs best suited for society - ones that are regulated by logic.

As a moral standpoint, true neutrality is advocated for pacifism, allowing for a switch to nature whenever necessary, and violence may take place if deemed required and within the human right. Emotion is best set aside to facilitate critical thinking and manifest a balanced perspective.

 

[angramainyu]

And some accuse me of being like Christians, because I curse. Maybe they are trying to discourage and "demonize" the powers of the human mind. Like gun control. Maybe they just misunderstood. I am talking only as a situation calls for it, not reckless abuse, which is the other extreme to pacifists. Opposites attract, might apply with pacifists and war mongers.

 

[Magmapoolsweet]

thank's for u're sermorn HPHC666

 

[Jax911]

Thanks for the enlightening post and I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Here are some points that I felt deeply:

Many pacifists are actually good people that want to avoid conflict, but the above denial makes them actually the perfect targets for any form of conflict or injustice. Through this stance, they perpetuate more injustice. The pacifism movement in the United States and other Nations tends to arise where there has been too much mindless and unnecessary warfare, as the other logical extreme. It's equally imbalanced and equally dangerous as the other aspect which is mindless war.



-High Priest Hooded Cobra 666

I can second to this one, I saw the flaws of my parents while growing up. Indeed, as they grew up during the rise of communism in Mongolia, the communist doctrine of pacifism was deeply infested in their brains. That allowed their corrupt company superiors and government officials to abuse them. This scarred me emotionally at the time as I saw the people I respected the most become powerless before some ambitious assholes, which was one of the main reasons I ended up becoming a SS as I seeked power in every possible aspect.

When the force of combat meets love and wisdom, this is where true justice can be created. All of these on their own represent perils in the extremes. That is the foundation of all the Ancient Greek philosophical thought. That's why Ares, the God of War, albeit respected, was called a blind destroyer. Athena represents the full power of Ares, which is about wisdom in war, non reckless wars, wisdom even in war, avoidance of war unless necessary for reasons of justice or for strong reasons.

The lesser the state of an evolving nation [the more it is disconnected from wisdom, knowledge and the supernal light] the more it will want to wage wars, because it will see parasitic formations of growth, instead of growth through positive means, co-operation, or investing in it's own citizens to develop it.

The same goes for a human being, the lower towards barbarity, the more one will engage in reckless combat and reckless wars, because they have nothing to "lose" and don't know how to create much of anything. This leaves the combative force blind and will consequently create only disasters for those around these human beings.

-High Priest Hooded Cobra 666

I also totally agree with this, as many historical events prove it, above all the history of the rise and downfall of the Mongol Empire. As Genghis Khan himself and his sons (including Ogodei, the crown prince, who later became the Dalai Khan after the death of his father) knew the cruelties of war as he and his sons were born during the warring clans era and had their family taken hostage by rival clans, used war as a last resort. The most cruel war under his rule was waged against the Islamic Khwarezmian Empire, where they annihilated an entire city, the city of Otrar with no civilian left alive which was kinda justified. Genghis Khan sought peaceful relations with his new neihgbor, the Khwarezmian Empire and sent envoys to establish free trade. The Khwarezmian Sultan agreed and was favorable of accepting merchants from the Mongol Empire on his lands. But after the 423 merchants sent by Genghis Khan arrived in Khwarezmia, the Khwarezmian Sultan Alal Addin and his cousin, the ruler of Otrar, unjustly accused all of them as spies and had them stoned publicly in the same city. Genghis Khan even had melted silver poured on the eyes and ears of the ruler of Otrar to avenge his men. Otherwise, he was a wise ruler who favorised free trade and exchange of knowledge, that contributed vastly to the prosperity of China . He also was one of the first rulers who instutionalized welfare and social benefits, as he created the Orphan Aid Fund, that provided financial help for orphans of wartimes. But everything got worse after the death of his sons and himself, when his grandsons came to power. These princes were born when the Mongol Empire was already a superpower, they waged wars among themselves for power or for religious differences as most of them adopted the enemy programs of Pisslam, Xtianity and Buddhism. These wars were incomparably crueler and destructiver than the wars fought under the rule of Genghis Khan, and those ultimately led to the seperation and the eventual downfall of the empire.

 

[Nimrod33]

Let's also not forget that the pacifist symbol is an Yr (death) Rune.

 

[apa4s_666]

Thanks for the enlightening post and I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Here are some points that I felt deeply:



I can second to this one, I saw the flaws of my parents while growing up. Indeed, as they grew up during the rise of communism in Mongolia, the communist doctrine of pacifism was deeply infested in their brains. That allowed their corrupt company superiors and government officials to abuse them. This scarred me emotionally at the time as I saw the people I respected the most become powerless before some ambitious assholes, which was one of the main reasons I ended up becoming a SS as I seeked power in every possible aspect.



I also totally agree with this, as many historical events prove it, above all the history of the rise and downfall of the Mongol Empire. As Genghis Khan himself and his sons (including Ogodei, the crown prince, who later became the Dalai Khan after the death of his father) knew the cruelties of war as he and his sons were born during the warring clans era and had their family taken hostage by rival clans, used war as a last resort. The most cruel war under his rule was waged against the Islamic Khwarezmian Empire, where they annihilated an entire city, the city of Otrar with no civilian left alive which was kinda justified. Genghis Khan sought peaceful relations with his new neihgbor, the Khwarezmian Empire and sent envoys to establish free trade. The Khwarezmian Sultan agreed and was favorable of accepting merchants from the Mongol Empire on his lands. But after the 423 merchants sent by Genghis Khan arrived in Khwarezmia, the Khwarezmian Sultan Alal Addin and his cousin, the ruler of Otrar, unjustly accused all of them as spies and had them stoned publicly in the same city. Genghis Khan even had melted silver poured on the eyes and ears of the ruler of Otrar to avenge his men. Otherwise, he was a wise ruler who favorised free trade and exchange of knowledge, that contributed vastly to the prosperity of China . He also was one of the first rulers who instutionalized welfare and social benefits, as he created the Orphan Aid Fund, that provided financial help for orphans of wartimes. But everything got worse after the death of his sons and himself, when his grandsons came to power. These princes were born when the Mongol Empire was already a superpower, they waged wars among themselves for power or for religious differences as most of them adopted the enemy programs of Pisslam, Xtianity and Buddhism. These wars were incomparably crueler and destructiver than the wars fought under the rule of Genghis Khan, and those ultimately led to the seperation and the eventual downfall of the empire.

Speaking of the Mongol Empire, it may interest you to know that the Yuan Dynasty at one point, had images of Mahakala/Daikokuten (who is Father Satan) displayed in imperial temples, but sadly due to the communist destruction of China, these are no longer intact.

"He [Mahakala/Satan] eventually became the center of a flourishing cult after the 9th century in the kingdoms of Nanzhao and Dali in what is now the province of Yunnan, a region bordering Tibet, where his cult was also widespread. Due to Tibetan influence, his importance further increased during the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty, with his likeness being displayed in the imperial palace and in Buddhist temples inside and outside the capital (though most of these images are now no longer extant)."

Daikokuten - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HS and Happy Upcoming Tsaagan Sar!

 

[GoldenxChild1]

Well said, HP.
This sermon makes me want to ACTUALLY learn how to defend myself, as currently, I am without any knowledge in martial arts or weaponry.

Are you advocating SS learn these things?

 

[DisillusionedCitizen]

Thank you for bringing up this very important subject.

When there is too much pacifism, there will unavoidably be a breakout of major, large scale, blinded and illogical wars. Pacifism forsakes the power of control and says that one must avoid all conflict no matter what. This straying from conflict then becomes straying from internal conflict; you don't control yourself, you expect falsehoods that don't exist in the universe and you live in delusion. This delusion brings eventually death.

This power to be a non pacifist is also the power that acts as deterrence for wars. The way to peace is when people are too strong to wage wars and equally strong to restrain from doing this. Weakness of the passions will cause outbreak of wars with high certainty.

Pacifists are under a large scale delusion which is fully inconsistent with the nature of reality, beings, or existence in general. The existence of pacifism is not true in any of the kingdoms of the universe, human, animal or any other level. It's a state of living in denial of dangers because one is too cowardly to accept their valid existence. This cowardice is then cloaked with great words on how everyone "must be" a society of "little angels", yet all of these "little angels" who preach these messages are actually very evil and fearful themselves.

Due to high degree of fear and wanting to avoid any conflict, they want to neuter everyone else, hoping that this is what will let them have their peace. But this is against reality, it's only a matter of time until natural laws of brutality will encounter the so called "pacifists", where they will be found in a weak state, only fit for annexation or slavery.

Many pacifists are actually good people that want to avoid conflict, but the above denial makes them actually the perfect targets for any form of conflict or injustice. Through this stance, they perpetuate more injustice. The pacifism movement in the United States and other Nations tends to arise where there has been too much mindless and unnecessary warfare, as the other logical extreme. It's equally imbalanced and equally dangerous as the other aspect which is mindless war.

Pacifists thought that this was the way to make governments stop useless wars, but the reality is, that unless citizens are powerful enough to fight, the Nation also has no defense. And the government won't take seriously the pacifistic elements especially when it is a government built on terror. So the founders of the United States and other wiser men have put clauses in the Constitutions so that citizens remain aware, armed and strong, not only for deterring external threats, but also in case the civilization drops into barbaric states.

The barbaric states are conquered by higher states of power, which power in the best form should carry empathy and common sense in equal measure. That's the only way to restore order in societies. Same goes all the way down to a school or a family unit. This power here is not the abusive form of power that comes from barbarism, it's the opposite form of good power.

Pacifism is essentially suicide. Everyone must be war ready, war wise, but also simultaneously understand that wars are only the last resorts. Those who are war ready and war wise, are those who least want wars, but they are realistic enough to understand that they can actually break out and that one must be ready to handle them. Able and sane military is in this category.

The weakness inside which the pacifist dwells into, will eventually give rise to monsters from within one's self, reckless desires, and other dangerous forces, which were not fought in an internal war and were not commanded by logic to be managed. These things lead to brutal wars and other resentments which are a hundred times more poisonous than even declared wars.

The worst and most gruesome wars have been waged by the religions of "love" such as Christianity and Islam, which used the most sly and cowardly ways of war.

Pacifism is a brain virus that disables a being that was born by nature to be able to self defend, rendering it open to all attacks. Your immune system goes pacifist for one week, you will die pretty quickly. Ultra pacifism preaches that if you neuter human beings, then they will be good.

But if you neuter their combative or other drives, you will eventually die out or not progress, since the major impetus for growth which is of a combative nature, will be disappeared from mankind. Life has conflict whether pacifists or other asleep individuals want to accept it or not. Life is not "ALL CONFLICT", most of it is actually co-operation, but conflict unavoidably can arise due to clashes between beings.

The less reason, the worse the clashes can become. Pacifism is not a guarantee this won't happen, pacifism means that when this happens, you won't be ready and that you will be at the mercy of an evil force.

The idea of Spiritual Satanism is to take the combative force and instead of it being blind and destructive, to give it REASON and to turn it against evil, towards progress, creation etc. The Gods also teach Black Magick for retaliation, but the Gods [as I will explain in the fully updated Ethics section] do want us to use these wisely and not just throw these around for no reason. Wise use means not only to use these wisely but also use it when your life is under threat or where there are things that can destroy someone.

Beware of those who preach pacifism it's just disarmament of human beings. Then when everyone is disarmed, they annex them as slaves. Those who envision pacifism for humans the most are those who seek to enslave humans, they want easy prey. All the enemy rhetoric is about having zero defenses. Defenses make you strong and impenetrable to damage. Strong ethics also reassure you will survive and also respond in the sights which are detrimental to existence and that of others.

If we had stronger ethics and a non falling society, we would not accept children being taken in and dragged to have gender change before they even developed a logical judgement about this decision. People would not accept these practices. Since society is dwindling ethically, pacifism is the next consequential result: As there is no barrier of defense in the ethical human, so all other barriers give out, including also physical war barriers, borders and systems of filtration such as evaluating invaders with values contrarian to your own that come to conquer you and even enslave you.

It is power that saves from wars, power to self control, regulate reckless feelings, power to be sensible, power to see the light where the darkness whispers of mindless warfare that will lead nowhere.

Pacifists are not emotionally empathetic they are emotionally retarded as they don't understand creation and that certain things going out of hand such as them being annexed, will result in catastrophic consequences. Only rule of power and kindness based on divine wisdom and can truly avoid wars. But since that is rare most don't value it at all.

The more pacifistic the West has become the more crime and all other war conditions have arose in it's midst. That's not empathy that's being a monster and deterring one's responsibility to protect those who require protection, such as the weaker elements who need more empathy.

When the force of combat meets love and wisdom, this is where true justice can be created. All of these on their own represent perils in the extremes. That is the foundation of all the Ancient Greek philosophical thought. That's why Ares, the God of War, albeit respected, was called a blind destroyer. Athena represents the full power of Ares, which is about wisdom in war, non reckless wars, wisdom even in war, avoidance of war unless necessary for reasons of justice or for strong reasons.

The lesser the state of an evolving nation [the more it is disconnected from wisdom, knowledge and the supernal light] the more it will want to wage wars, because it will see parasitic formations of growth, instead of growth through positive means, co-operation, or investing in it's own citizens to develop it.

The same goes for a human being, the lower towards barbarity, the more one will engage in reckless combat and reckless wars, because they have nothing to "lose" and don't know how to create much of anything. This leaves the combative force blind and will consequently create only disasters for those around these human beings.

-High Priest Hooded Cobra I for quoting my post in your sermon.

I'm glad my thread provided a blue-print for your sermon, and I'm glad everyone else liked it here.

Speaking of which, 4 years and several months ago, I surfed on the web and stumbled upon content about India in its struggle for freedom in Britain, I stumbled upon a name: Subhas Chandra Bose, nickname: Netaji. I searched articles for Netaji and stumbled upon some interesting results: The man won a leadership position for India's military not once, but twice. That isn't the only the piece of information I've found. When past Prime Minister of Britain Clement Attley was asked why his troops left India, his response was that, besides British troops losing in World War II, was that Netaji's troops forced them to pull back. When Attley was asked about Gandhi and the impact his non-violent movement made, he remarked that the impact he made was "minimal."

This is another example that shows how detrimental pacifism can be in reality. It makes me wonder about another thing: was Gandhi connected to any Jews in India?