Peace

Definition:

“Peace” means the absence of noise or disturbance.

Etymology:

The English word “peace” originates from the Old French term “paix,” derived from the Latin “pax” (genitive pacis), meaning “peace, compact, agreement, or treaty.” The Latin root stems from the Proto-Indo-European root “pag-” meaning “to fasten” or “to bind,” implying a binding agreement that ensures harmony and order.

It is worth noting that the word “peace” and the word “religion” are etymologically related (though not strictly “cognates” in the traditional linguistic sense, as they are not directly derived from the same word in the same linguistic family). They share a conceptual link through the Latin root “ligare”, meaning “to bind” or “to tie.”

Description:

Peace is a fictional concept, as it does not describe something that exists, but rather the absence of something.

Since peace is a fictional concept, its meaning must be mirrored (illuminated) to reveal its exoteric meaning. As peace on a global scale is most commonly interpreted to mean “without war,” the exoteric meaning becomes “war.” This was famously expressed in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” where the phrase “War is Peace” is one of the three slogans of the Party, alongside “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.” The idea of peace being the result of violence is present in common expressions such as “fight for peace,” “peace through strength,” and “enforced peace.”

The words “peace,” “peas,” and “piece” are polysemous, sharing phonetic similarity but diverging in meaning in ways that reveal deeper insights. “Peas” are parts of a pod, reflecting division into smaller components or “pieces.” “Piece,” in turn, denotes a fragment but is also a slang term for “gun,” a tool of violence and symbol of conflict. Strikingly, “peace,” often presented as the absence of conflict, shares its linguistic roots with these terms of division and force. This linguistic interplay sheds illuminates what the elite actually mean by “peace”: a controlled state of division and submission, often enforced through the very tools of violence that “piece” represents.

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of six prestigious awards established by the will of Alfred Nobel, a Swedish chemist, engineer, and inventor best known for inventing dynamite. It is awarded annually to individuals, organizations, or movements that have made significant contributions to the promotion of peace. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and it is important to consider what they actually mean by “peace.”

In 2009, the United States president Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just months after taking office. The committee stated that this was meant to encourage him to make peaceful decisions.

During Obama’s tenure, the U.S. was involved in several military conflicts, and his administration significantly expanded the use of drone strikes, particularly in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. These strikes, while often claimed to target terrorists, resulted in civilian casualties. Additionally, interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the continuation of the “War on Terror,” raised questions about his role in perpetuating global conflicts.

During Obama’s presidency, the U.S. conducted approximately 563 drone strikes in countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. These strikes resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2,372 to 2,581 combatants. The Obama administration reported between 64 and 116 civilian deaths from drone strikes outside active war zones. However, independent organizations, such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, estimate that between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in these countries during Obama’s tenure.

Beyond drone strikes, the U.S. was involved in various military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other regions during this period. Comprehensive casualty figures, including both combatants and civilians, are complex and vary by source. Discrepancies in reported numbers arise from differences in data collection methods, definitions of combatants versus civilians, and the inherent secrecy of military operations.

In response to concerns about civilian casualties, the Obama administration implemented measures aimed at increasing transparency and reducing non-combatant deaths, including an executive order in 2016 requiring annual reports on drone strike casualties. While these figures provide an overview, the exact number of individuals killed remains uncertain due to challenges in data accuracy and reporting.

Click to read the Airwars news article.

The Warsaw Pact countries, led by the Soviet Union, described their military intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968 as an act to “maintain peace and order” during the Prague Spring. This military invasion aimed at suppressing political liberalization and reforms that threatened Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, demonstrating how terms like “peace” were used to justify aggressive actions.

The U.S. and its allies referred to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as part of a broader effort to bring “peace, stability, and democracy” to Iraq. While the stated intent included removing weapons of mass destruction (which were not found), the invasion destabilized the region and led to prolonged conflict. This illustrates how the narrative of “peace” can obscure the actual consequences of military interventions.

NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, also known as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, was framed as a “peacekeeping effort” to prevent ethnic cleansing and maintain peace in the region. While its intent was to stop humanitarian abuses, the campaign involved extensive bombing that caused significant civilian and infrastructure damage, raising questions about the proportionality of military actions under the guise of peace.

Israel’s invasions of Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 were described by Israel as efforts to secure peace and protect its borders from attacks by militant groups. These invasions, however, resulted in long-term occupations and widespread destruction, sparking debates over the appropriateness of labeling them as “peacekeeping.”

Russia justified its military actions during the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 as a “peacekeeping operation” to protect Russian-speaking populations and ensure regional stability. However, this was widely regarded as an annexation in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, sparking international condemnation. This highlights how the term “peacekeeping” can be used to legitimize actions that undermine international law.

By analyzing these examples, it becomes evident that terms like “peacekeeping” or “stabilization” are often employed as rhetorical tools to frame military interventions in a more favorable light, regardless of their actual motives or outcomes. Such language not only shapes public perception but can also obscure the underlying aggression or violations of sovereignty inherent in these actions.

Articles:

Symbolism:

Articles:

Religion:

In the Bible, in the Old Testament, peace is a central theme, expressed through the Hebrew word “shalom,” which means completeness, soundness, and welfare (e.g., Psalm 34:14: “Seek peace and pursue it”).

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6) and speaks of giving peace to his followers (John 14:27: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you”). However, Jesus also promotes peace as a result of conflict, as expressed in passages such as Matthew 10:34–36 (NIV), where Jesus said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”

The Quran emphasizes peace (salam) as intrinsic to submission to God (Islam itself is derived from salam). Surah Al-Baqarah 2:208 states:”O you who have believed, enter into peace completely. “Islam is often called the “Religion of Peace,” as the word “Islam” means submission or surrender, which is synonymous with peace.

In the Book of Mormon, peace is frequently mentioned as a gift of righteousness and obedience to God. For instance, 2 Nephi 2:27 ties peace to moral agency and choosing liberty.

Buddhist scriptures, such as The Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, and Abhidhamma Pitaka, discuss peace as a state of liberation from suffering (nirvana) achieved through the cessation of desires and mindfulness.

In the Vedic Scriptures and Upanishads, the Sanskrit word shanti (peace) is recited as a prayer and mantra in Vedic rituals to bring about inner and outer harmony, such as in the Shanti Mantra: “Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.”

In the Edda from Norse mythology, peace is occasionally referenced in the context of balance and restoration of order after conflict among the gods, though it is often subordinate to themes of chaos and struggle.

In The Satanic Bible, the concept of peace is less emphasized, with a focus on personal strength, individualism, and conflict as inherent parts of existence.