Subversive way of thinking, that’s the point.

How to be against the war but as a new war. It’s subversive way of thinking because you can imagine that normally when you say I am against the war it’s easy to understand what your point of view is. But when you use this to make a new war, it’s subversive.

In a subversive way of thinking, to be against the war was a tool to design a new kind of war. The first one was presented as an ethnic problem which was irrelevant for the ideological approach of the reality. The Soviet system used peace as a weapon and not only as a tool. In fact this peace was the use of lateral thinking in the framework of propaganda. Because nobody could believe that, someone who was perfect, could be at the same time and in a deep way, a supporter of another kind of war. They were efficiently anti-militaristic but only for the war of the others. Bolsheviks stopped their participation in the World War I to prepare in an efficient way the Russian Civil War. It looks funny now but this reality is still unknown by many people who are innocent or want to be innocent to avoid realizing that they are manipulated. In this way peace was already, in Ante Cold War, a psychological operation and it became with the Soviet Union a national affair. Because the Union wanted to be known as a system of peace without any more explanations about the fact that it was a forced peace to death.

The point is the following, we know the war but we don’t know exactly the peace. It looks easy but in fact no. Is peace something natural? A state of no war? Is it the end of a war or the beginning of the war? So war in history is something natural, we can see also in Clausewitz. Peace is not. So you can have an artificial peace which is in fact another war. You say this war, those wars are not relevant. For what? Don’t they exist? Yes, they exist but not relevant for ideology. In our ideology in the Soviet Union the point was the following, ‘We are the system of the peace’. They don’t who want to have in mind and imperialistic approach but a peaceful way of thinking. Because Russia before was an empire, so to be imperialist it was logical but they don’t want to use this because they want to be a union. But a union with one above and everyone down. Not only down but more below in fact, because they need also to be down like dead people but they want them to be below. So in this context, peace was a good approach to end the war of the others but also to begin yours. So imagine now that logically when we are talking about wars and peace we say, a war, a peace there is a bifurcation because the first war belongs to the others, you put on your peace and you stop the war and after that you start your war with no peace.

This is the normal approach because at the end when you occupy territories, you say ‘now the situation is normal’. So the idea is the following, you have a war, you want to stop it with a peace. Would you want to begin a war you want to start it with a peace. And after that when you create the war, you don’t want the end with an ante war. You want the end with the war plus. So when you say ‘normal’ it’s in reality a normalization, you change all the facts, you change the data and you create something new which is used to convince the others that this the new reality, this is the new state of things. But in reality, you are not in peace because for the people who are below it’s slavery. This is a very good point, slavery and peace are compatible, yes! War and peace are incompatible. War and slavery are incompatible because you create a revolution. But peace is compatible with that, so you can use it and you can say that your slaves are peaceful, they live in peace because you control everything. The Soviet Union was a very big peace, a forced peace. That is the point because even peace has to be free. So they used it to end the war of the others and to create many wars always in peace, of the peace. But you see that it’s not for the love of Mankind. It’s for the love of peace and you can see that in many dictatorships you can see that peace is the core of their mind. The difference with democracy. The core democracy is not peace, it’s freedom. And that’s the difference.