𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 "𝐒𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞" 𝐈𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 ...

On my social media account I've had arguments with "friends" — even in fact lost a few — accusing me of "sitting on the fence" in respect staying neutral to the clusterfuck of manipulative and destructive rhetoric that passes for political discourse going on now incessantly from the time DT came down that escalator. Gotta take sides! Really! 

Really?

My point which never seems to have made a dent continues to be that arguing itself and taking sides is what the masters of narrative feed upon. There's no resolution intended; just getting you to take a side. Not to say that you have to like it; but the taking of sides itself is the gambit for herding sheep into the voting booth. And, onto the streets. And, as we've unfortunately been witness, shooting bullets. 

The game of Good v Evil is real. It's a soul thing. The pols have us believe that one side is one, and the other is the other. Really?

The trick is to get that you're invested in a game of taking sides. The game itself. Once you see the game for what it is, you can stop putting your energies into perpetuating the game. 

What then to do? Do what you gonna do, Pilgrim. Maybe just sit in a moment of silence and let the answer(s) come. 

Herewith, Prabhuji says it best ...

"I am not on either side; I am with the victims. Not because I ignore the facts, but because the suffering of innocent people transcends all strategy and political interests. In every war, each side has arguments and justifications that legitimize its actions. But no argument justifies the death of children and young people, the premature aging of civilians, or the turning of bodies into fields of geopolitical calculation. I choose not to be part of those calculations.
Refusing to take sides does not mean moral neutrality, but a more radical ethical choice: to place myself where pain needs no passport or ideology to be real. That place is the only one where death is not exploited.
Every time I choose not to raise a flag or take sides, it is because I have already chosen a cause: that of those who did not choose to die. They do not shoot, they do not vote for wars, they do not choose violent solutions, they do not write treaties, but they do bear the consequences.

"My position is not ambiguous, it is deliberate and conscious. I do not want to be right in a conflict. I want no one to have to bury their children in the crossfire. My loyalty is not to rhetoric, it is to lives. I am not interested in winning arguments when people are lost. I am not interested in being right when blood is shed. I am not moved by maps, I am moved by the eyes that will never open again. That is why I belong nowhere except alongside those who did not choose horror.
I stand with the victims. Because amid the noise, we must learn to listen to the silence of those who can no longer speak."

Prabhuji

Further insight on "war" ...

"Man has lived too long under the shadow of war. Gaza, Ukraine, and so many other names, past and present, are only the visible coordinates of a much older violence that dwells in the divided, fractured soul of human beings. It is not geography that causes wars; it is fragmented inner lives, consciences torn apart by unresolved conflicts, that turn the world into a battlefield. Wherever there is an individual in conflict with themselves, there is already a seed of collective destruction.

"It is not enough to change ideologies, redesign political systems, or impose slogans of brotherhood. Such attempts have failed time and time again. The error is not in the discourse, but in its starting point: a divided human being. The body denied by institutionalized religion, desire condemned by morality, matter despised by doctrine: all this has created such a deep inner fracture that no external reform can repair it. Where there is division, there is struggle. As long as there is no integration at the most intimate level, violence will be inevitable.

"External war momentarily frees them from internal dissatisfaction. Finding an enemy outside gives them a purpose they no longer find within themselves. The exaltation that often accompanies conflict reveals a pathological distortion. War is not an act of greatness; it is the symptomatic manifestation of an unresolved inner fracture. It functions as a reflection of a subject who has not managed to reconcile with himself.
In this sense, the priority is not to redraw borders or reformulate treaties. The urgent task is to restore the unity of the human being. We do not need more abstract declarations of peace, but the emergence of truly peaceful individuals: free from hostility toward their bodies, free from guilt about their desires, and unafraid to exercise their freedom.

"We must destroy all the idols of war. Not with violence, but with lucidity. Not with weapons, but with awareness. Only when these idols—erected in the name of fear, guilt, and sacrifice—die will the god of love be born. That god dwells in every human being who has ceased to hate themselves.

"The alternative is not religious extremism or materialistic cynicism. It lies in a new synthesis: a human being who walks with their feet on the ground and their soul free, who does not fear their body or deny their spirit, who does not repress or dissolve themselves. A whole human being. Not divided, not torn apart. Whole.

"That is the only possible beginning. And it is also the only end worth striving for. To create, within oneself, a living example of what humanity can still become. Nothing more is needed. Peace is not a slogan, it is a consequence. Violence is not fought with speeches; it is extinguished when man stops reproducing it in himself. Where there is integration, war becomes absurd. And where war is absurd, peace is inevitable."