In this sixth M:I movie instalment is a rather intriguing yet deluded manifesto featured, that a bombing terrorist insisted to be aired on the news to justify his destruction. Deluded thoughts are especially dangerous when expressed to many with misleading words that might inspire ill actions. Simply stating something somewhat ‘eloquently’ does not make it any more true. Even major news media can make mistakes at times. In these days, when real news can be claimed to be fake, while fake news is reported as real, we all have to be extra discerning. We must be our own mindful judge on whether something is true. Let us analyse the manifesto line by line, to see why it might seem to make some sense, while not really so. (Such analysis is useful for sorting out our thinking, and lest some imagine inapt rationalising to be sensible.)
‘There has never been peace without first a great suffering. The greater the suffering, the greater the peace.’ While it is true that peace and suffering alternate in this world due to the impermanence of worldly phenomena, it is not true that great peace must be preceded by great suffering. For example, was there great peace at where the A-bombs detonated during the Second World War? Even if they accelerated the end of suffering from war elsewhere, it caused great ‘hell’ where they exploded, with persisting side-effects from radiation. True peace must be for all; not just some, and it cannot be bombed into existence, with bombing already destroying peace itself. That said, as horrific history tends to repeat when forgotten, how can there ever be a bomb that brings about eternal peace, that ends all bombs?
‘As mankind is drawn to his self-destruction like a moth to the candle, the so-called defenders of peace — the church, the government, the law — work tirelessly to save humanity from itself. But, by averting disaster, they serve to delay a peace that can only come through an inevitable baptism of fire.’ With the altruistically constructive too, not all humans are self-destructive. Indeed, if disasters are merely averted, they are yet to be uprooted, only to recur later. However, whatever peace available before is still peace, while it should be fully utilised for increasing peace itself, to be enduring by uprooting disasters’ causes. This process does not necessitate destruction. For example, the causes of the ongoing climate crisis can be addressed peacefully and swiftly, without sweeping it under local carpets, only with dirt spilling forth to wreck global chaos later.
‘The suffering I bring you is not the beginning of the end. It is the beginning of a greater mutual understanding through common suffering. It is the first step toward the ultimate brotherhood of man. The suffering I bring you is the bridge to ultimate peace.’ Based on such logic, there must be ultimate suffering for there to be ultimate peace. But will ultimate suffering not annihilate all? If so, what ultimate brotherhood will there be left? Indeed, common suffering can spur some empathy, but there is already ample karmically present suffering for this, without need to create more. For example, the current COVID-19 pandemic is already ‘doing’ more than enough. What we need is to pay more compassionate attention to one another’s suffering. Thus, there is no need to tear it all down to rebuild again, because such tearing down to create peace creates chaos instead.
A Minute To The Midnight Of ‘Inferno’