On the subject of the podcast: I listened to it a couple of nights ago with some degree of distraction, but based on what I heard and processed, there wasn't anything so "off" about the guest's ideas and claims that seemed to justify Alex's intro in which it was implied (maybe even directly asserted) that Dr. John Alexander is an agent of disinformation. Perhaps if I listened to the podcast again in a less distracted state I'd change my mind.
On the theme of pacifism which has come up in this thread's discussion, I, too, find the concept challenging. I find it interesting to consider this question in the light of the Christian Gospel. On the one hand, Christ was so much of a pacifist that he rebuked his disciple for cutting off with a sword the ear of one of the soldiers come to arrest him; so much of a pacifist that despite that he had the omnipotence of the sole Creator of the Universe behind him, he allowed himself to be crucified. On the other hand, he also
reportedly said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword".
There seems to be a tension between the political and the spiritual here - a tension which, in my view, is difficult to resolve in practical reality, especially in such a case as an aggressive totalitarian bent on bringing the world to its knees, and making significant progress towards it, as in WWII. Do we say, "Christ's
spiritual war is won by
physically turning the other cheek
even in such cases?", or do we say, "Christ acceded to his own
physical crucifixion
only because it furthered the spread of his
spiritual message. Allowing the global spread of a Totalitarian State would instead
repress his spiritual message, and on that basis we should (physically) defend against that outcome"?
I could offer an opinion but at this point I'd prefer to simply let the question sit.