"Loud peace propaganda makes war seem imminent"

David Herbert Lawrence warns of the paradox inherent in public expressions about peace, suggesting that the louder a society or its leaders proclaim their commitment to peace, the more it betrays underlying tensions and anxieties. Proclamations about peace, especially when made stridently and repeatedly, can signal an unsettling preoccupation with the possibility of conflict. Rather than assuring security, such pronouncements may reflect a growing sense of insecurity, serving as an ominous drumbeat that war is lurking just out of view.

Peace, when truly present and stable, tends not to need affirmation in public life or politics; it exists quietly, accepted and lived. Conversely, when leaders and institutions launch grand campaigns or propagate messages lauding peace, it can mask or compensate for deeper disquiet. The overt insistence on peace draws attention to the fact that peace might be fragile, contested, or precarious. It may reflect attempts to persuade a skeptical public, distract from unresolved conflicts, or suppress dissenting voices pressing for genuine solutions to discord. Propaganda, by its nature an orchestrated effort, often aims to shape perception rather than mirror reality.

In times or places where war is not a genuine prospect, peace speaks for itself without need for noisy advocacy. When the machinery of propaganda is mobilized in defense of peace, it is often a signal that leaders believe the potential for violence is real, or perhaps wish to prepare the populace for the possibility that war is on the horizon. The urgency and frequency of peace propaganda thus unwittingly serve as indicators, not of comfort, but of unease and fear.

Lawrence’s insight reminds us to be wary of rhetoric, to question the motivations behind campaigns that magnify virtue, especially when it concerns something as fundamental as peace. Sometimes, what is heralded most fervently is what is most at risk.