Welcome to

www.themindweb.com
Recommend this Site to a Friend

This site is for those who want to know what is happening to their world, and why,
and what they can do about it. This information is already on site, just start reading.

Retired Editorials

Editorial #2 July 14 2002 - The war of all against all

Why do leaders, who claim to be truly concerned
for public rights and welfare,
not reveal our rights and our way to true democracy?
If they hide that, what else do they hide?
And WHY? And to what lengths will they go?
There are so many questions
that go unpublished and unanswered!

To those who are concerned,
Perceptive readers become increasingly alarmed at talk of war, 'pre-emptive' strikes and threats between 'leaders'. War has changed its nature and today we must realise that true national governments are rare: that powerful nations serve globalist not national interests.

This situation has been brought about by the greed of some that, wanting to own the world for their families, see a need to eliminate the pollution caused by excessive population. How this is to be achieved will be visible only in events. Did they envisage the dangers to themselves that they could create? This article is based on one published in 1995 and originally related to a news item about a gas attack on the Japanese rail system: here shortened and revised.

At that time the threat of nuclear war was the official 'frightener' to keep people loyal to national leaders or ideology, but nuclear war, even then, was not civilisation's most serious danger; nuclear weapons technology was under major-nation control. Biological and chemical weapons are easier to produce and could be just as (or even more) deadly.

The following may well be found disturbing! However, if we do not know of a danger, then we cannot defend against it. Following ideas are not of my creation nor secrets newly discovered, we deal with matters of established knowledge. Many are aware but few give in-depth consideration of the consequences. The reason for lack of public concern may be that such matters get no "front page" headlines.

We are sedated to believe that things of great national or human importance will be massively publicised by news media. If they appear only occasionally in short 'middle pages' items then we ignore them. Be warned! Dr. Brock Chisholm, in his book, "Can Society Keep Pace With Science" lifted a veil back in 1946. He was in a position to see developments that are only now coming to public notice; quote: "Any country reasonably free to visitors can be neutralised as an effective fighting force within a few weeks. If any government becomes convinced that it will have to fight any other country at any time it would be very foolish indeed not to neutralise that other country at once. Any realistic government can be counted on to take that action. A thousand or so of visitors could spread bacteria or toxins to paralyse any country's power of aggression." End quote.

That is not a danger confined to nations: any group that meets, recruits and trains can be infiltrated and secretly poisoned out of existence. Over recent years we have had two reported incidents of well-organised and active groups poisoning themselves. Did they really do it to themselves or were they used to create examples? In the electronic age fake evidence is so easy to create and promote.

Are new diseases and new strains of old diseases natural developments or related to experiments to develop weapons that could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons? Will governments keep to international agreements? As Dr. Chisholm presents it, any nation that is seen as a possible threat must be treated as deadly and 'neutralised'. A nation that attacks secretly, may be, in this view, justified.

Although an attack may not expose the attacker, the world will still make its own judgements. Unfortunately, we can never know how best to defend ourselves against paranoid or aggressive leaders unless we exercise our right of true self-government, and that we have not done.

Now it is easy for the 'toads' in their ideological 'toad halls' to agree with the nice Doctor: if you see someone is planning to attack you, then it may make sense to hit first. However he does not actually say that. What he said was that "If any government becomes convinced that it will have to fight any other country at any time". Where does it end - or, more to the point, begin?

OUR NEW WORLD ORDER
Is there any country today that might not be 'convinced' that it will have to fight another, or others? In recent news we have seen the pre-emptive strike scenario advocated and proclaimed. Do we realise that this means that leaders, having access to weapons overwhelming in mass destruction, can claim existence of threat as excuse to destroy (in modern terms defenceless) nations? Or; alternatively, hold a nation in poverty for exploitation so long as that nation can be restrained in 'hit-back' ability?

To plan to terminate a national leader must be rare in recent history: national leaders are usually clever enough realise their own vulnerability and follow a self-interest agreement to not attack each other. Were one to make public such a plan it would seem wise to be sure the victim had no power to strike back.

While the new moral attitude may appear reasonable to those confident of being with the strength, the possibilities for terrorism today are so vast that even those involved may not think of all options. Have civilians ever been more vulnerable or more "in the front line"? For this reason I offer no list, but the balance between nations may not be so one-sided as may seem - desperation can produce unexpected results. The real potential of both small and massive terrorism is yet to be revealed.

When knowledge is power ignorance may be death.
We must ask ourselves:
Why are the rich getting richer
and the poor getting poorer?
IS there a plot to reduce world population
and conserve resources to elitist benefit?
Our future IS our business!

The New World Order seldom makes news unless globalists mention it, but, 55 years after the Chisholm statement we have an even newer world-order and today many nations are able to produce toxins and deadly bacteria, also, in a modern culture, great damage can be done with simple weapons. With weapons easier produced than nuclear, an attack may be without warning or identification of the attacker. This was the danger Chisholm foresaw but his defence strategy would, to be effective, have had to be carried out before smaller nations were alert to 'alternative weapons' potential and alert to their desperate need.

Today, many small nations will be fearful for their future and seeking weapons for defence - or revenge. So I ask you: "What government, if it can develop toxins or genetic or biological weapons, is not going to try to strike first once the seed of fear is planted"? Who dares wait to see who will be hit next? The world may fear to admit that the first, first-strike event is really a first-strike event and may not be willing to openly admit it even of the second, but all will know the fire has started.

Who may feel forced to even the most desperate action? When national death seems imminent then national suicide, if mutually destructive, may seem a better, if bitter, option. Do you think that, with so many so desperately seeking, a disease, deadly and capable of world-wide spread, is not a possibility?

Will globalists try to eliminate all possible enemies? There will be many people of the same race, nationality and religion that will have the moral fortitude to rebel against 'leaders' who practice mass murder. Will it be father V son: sister V brother? Will the last survivor turn out the lights or - are the lights already going out?

WHAT can we DO?
Today we are educated to believe we are mere behaviour programmed animals and that there is no Creator God, no truth, no right or wrong; all is just a meaningless struggle for survival; the future is for those most strong - most ruthless. Religious leaders now appear to secretly believe this and do not try to use their intellectual capacity. They proclaim caring but don't care; to them religion is just a 'cushy' job. World leaders, unchallenged, say good is evil and evil good: their god is power and they work for global meltdown.

The earth trembles! The smell of fear rises! Pre-emptive strike is now public: a philosophy of war by mutual terror openly stated. Even so, there is still a way to escape disaster. We must reveal the evidence that we are not mere biological animals unable to distinguish good from evil. We must explain, and expose to the world in a "realistic" way, (no religious ideology) that there is a Creator God beyond all man-made religions and that an incredible future is open to our choice!

We must also choose our own responsible and intelligent representatives and elect them to parliaments. If we do these things then neighbours, knowing our citizens control their own government and have reason for sincerity, will agree to destroy and never use terrorist weapons or tactics - yes, they will agree, they too want to live.

We have the way! Do we have the will? If we are to survive we have to use the two-edged sword of truth: the cutting edge of the physical reality and the cutting edge of the spiritual reality. If we do not use both sides in service to truth then we are liable to find ourselves cut down by the side we ignore.

Oh yes! Some may be asking "Who is this Brock Chisholm M.D."? Well he was the first director of the World Health Organisation and lauded by the Humanist Association as Humanist of the year. He represents, very well, the amoral attitude of humanism and those 'New World Order' directors his words were meant to enlighten. No nation today, if controlled by its people, would have the need, the authority, the power or the audacity to want to dictate to the world. Only in a world driven by elitist controlled governments do leaders have the arrogance and the ignorance to dare advocate and promote such injustice as their own philosophy.

Our future is our choice!

Are incidents of terrorism most emotionally reported
when authorities want public opinion
led to a desired conclusion?
We must always expect confidence trickery
when dealing with confidence tricksters!

NOTE:
To access information sufficiently broad to cover the human situation, download, save and print-out the files:
"Of TRUTH"
"Globalism-Brainwash"
You will find these files under "Service Files" in "Fast Downloads" at the end of this Home Page.
Editor.

Return to Home Page | Other Retired Editorials