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that go unpublished and unanswered!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
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
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
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!
To access information sufficiently broad to cover the human situation,
download, save and print-out the files:
You will find these files under "Service Files" in "Fast
Downloads" at the end of this Home Page.