Canadian activist and writer Kevin Galalae believes the world is on the path to achieving the globalist technocratic dream to do away with nation-states
Many years ago, when the world was still mostly underdeveloped, the elite that controls the planet devised a plan to get the most out of every single resource that our planet had. In their journey to becoming a ‘higher’ class, the globalists decided it was their duty to kill most of the world’s population because if maintained unrestricted, humans would devour the planet alive. Instead of attempting to educate and teach humanity about the limits that would be needed regarding use of resources, consumption and population growth, they began using chemical and biological weapons as part of their policy to get rid of billions of people in what Canadian author Kevin Galalae identifies as the current Global Depopulation Policy.
In his book Killing us Softly: The Global Depopulation Policy, Galalae exposes the reality of planetary depopulation. During his quest to reveal the soft killing of millions around the world, including those who were prevented from being born, Mr. Galalae has contributed to the global awakening about forced depopulation policies. He advocates for informing the people about what he believes is a serious overpopulation problem so people can consciously and voluntarily halt current reproduction rates.
Mr. Galalae, who is of Romanian origin, believes that humanity is capable of doing what the globalists did not have the ability to do, that is, to educate themselves and to change their ways regarding the use of resources, consumption and birth rates. Even though history shows that the elite carefully planned to use people as livestock to exploit the planet’s resources, to later discard us when technological advancements allowed them mechanize industrial production, Mr. Galalae believes that the decision of the globalists came in reaction to a reality in which the population was already out of control.
According to Galalae, it is in the people’s hands to take the power back from the elite by demanding an end to the current soft kill agenda while taking responsibility into their own hands. Galalae has created a document called Our Mind, which he believes could become the blueprint for a new global reality, where people live in a borderless, classless globalized society. He believes that nation-states, although useful for some time, are now a thing of the past.
According to his research, borders are responsible for social and economic inequality, because they limit the free movement of people. During a recent interview with this author, Kevin Galalae explained that plans such as Agenda 21, the Law of the Sea Treaty and the United Nations Biodiversity Assessment are “bitter pills” humanity must swallow in order to have a promising future. Furthermore, Mr. Galalae says that the implementation of the policies contained in traditional globalist proposals are “necessary evils” that we all must endure. When questioned about humanity’s destiny, he says that “population control was the logical solution to the age-old dilemma of ensuring that people do not outgrow the available resources and out of desperation have to resort to invading weaker neighbors to take what is not theirs.”[poll id=”10″]
I interviewed Mr. Galalae on the future of society and his proposal to turn the world into a one single unit, a Brave New World as he described.
Luis Miranda: There seems to exist a contradiction in the elite about why they are killing us in such a blatant way. It seems all it takes to make people more conscious about the environment, healthy population growth, etc., is education. This is most likely why you are in the fight, writing books and reaching out to people. This is also my goal. I guess the question is why didn’t the globalists go for a worldwide educational campaign of the masses, as supposed to a worldwide death campaign?
Kevin Galalae: There were too many structural and practical obstacles standing in the way. They were, in other words, limited by the circumstances of the day. At the end of World War II, Europe was in ruin, Japan devastated by the two atomic bombs, China barely keeping body and soul together, and the rest of the world severely damaged and traumatized by the brutality of the conflict. There was no time for education and no receptive audience.
The Americans had to act and had to act immediately. And so did the Soviets. Saving Europe and Japan from starvation were military prerogatives and the methods chosen were blunt and brutal but effective. In tandem with the reconstruction efforts, which were immediate do or die actions, the long-term effort to safeguard peace and stability was being taken into consideration, which hinged entirely on the ability to get population growth under control.
Once the Americans and the Soviets decided to use covert poisoning to control population there was no going back. They were committed to genocide and neither the law nor the people or the political process could have or would have justified their actions. At the same time, had they not acted there and then and had they waited another generation or two it would have been too little too late.
Stopping population growth requires time. Demographic objectives can only be accomplished over multiple generations. It is like turning an ocean liner around and doing it against the wind and the ocean currents and with only two paddles. It is a battle against the natural order of things because it challenges the strongest human instincts, the instinct to survive and the instinct to procreate. Only man can stop man until such time as man acquires the wisdom to stop himself. That wisdom is only now within the grasp of the majority.
Luis Miranda: My guess is that they always had the intention of using us all as livestock to exploit the planet’s resources, make themselves all mighty and once our labor was not good enough for them, because they had the technology to do it better without us, they would get rid of us. Otherwise, they would have employed their far reaching arm to educate us back into “conscious” use of the resources. But that was not their goal. In my research, I’ve found out that they never cared for the planet or the people, because they believe they are a superior race, who would be able to launch themselves out of this planet once its resources were done with.
Kevin Galalae: No, there was no master plan to cull the human population. The realization that unrestrained population growth would lead again and again to devastating wars over resources prompted the political class to find a substitute to war and thus avoid nuclear confrontation, which would spell the end of all men, rich and poor alike. Alliances had failed to keep the peace, the League of Nations had failed to keep the peace, therefore something new and radical had to be tried. Population control was the logical solution to the age-old dilemma of ensuring that people do not outgrow the available resources and out of desperation have to resort to invading weaker neighbors to take what is not theirs.
Wealth and privilege do not breed disdain for nature. They may breed disdain for people but not for nature. Every human being on the planet cares for nature regardless of their social position. The love of nature is in our DNA. The realization that we all share one planet is elementary and elemental. Even if the technology existed to allow a wealthy few to move to other planets, and if such planets were within reach, no human being would be foolish enough to abandon Earth for the dangers of space. We are tied to our planet emotionally and biologically and this connection is stronger than anything else.
Luis Miranda: What would happen to any individual nation, group of people or individual who didn’t adhere to the Our Mind plan? There seems to exist no room for dissent.
Kevin Galalae: The flexibility to allow dissent and to respect the lifestyles of those who are reluctant to abandon their dated loyalties and ideologies is built into Principle Ten, which states that we must allow “enclaves of stubborn regional and cultural differences to live by their norms and values as long as they are limited to clearly delineated geographic areas and do not impose their rules on global citizens who pass through or choose to or have to reside in their areas of control”.
This approach will enable a soft and humane transition to a global system by allowing conservative pockets the time to evolve to the higher level of consciousness required by a world run according to the OM Principles and with the well-being of the entire world and of future generations in mind. In other words, those reluctant to take the leap of faith will do so once they see that life is much better and much nobler in a global community that has emancipated to a life beyond nation states.
Luis Miranda: Your proposal differs greatly from that of the elite, but in general terms, OM is very similar. There will be lots of people opposed to it, because millions of people around the world, still believe that politically, independent nation-states are the best way to keep peace. Some of the most serious conflicts in the 20th century originated in efforts by the elite to destroy nation-states. How is nationalism an obstacle to world peace?
Kevin Galalae: The natural progression of human societies has been from smaller to larger units. That is how we moved from clans to tribes to villages to towns to city-states to principalities to nation states and finally to multi-state political unions. Nation states and their borders constitute artificial lines of division that are not only irrelevant politically but also an impediment to global prosperity and cooperation. We face global problems that demand global solutions. We engage in global trade that requires the elimination of tariffs and duties.
We confront environmental problems that do not stop at national borders. The goods and services we need and use are produced with natural and human resources from around the world and despite protectionist barriers set by countries. People cannot live and work where they want and where they are most needed; they are instead trapped behind national borders and imprisoned by the socio-political systems of their countries and their self-perpetuating bureaucracies that keep us hostage.
What we need is to shatter all artificial lines of division and strengthen all natural common denominators. The nation state is a relatively new political entity and its time has passed. Nations breed the mentality of us versus them, of natives versus aliens, of outsiders versus insiders. Yet we are all inhabitants of planet earth and members of the same species, the human species.
Looking at the earth from space we don’t see borders. We see only oceans and continents. Those are the only natural points of division and we have eliminated them through modern means of transportation and communication. What stands in the way to the free movement of people and goods are artificial borders, which are being policed like the walls of prisons, for that is what nation states are, prisons. Try and immigrate and you will know what I am talking about.
Nation states means men in uniform at the border asking intrusive questions, infringing our privacy, powerful enough to take your car apart, strip you naked, and interrogate you for hours. It means armies pitted against armies. It means exorbitant amounts of money being wasted on non-existent threats and on stockpiling weapons and paying hundreds of thousands of men to be idle. It means bureaucracies and hurdles that limit where we can work and whether we can work. Where we can live and whether we can move there. Where we can travel and whether we can travel.
My father died of a heart attack while being harassed by such men at the border between Hungary and Austria because my grandmother, who was travelling with him, did not have the proper transit visa. I have no love for nation states and no use for them. They are an anachronism and I hope to see the day when none exist and I can consider and treat every man on earth as my fellow citizen and brother.
Only a common destiny will prevent conflict and ensure mutual cooperation and universal benefit. The nation state is obsolete and a barrier to these necessary goals. Our home is our planet, our entire planet, and no man-made barriers should stand in the way of our freedom and brotherhood.
Luis Miranda: Democracy has served the elite well, as it is much easier to control the masses if they believe they have a choice, even though they really don’t have it. In many countries, people still talk about our so-called democracy as the origin of all the goodness the country has. Little do they realize that democracy usually keeps the country hostage of bipartisan dictatorships.
Kevin Galalae: Democracy is as imperfect as man himself. A democracy is only as good as the quality of its people. To improve democracy we need to improve ourselves, our level of education, our involvement in public policy, our awareness of obstacles to justice and prosperity. Our democracies are crippled by our lack of participation. We have lost control of the political process by default, by our lack of engagement, by our carelessness and laziness. It is not democracy that is to blame; it is our lack of participation. Democracy is a balancing game of conflicting demands. If one team stops pulling the entire thing becomes lopsided.
Global autocracy has replaced national democracy due to our apathy, but also because we are trapped behind national politics while international politics, the only politics that matter in the age of globalization, is carried out by elites who have joined hands and have taken control of the institutional infrastructure of global governance. If we want democracy to work again we must democratize the international system of governance.
What we need is more democracy not less. What we need is democracy at the international level if our national democracies are to thrive once again in a globalized world. As it is, national democracies are being usurped and subverted by global autocracy. And that is done because the elites are trying to free us from the shackles of nation states.
Luis Miranda: Why do you think nationalism and independent nation-states are a threat to world peace, if history shows exactly the opposite?
Kevin Galalae: Nation states have served their purpose and outlived their usefulness. They have enabled us to graduate from feudal principalities to a larger entity of social and political organization and to a more complex form and larger area of economic integration. Now that we must think, trade and live in a globalized world, the nation state is too small in scope and vision for this task. It holds us back to a bygone era. It prevents labor from organizing across borders to be able to be a counterforce to capital, which has been freed to move across borders without impediments. It keeps people suspicious of other nations and in counterproductive competition with other nations for resources that need to be shared without the prejudices prescribed by national prerogatives and narrow nationalist sentiments. It forces us to dedicate large amounts of money and resources in preparation for war with other nations. Distant history shows that nation states have contributed to world peace by enabling greater integration and cooperation. Recent history, however, shows that nation states stand in the way of our need to graduate to global integration and cooperation, which are absolutely necessary if we are to keep the peace and promote prosperity, if we are to evolve to a global civilization, and if we are to preserve the planet for future generations.
Luis Miranda: What would be the difference between current government theft of private property and income from both individuals and companies and what you propose in the OM Principles?
Kevin Galalae: The current system is animated by naked profit and thus by who can take more from others than is his or her fair share. Everyone cheats everyone else for the biggest share of the pie. The law of the jungle applies. The abuses such a system entails have been bearable so long as the economy grew and people could at least make a living. In a shrinking economy, however, the abuses of such a system can no longer be ignored because a growing segment of the population can no longer make a living. This system is therefore collapsing under its own weight and by its own self-destructive premise.
The OM Principles make the right to work and a living wage fundamental rights. In so doing, they remove the incentives built into the system to exclude, marginalize, shortchange and monopolize. The free market will not be allowed to pay wages that keep people in poverty. At the same time no one will be allowed to be idle. It will be cheaper to gainfully employ everyone rather than keep them out of the economy to suppress wages.
Money must circulate to keep the economy flowing and the best way to keep the money circulating is by universal participation and a living wage. Once everyone is working, the burden on the state for welfare programs will lessen considerably and the number of hours everyone is working will decrease. This, of course, can only work if all OM Principles are applied, as they dovetail.
The reason for being of the economy will be to ensure the economic security of every individual not to increase profits for a select few. In such a system there will be no reason and no incentive to steal from others, or for the state to steal from individuals and companies. Such a system will not be adversarial or competitive; it will be symbiotic and cooperative.
Luis Miranda: How will fiscal equality be actually put into practice since there are so many loopholes for corporations to evade payment of very low taxes? Who will enforce tax payments, especially corporate taxes? How to solve tax evasion through philanthropy?
Kevin Galalae: Principle one simplifies the tax code and ties all income earners together at the hip so that no tax loopholes or complexities will exist behind which to hide. Everyone pays 25% in taxes, pay increases or decreases happen across the system, and the highest earner cannot make more than 10 times the wage of the lowest. So long as productivity is maintained at a reasonable level and the lazy are not allowed to drag down the rest, the economy should be ticking along just fine. To seal the system, physical money can be phased out altogether and be replaced with a global digital currency, which is where we are heading anyway.
Luis Miranda: Why do you blame Capitalism for social inequality, if the planet has not enjoyed free market capitalism for at least 100 years? Perhaps for much longer.
Kevin Galalae: It is unbridled capitalism I blame; capitalism devoid of a social conscience, blind to environmental destruction, indifferent to human suffering. Capitalism must never be free. Unfettered free market capitalism would be the death of us all. Economic considerations cannot be allowed to trump all other aspects of life. Free market capitalism would free capital of all social, humanitarian, environmental and political considerations. The profit motive operating in a social vacuum would drive everything to the lowest common denominator: wages, work conditions, security, pensions, etc.
Because economic considerations are so immediate, so unavoidable, and so universal, they already possess a natural advantage over all other aspects of society, which is why they must be tempered by strong real-time controls and long-term strategic planning; they must, in other words, be humanized and tamed. Human desire knows no bounds, which is why it must be tempered by our collective conscience. A free market economy would be human desire let lose. The result, as we are seeing when the free market is unfettered, is immoral and mindless greed.
Furthermore, a free market economy is messy, wasteful and directionless because it is fundamentally chaos. It lacks a guiding intelligence and human life cannot thrive on chaos, it needs order. Chaos begets cruelty. Order begets compassion.
Luis Miranda: Regarding the New World Order you talk about in the event your proposal were adopted, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who wants the UN or any other globalist organization to be in charge of whatever military force or law enforcement body. People’s concern about the UN or any other body controlling an army or world politics comes from the very realistic dictate that says something like “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Isn’t it better to engage people at the local level to understand politics and to get involved as supposed to feel disenfranchised and throw their hands up in resignation while giving power to globalist organizations?
Kevin Galalae: The United Nations Organization must become the United Peoples Organization. We must keep its infrastructure but replace its heart. We must democratize it before we can trust it with anything. But that cannot happen until and unless the lines of divisions that nations represent are no more.
I agree. Engaging people at the local level will drive corruption down because there will be more eyes watching and more minds contributing to the decision making process. Power brokers will no longer be able to hide in their ivory towers far away from the scrutiny and screams of the masses.
Luis Miranda: Don’t you think that locally run politics guarantee more accountability from politics to the electorate?
Kevin Galalae: Yes, local politics will guarantee more accountability, but geopolitical and strategic issues require a bird’s eye view and local politics cannot provide that. The world cannot be run by a million local entities, each mindful of the wellbeing of only a small number of local people. There will be no coordination, no cooperation, no direction, no common purpose, and no common destiny. The world would be mired in meaningless bickering over small issues while the bigger issues will remain unaddressed until it is too late.
That is why local politics needs to be restricted to local issues. Having said this, national and international political entities need to be mindful of the reality on the ground that only local politics can adequately gauge. Local, national and global political structures are equally needed but must each be limited to distinct areas of responsibility and act to check and balance each other’s failures and abuses.
Luis Miranda: Open borders, as recent history shows, only drives living conditions down, destroy industry and creates herds of sub-classes. Again, this has a lot to do with nationalism and living standards in different parts of the world. I see it as unrealistic to attempt to make everyone live under the same social, economic, etc., standards. Doesn’t the Imposition of one culture on another culture cause balkanization and destabilization that ultimately break societies?
Kevin Galalae: There can be no peace and stability in the world, and no decency, until we share a common destiny. For this to happen, nations must be disintegrated. They are the walls that keep us apart. The transition from a world of separate nation states to a world united cannot be painless or without sacrifices. It is the largest change in history, both in scope and size. It would be unreasonable to expect a seamless transition. It would also be unreasonable to believe it can be accomplished without huge sacrifices on the part of everyone.
The cultural, linguistic, religious and political differences between nations and regions are the result of centuries of physical isolation. That isolation is gone and the more we interact with one another and the more interdependent we are the more alike we will become. There is a process of cultural homogenization afoot that proceeds at a rapid pace and is unstoppable. There is no point lamenting the loss of cultures and languages because nothing is being lost. Everything is being poured into a brave new world that is of our own making and that contains the soul and matter of every human being on earth and the ideas and ideals of every culture that was once alive but lonely.
We are forging a new and common culture. Let us do it by keeping each other’s best aspects and discarding the worst. Let us do it wholeheartedly not reluctantly. I want to live to see the day when I can pick up my bags and move to the other end of the globe to live and work and no one and nothing will stop me from doing so.
Luis Miranda: Isn’t the policy of opening borders a tool for societal conflict, balkanization, instability and ultimately the breakdown of nation-states?
Kevin Galalae: It is perceived as such if one does not understand the underlying objective, which is global unity. As the socio-economic structures of nation states are broken apart to be reconstituted at the global level, major disruptions are inevitable. It is short-term pain for long-term gain. Conflict arises because people misunderstand the objective and are mistrustful of authority, which is doing a lousy job of explaining both its purpose and the consequences of achieving it.
It is as though they are ashamed to admit that they are engaged in a project to annihilate nations and free us from the shackles of past ideologies and archaic systems. They should be screaming it from the rooftops with pride and courage because it is the noblest task.
Luis Miranda: Haven’t free trade agreements shown to be corporate tools of monopoly control, where corporations, that write the agreements get unmatched advantages against smaller more vulnerable economies?
Kevin Galalae: Free trade agreements are the Trojan horses needed to break apart national protectionism and isolation. Corporations are the behemoths needed to accomplish this expensive and time-consuming task. Small companies would have neither the means nor the staying power necessary to shatter the old and entrenched economic structures. Once nations are gone and the barriers and obstacles that stood in the way of free and unfettered movement of labor and capital are gone with them, even the smallest company will be able to peddle their goods and services across the globe.
Corporations and free trade agreements are necessary evils during this transitional period from national segmentation to global unification. The globalization effort need not concern itself with small or vulnerable economies since the goal is to create a single global market from which everyone will benefit. We are going through birth pains and it is bloody and messy, but we must endure the pain to see our new baby born.
Luis Miranda: How would so-called free trade work under the principles of the OM?
Kevin Galalae: Once nation states are gone, the Breton Woods institutions will be obsolete. Their purpose now is to oversee the creation of a global socio-economic system, which requires the destruction of old and fragmented national systems and their reconstitution into a new and unified global system. Corporations came to be due to the policies of the Bretton Woods institutions, which needed such economic behemoths to bulldoze away national protections.
Seen from this perspective, policies are the political tools and corporations the economic tools of destruction; the weapon and the ammunition. But they are more than this because they do not merely destroy the old they also create the new. As such they are also the brick and the mortar of this new global edifice.
Globalists need to destroy the old to create the new from its ashes. They do it through monetary coercion. History shows that all attempts at forging global unity by military force have failed. That is why monetary coercion has replaced military force as the means by which to accomplish the age-old goal of global unity.
Since people cannot agree on anything, some form of coercion is needed to force everyone to march in the same direction and play by the same rules. Monetary coercion is the least painful. It also has the distinct advantage of diverting anger and frustration towards a non-physical entity. The monetary system and the so-called invisible hand of the market are abstractions. One cannot take out his anger at abstractions. One cannot shoot money down or bomb the free market, as one could shoot at an invading military force and bomb a base.
These institutions, therefore, are anything but ineffective.
Luis Miranda: Would there be any guarantee that more powerful countries abide by OM laws if there isn’t a global power to enforce it?
Kevin Galalae: If the OM Principles are not eagerly and voluntarily adopted by virtue of their superior vision and practicality, then no force on earth can impose them on the people of the world. It is the ideas and ideals contained in the OM Principles that will ensure their success. But they need to be heard. Once people’s ears ring full with the words of the OM Principles, their hearts and minds will follow.
That is why I say that what the world needs is not a new world order, but a new axial age. That is to say, our evolution depends on our ability to rise to a higher level of consciousness, not on our willingness to submit to a greater political force. The OM Principles show people how to rise to a higher level of consciousness. The United Nations coerces people and nations to submit to its will.
The OM Principles give meaning to people’s lives and form to human civilization. It tethers the local to the global and the individual to the collective without sacrificing individual freedom and human dignity. People and countries must not abide by the OM Principles, they must embrace them the way a man embraces a woman, lovingly and tenderly.
You don’t have to force men and women to seek each other. They do it because it is within their nature. Human beings are drawn to what is beautiful, to what is just, to what is honorable. The OM Principles are just that.
Luis Miranda: Are you an advocate of the UN being the sole judge that would resolve international conflicts?
Kevin Galalae: No. We, the people, need to take control of the UN. The United Nations must become the United People. To democratize the levers of international governance requires that we rise en masse and demand control. But we cannot demand control unless we have a better plan than the elites. The OM Principles are our plan. We must agree on it and get behind it. There will be no conflicts if we all agree on the same thing and contribute to and sacrifice for the same goals. There will be no resistance if it is our plan we are working for and if we all understand what we want and how to do it.
If we talk and act like a herd of bewildered animals the elites will ignore us and push ahead in their own ways and at our expense; and not because they want to but because they have no choice. But if we are smarter and gentler than they are, then they will move aside and make room for the greater intelligence and the greater heart.
Luis Miranda: Would the UN be the only body with military power?
Kevin Galalae: The Pope has no military force yet he commands tremendous respect. The Dalai Lama has not a single soldier, but he is the embodiment of the best traits of human nature and when he speaks billions listen. Mohammed has been dead for almost fourteen centuries, but he is alive and well in the hearts of a billion Muslims, as Jesus is alive and well in the hearts of a billion Christians, and as Gandhi is alive and well in the hearts of a billion Indians, be they Hindus or not.
The greatest power on earth is derived not from military force but from the power of conviction, that mix of love and reason.
I want to see no military power whatsoever. I want to retire the military profession to oblivion. I want to put the power of conviction into every man’s and woman’s heart, so they are animated by love and reason, not by base instinct. When every human being on the planet is animated by love and reason and human civilization empowers them to put love and reason at the center of their lives and at the core of their existence, there will be no need for armies and weapons.
Neither the UN nor any other region or organization must have recourse to military power. In the age of enlightenment only the power of conviction matters.
Luis Miranda: Do you support legislation or policies such as Agenda 21, the Law of the Sea Treaty or the United Nations Assessment on Biodiversity?
Kevin Galalae: Agenda 21 is bitter medicine that we must all take if the world is to get better. It is required to reverse the damage done over generations because we have not or would not foresee the future consequences of our combined actions. We have made the world sick and now we must heal it.
The Law of the Sea Treaty is for the seas what Agenda 21 is for the land. It sets global rules on how to use those resources and who can claim them. Without such framework the seas and oceans would continue to be used and abused as a free for all and as dumping grounds.
The Biodiversity Convention is to ensure the continuity of life on earth in all its forms and shapes.
Agenda 21 and the Law of the Sea Treaty show concern for future generations while the Biodiversity Convention shows concern for all live on earth not just humanity.
I support the goals of all three but detest the dishonest way in which they are being pursued and the patronizing way in which we are being deprived of knowledge of the hidden and parallel objectives of these international treaties; all of which depend on halting and reversing population growth.
That there is a need to regulate and manage all resources sustainably is testimony to the fact that we are tapping into every natural resource the earth has to offer and are consuming beyond the earth’s ability to regenerate, leaving a denuded world to our children. Whether we like it or not this has to stop and this can only stop if we make an active effort to conserve and preserve and if we diminish our numbers to a level that is sustainable. This is going to be a painful process. We are paying for the sins and ignorance of our forefathers.
Luis Miranda: What relevance would the family (a mother, a father and their children) have in a world governed by the OM?
Kevin Galalae: The family is the elementary molecule of the living organism human civilization constitutes. Without it there is no civilization and there is no humanity. The family is the incubator and the vault of love and love is the blood of humanity and the energy that powers human life. You destroy the family you destroy humankind. Everything in OM and everything about OM is to enhance and assist the family. Why? The reason is simple. Man without woman is nothing just as woman without man is nothing. The family is where man and woman can come together and commit to one another so they can build a better world for their children, the sum total of their love and efforts.
Luis Miranda: Would a world governed by the principles of the OM encourage the education of children in the family as supposed to at indoctrination centers controlled by governments?
Kevin Galalae: The family must be and must remain at the center of children’s education. Only the family can enrich a child’s education with the virtues and qualities of character, as opposed to merely factual knowledge. Only the family can feed the children’s hunger for love and affection. Only the family can give selflessly the unconditional love children need to thrive.
The importance of the family lies also in its ability to give variety and nuance to children’s education. It is therefore as important to the continuity of the species as biological variation is to the continuity of life.
Schools and universities feed only the mind, they do not forge the spirit, families do that. Furthermore, the acquisition of knowledge is undergoing a revolution from learning in classrooms to self-learning. Computers and the World Wide Web have made information accessible to us all at home. Once children learn how to learn and acquire a love of learning, schools become redundant. The world is the best classroom and the digital age brings the world into our homes.
Luis Miranda: What is your definition of GOD?
Kevin Galalae: God is the natural laws of the universe, the dance of matter and energy, the love that fills our hearts, the conscience that allows us to know right from wrong, and the light that generates all life.
Luis Miranda: Aren’t you and your family the victims of the transition humanity is experiencing and that will apparently result in the future you yourself advocate?
Kevin Galalae: Yes, I am a victim of the painful transition to global governance. My particular case is very interesting as it embodies the many things that can go wrong when the international community pursues its globalization goals by coercion and manipulation. First, the wall of silence required to hide the depopulation effort has forced them to limit our expressional rights and as I am an outspoken person I fell victim to a surveillance and censorship program instituted to control freedom of speech, though and conscience in universities.
Secondly, because the Muslim world is the last point of resistance, the globalists have needed to demonize and vilify Muslims to weaken their resolve and protections before invading their countries, and as I defended expressional rights in academia for everyone, including Muslims, I became the object of racial hatred, bigotry and prejudice even within my own family. The retaliation I suffered as a result of this – and that was intended to scare me into silence – is now part of the public record, but it backfired.
Third, embittered by the reprisals and retribution, I fought back and exposed programs and policies critical to the global depopulation agenda; coming therefore in direct conflict with the guardians of the depopulation policy. Out of desperation at their failure to first force me into submission and then to contain me, the authorities have abused and misused the rule of law even further, with even more disastrous results to the system’s credibility and legality. But that is what happens when hidden objectives are pursued in insidious and immoral ways. Individuals become secondary to the greater goal, just as rights and liberties are trumped by international security prerogatives. The blunt tools of global governance devoid of democratic oversight result in structural violence of a high order of magnitude.
Luis Miranda: If all the elite has sought since after the war has been to create a One World Government, to “save us all from ourselves”, every good thing and every bad thing that happens is part of the transition that, according to you, we all need to go through in order to achieve the ultimate goal to have a borderless, classless society. Can you say then that your family, from the time your father was abused by Communists until now, when you are abused by Canadian authorities, has paid the price in the transition to achieve the perfect global society?
Kevin Galalae: My family has paid the highest price, for that is what happens to people who will never surrender their rights and liberties and who will never prostitute themselves or accept and support lies to benefit socially or economically. Without people who are willing to sacrifice everything for their conscience and the common good, society would have long fallen victim to complete tyranny. My sacrifices, my father’s sacrifices and the sacrifices of activists and freedom fighters the world over are keeping the process of transition to a global society from disintegrating into lawlessness and heartlessness. We are the last remaining safeguard from global dictatorship during this dangerous and difficult transition. We are the ones who will take up arms if the authorities overstep. We are the ones who instill fear in those who have unbridled power and are tempted to use it without regard to human life and suffering. We are here, we are here to stay, and we have drawn a line in the sand and will defend it with our lives.
Luis Miranda: Is Barack Obama the latest globalist “hero” who has helped advance the agenda of the elite?
Kevin Galalae: The globalization effort has no heroes. It is in the hands of bureaucrats, technocrats and administrators. They are riding a wild horse and are barely able to stay in the saddle. The agenda of the elite, namely to create a borderless world, will become our agenda once we take control of the process and instead of being helpless victims we become masters of our destiny.