Editor’s Note: This article is the 13th part of a series titled Survival or Extinction. Links to parts 10, 11 and 12 are provided at the bottom as well as a link to the previous 9 articles.
The political leadership and the institutional infrastructure needed to address the urgent problems humanity faces are missing. We are stuck with the Bretton Woods system that was worked out at the end of World War II and has long ceased to be adequate. While history has raced we have stood still for nearly seven decades and, as a result, our problems have grown dire. They threaten our very existence and are material, political and environmental, but more than anything they are global. As such they necessity a global response and we are unable to meet them on these terms.
To meet our problems with a global response we need to retire the nation state and empower the individual, so we can cooperate and coordinate with one another without the artificial borders, economic restrictions and bureaucratic divisions perpetuated by narrow national interests. We need to achieve collective security through planetary harmony. More than anything, we need to be personally involved and invested in mankind. All these existential objectives depend on our ability to close the gap between the elites and the masses, which can only happen through a concerted effort to educate the common man to think and act globally. And all of the above depend on knowing the truth and on taking immediate action.
Religions, however, stand in the way of truth. And nations stand in the way of action. So long as religions stand in the way of truth and nations stand in the way of action the international community will only be able to give us peace with poison, structural violence directed at our fertility and longevity, which amounts to no more than a covert war of attrition. The absence of war must mean more than just peace with poison. For this to happen, what are now international security prerogatives that are being pursued in great secrecy by nation states must become the individual’s responsibilities towards mankind and the planet to be fulfilled openly and universally. Just as we have family, civic and national responsibilities, we must also be allowed to assume a couple of global responsibilities: the responsibility to limit ourselves to only two children, and the responsibility to open our hearts and our borders and our resources to the world.
The previous generation has advanced peace and security by accepting that the treatment of citizens within borders is a matter of legitimate international concern, and has been able to give us peace with poison. Their motivating factors were: collective guilt for the atrocities committed during World War II, fear of assured mutual destruction by nuclear weapons, and the bold and selfless leadership of the United States.
Our generation must advance peace and security one step further by accepting that the behavior of citizens within borders is a matter of legitimate international concern, for that is the only way we shall know true peace, peace without poison. Our motivating factors are: collective guilt for the environmental crimes we commit against the planet, fear of worldwide economic and social collapse, and the selfless and fearless actions of individuals who must lead by example.
It is up to us to ensure that peace means more than just the absence of war. It is up to us to forge peace without poison.
The responsibility for the state of the world will shift from the nation state to the individual. For the individual to be ready to assume this responsibility the last act in the lives of nation states must be to inform and educate the individual of the facts, the reality, the stakes, and the threats. Planetary Security depends on nations taking the leap of faith necessary to empower their citizens so that we, the people, can assume planetary responsibilities and through our behavior prevent global catastrophe.
Previous generations have succeeded in making order out of chaos. The world of international relations is no longer a jungle but a managed forest, which is unfortunately being clear-cut, but that we now have the opportunity to turn into a well-tended garden.
In the past, there were no rules to restrain states in their relations with one another and therefore no morality in international relations. A state of anarchy reigned in the world, a war of all against all wherein sovereign states were in continuous conflict. Each state pursued its own interests unencumbered by ethical considerations and brute force was all that counted.
Since the end of World War I, international anarchy has evolved into international intercourse and conflict has reluctantly given way to cooperation as states agreed to recognize a common superior, the League of Nations. Sovereign states became bound by rules of conduct that govern their dealings with one another through the institutions of diplomacy and international law. States, as a result, were no longer free of moral and legal restraints and balance of power replaced brute force.
Since the end of World War II, mere international intercourse between nations has evolved into a full-fledged international community whose common goals are pursued through the United Nations. Balance of power gave way to the UN’s sole authority on two international security prerogatives that form the axis around which the world revolves since 1945, depopulation and globalization, and that has made the absence of war, if not necessarily true peace, possible. Since 1945 even the most powerful nations have to abide by the decisions of the UN Security Council, which is the only international body that can authorize military action and issue binding resolutions, however biased or bad these resolutions may be. Balance of power has therefore been replaced by consensual action according to well-defined international rules overseen by a neutral agency, that of the United Nations.
Each of these steps forward has come after a major war that shook the existing order to its foundation and caused untold suffering and destruction. Had the existing order been capable of evolving or at the very least of reforming itself to meet the challenges of the day it would not have come to armed conflict. But once war broke out its horrors became the catalyst of change and the enabler of progress in international relations because only war can awaken people and governments from their apathy and force them to consider their actions and to do what is necessary. Such introspection unfortunately comes only after the system has failed and the damage is done.
To avoid yet another war, which is chaos and destruction by definition, the international community, led by the United States, has engineered one by fashioning an imagined enemy, Islamic fundamentalism or Muslim extremism, which could serve as a pretext to push the world one step further along the arduous process of international cohesion, namely the abandonment of jurisdiction over national armed forces to the UN – as envisioned by the US in 1961 and spelled out in “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World” – without having to go through the nightmare and destruction of yet another war that would this time inevitably end in nuclear catastrophe.
9/11 was the trigger they needed to make the danger of this imagined foe palpable and to carry out a mock war against an invented enemy in response to a false flag event, so as to avoid a real war in the near future against multiple contenders over dwindling resources due to an unpreventable crisis.
It provided the perfect cover for launching a full scale assault on nationalist resistance points worldwide and on the dated and dangerous dogmas and divisions that organized religions keep alive and that prevent the world from realizing the age-old dream of global unity, on which enduring peace depends.
It was also an excuse to force the Muslim world to embrace the international community and make the same sacrifices as the rest of the world in terms of depopulation, since the Muslim world has the highest birth rates next to sub-Saharan Africa, but is invulnerable to attack by HIV/AIDS as it lacks Africa’s sexual promiscuity. Moreover, Islam has no church hierarchy and therefore no leadership that can be coerced to turn on its own people through covert chemical and biological means, or at the very least turn a blind eye and preserve the code of silence, as all Christian denominations have done in the West, and as Iran’s Ayatollah was forced to do so the country would be allowed to pursue nuclear technology.
They reasoned that by bringing down a few buildings in a controlled demolition that could be sold to the world as a terrorist attack, they could rally the world’s armies to cooperate closely in the fight against counterfeit terrorism and radicalization and force close military cooperation under the tutelage of the UN. This would allow the architects of the New World Order to build up the international peace-keeping machinery and institutions, as envisioned by the US in its 1961 Freedom from War document and reiterated by the UN in the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations in 2000, which ostensibly drew lessons from the failures of the UN peace keeping operations in Rwanda and Bosnia and gave world leaders at the Millennium Summit in September 2000 the push they needed to “commence the process of renewing the United Nations capacity to secure and build peace”, as stated by Secretary General Kofi Annan in the preamble to the report.
By staging the 9/11 attack the architects of the New World Order have awakened the world from indifference and apathy before it is too late and have instilled in nations the will to help solve the world’s dire problems by motivating them against a common enemy, even if that enemy if fictitious. 9/11 was staged to give the world a common cause so it would muster the impetus to address the core problems that threaten our very existence before they inevitably lead to war. And the United States has sacrificed its people just as God has sacrificed its son. By crucifying itself America has shown national leaders that it is willing to take the world’s sins upon itself and suffer so humankind can be resurrected. The world’s leaders saw America’s resolve and willingness to sacrifice 3000 of its own people so that 7 billion could be spared the scourge of war.
9/11 is the first time in our history that our leaders have attempted to change the structure of the system before it breaks down and war breaks out. As such, it represents the boldest strategic move as well as the greatest act of self-sacrifice in human history.
To bind the world in common cause and change the system before it breaks down they needed an enemy that is everyone’s enemy but not tied to any one country. Islamic fundamentalism, or Muslim extremism, is the perfect universal enemy. It could be found in any country but has no nationality. To fight this imagined global enemy requires global coordination and collaboration. It requires that the world’s armies and intelligence services come together. It requires that they share information and have a single brain to coordinate the struggle against an enemy that threatens the world’s peace and security. It requires, in other words, that the world fulfills the second stage of America’s plan for disarmament, as laid out in its 1961 document “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”.
In this crucial foreign policy document, the American government states vaguely that “the second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war” and that the “implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:
- Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
- Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
- Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
- Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
- On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
- The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
- The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.”
9/11 was a strategic move on the part of the UN and a selfless sacrifice on the part of the US to restart the stalled plan for complete disarmament that was drafted in 1961 and to give the world’s nation states the impetus necessary to come together in common cause.
It is only now that I understand the mad genius of the United States and the extraordinary sacrifices it has been willing to make for the sake of the world. It is only now that I also understand the dangerous level of control the UN has on the world.
If history has taught us anything is that it is not enough to do everything our predecessors have done, and do it right. We must eclipse them. The global policy makers in the US and at the UN have clearly learned from history and have resolutely avoided repeating it by taking evasive action before it is too late. They have limited the cost in human life to a minimum and have led by example. While the death and destruction caused by the controlled demolition of the twin towers in New York was horrible, it pales by comparison to the destruction and atrocities that would be caused by a global war. From my perspective as a common man and of those who lost family members this is an unacceptable and diabolical act, but from the perspective of global policy makers, who must govern a still ungovernable world, it is an acceptable and necessary sacrifice because the end justifies the means when catastrophe beckons and because there was no other way to awaken a dormant and indifferent world.
The stage for the 9/11 false flag event and its aftermath was set by the United Nations in August 2000, when it issued the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, also called the Brahimi Report, to remind the UN Member States that they have not yet implemented a standing UN army or standing UN police force and as a result the organization is failing in its mission to prevent war or restore peace, as shown by the failures in Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (1995).
The Brahimi Report was commissioned ahead of the upcoming Millennium Summit, which took place 6 – 8 September 2000 and was the largest gathering of world leaders in history up to that time, as nearly every head of state of all 189 UN Member States met to discuss the role of the United Nations in the 21st century and ratified the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which identifies 8 key objectives the world needs to accomplish in the 21st century, the highest on the list being “peace, security and disarmament”. At the Millennium Summit, U.S.PresidentBill Clinton and RussianPresidentVladimir Putin delivered a plea for world peace and disarmament, showing the world that Russia and the US make up a united front.[i]
Despite the current show in the Ukraine, which is but the latest strategic move to break the back of nationalist elements, the US and Russia have been working behind the scenes as inseparable partners, just as they have done since 1945, to accomplish the cardinal goal of the United Nations, which is to protect future generations from the scourge of war.
The stage having been set and the world’s leaders informed of what was to come[ii], the attack on the twin towers in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington went ahead on 9 September 2001 as planned. The fear and panic created by the attack allowed governments around the world to cede command and control over their armed forces to the United Nations in the name of coordinating a global plan to defend the people’s human rights and civil liberties against the common enemy of Islamic fundamentalism and to protect the people against further terrorist attacks.
Resolution after UN resolution followed 9/11, each designed to chip away yet another cornerstone of the sovereignty of nation states and control over their armed forces as well as the people’s right to self-determination with respect to economic, social and political decisions.
To keep the threat alive and give the world new impetus to come even closer together, a second terrorist attack was staged in London on 7 July 2005[iii], just a few months ahead of the World Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders in history, which took place 14 – 16 September 2005, to review the progress made over the preceding five years. The fear and panic generated by the London attack – and by the Madrid train bombings a year before – paved the way for the UN to assume greater powers than ever before, namely the right to intervene in the case of “national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”, which is encapsulated by the term ‘responsibility to protect’ or R2P.
In the name of humanitarian intervention, and due to the sacrifices of Europe this time, the international community can now suspend national sovereignty and violate the territorial integrity of nation states thus invalidating the concept of sovereignty established at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
This move was once again preceded by a UN Commission, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and enshrined in international law in the World Summit Outcome Document.
More importantly, at the World Summit the world’s heads of state reaffirmed their commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, mankind’s most ambitious plan to solve its problems, but that is sadly underpinned by the covert and genocidal methods of the Global Depopulation Policy and by the exclusionary and brutal actions of the globalization effort, the pivotal axis of the New World Order.
The moves and machinations listed above have been intended to and have partially accomplished two global policy objectives: (1) central control over the militaries of sovereign states under the aegis of the UN, and (2) all out commitment by all nation states to closely cooperate in solving the world’s material, economic and environmental problems before they spell the end of mankind.
The first global policy objective weakens nationalist elements and thus the war-making capabilities of nations while strengthening the international community by empowering international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace, as was envisioned in the 1961 Freedom from War document. This was accomplished in gradual baby steps by first forcing the world’s militaries to share information and cooperate, then coaxing them to participate in joint actions and finally by convincing or coercing them to dedicate their resources to the UN and to UN control so that the fear of war and war itself can once and for all be eliminated from the face of the earth.
The second global policy objective weakens the loyalty of the governing elites of nation states to their own citizens and their commitment to national objectives while strengthening their loyalty to the international community and to global objectives, as was envisioned by the 1974 Declaration of a New International Economic Order, therefore minimizing the divisions and fractures engendered by ethnic, religious and cultural factors to ensure that they no longer act as impediments to progress towards the noble goal of selfless sharing of global resources so that poverty and want can be eliminated once and for all.
By abdicating military and economic control nation states have in fact ceased to exist since national identities and interests no longer have the political mechanism needed to be expressed and pursued.
The two global policy objectives described above are necessary prerequisites to the implementation of the second phase of the Global Depopulation Policy, which was kick started in the year 2000, in tandem with the second phase of the global disarmament plan, and seeks to ensure that the global population peaks at 9 or maximum 10 billion by 2040 or at the latest by 2050. They are also necessary if the last strongholds of nationalism (Russia, the Ukraine, and Syria) and of religious fundamentalism (Iran, Pakistan, and the USA), are to be fully subsumed into the international community, and whose natural resources are needed if the world is to be able to accommodate the incoming 2 to 3 billion people who will be born between now and the middle of the 21st century.
In the final analysis, the moves and machinations described above have enabled the world to take yet another step towards the noble goal of an international community that is no longer dictated by relations among states but by relations among human beings. Human beings who are willing to build a community of mankind. At the moment, this ethos is primarily shared by the elites of nation states, who have worked to ensure that their own nations abide by the rules that require them to behave as good members of the international community. Unless and until this ethos becomes the revolutionary imperative that requires all men to work towards human brotherhood the world will not be able to overcome the division between those who are already committed to the community of mankind and those who stand in its way. Until such time, the world will fail to abolish suffering for it will not be able to institute true peace, peace without poison, and true justice, justice without lies. Until such time, neither the structural violence committed by the Global Depopulation Policy nor the lies and deceptions that make its continuation possible can be abolished. Let me explain why, in case it is not yet obvious.
When the identity and integrity of nation states was strong and not beholden to the international community, violence was primarily directed at other nations and war was a recurrent tragedy. Since 1945, nuclear deterrence has made war between nations inconceivable and this has committed the leadership of nearly every nation on earth to be loyal to an international community dedicated to peaceful coexistence. As a result, nation states can now direct violence only towards their own citizens to spare the world the scourge of war. And they can only do this in secret if they are to preserve the illusions of the rule of law and democracy on which the integrity of the nation state rests. The open violence that nations perpetrated on other nations during war time prior to 1945 because they could not solve their problems internally has since been replaced by the structural violence perpetrated covertly by state authorities against their own citizens so that national problems do not explode externally into war. The atrocities committed by conventional war in open combat have therefore been replaced by chemical, biological, bacteriological, psychosocial and economic methods aimed at undermining human fertility and longevity and at subverting the family structure in the attempt to address the ultimate causes by which people put pressure on resources and that again and again lead to war. That is how covert depopulation became a substitute to war.
Were nation states to cease and desist all forms of structural violence committed under the ambit of the Global Depopulation Policy, which is the world’s substitute to war, without addressing the ultimate causes that lead to economic, ethnic, religious, material and environmental stresses, they would trigger a world war. This means that there is no going back to the old order.
Conversely, were they to continue to commit genocide through the covert methods of the Global Depopulation Policy humanity will be exterminate within a few generations. This means there is no way we can allow those in charge of global decisions to stay the course.
We are between a rock and a hard place and can only escape this bind by retiring the nation state and empowering the individual to assume global responsibilities. For us to survive, we must all become involved in mankind.
Those who have a problem with being involved in mankind must ask themselves this question: Would you rather be involved in mankind or sacrificed for mankind?
Denying the world our involvement forces our leaders to leave us behind. Denying us the right and means to be involved in mankind forces us to leave our leaders behind. Either denial will lead to tragic consequences now that the truth is known, for they will either butcher us or we will butcher them and no one will ask for whom the bell tolls.
Should we or our leaders continue to hide behind denial, all the sacrifices the world has made to avoid war will lead to war.[i] Boris Yeltsin ceded the presidency to Vladimir Putin, a KGB man, in 2000 so that Russia’s military-industrial complex could continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with America’s military-industrial complex to accomplish the second phase of disarmament laid out in Freedom from War as well as the second phase of the Global Depopulation Policy. Since the process was by no means complete when Putin ended the constitutionally mandated term limits in 2008, making him ineligible for a third consecutive presidential term, it became necessary to install a pseudo-President, Dmitry Medvedev, to keep the seat of the presidency warm for Putin so he could resume in 2012 when he duly announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive presidential term and is currently serving a six-year term. Global policy makers could not risk an unknown entity as President of Russia, lest the country would fall into the hands of an ultra-nationalist who would not only derail the advancement of global unity but could also plunge the world into war by simply withdrawing Russia’s long-standing collaboration with the architects of the New World Order within the international community. [ii] The only nation that was excluded from knowledge of the planned 9/11 false flag event was North Korea. In blatant and deliberate violation of diplomatic protocols, American Airlines personnel demanded that the North Korean delegates be subjected to a search during a stop in Frankfurt. As expected, the North Koreans refused and returned home instead. [iii] It is interesting to note that one of the bombs the architects of the New World Order exploded in London on July 7 was detonated in Tavistock Square. This is undoubtedly a direct and arrogant reference to the Tavistock Institute, an organization concerned with group behavior and responsible for many of the methods of propaganda pioneered to keep the masses ignorant while the international community pursued its grand social engineering goals.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author on this article series are not necessarily shared by The Real Agenda News.
Article 10 of the Survival or Extinction series can be read here.
Article 11 of the Survival or Extinction series can be read here.
Article 12 of the Survival or Extinction series can be read here.
The previous 9 articles of the Series Survival or Extinction can be read here.[I] Boris Yeltsin ceded the presidency to Vladimir Putin, a KGB man, in 2000 so that Russia’s military-industrial complex could continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with America’s military-industrial complex to accomplish the second phase of disarmament laid out in Freedom from War as well as the second phase of the Global Depopulation Policy. Since the process was by no means complete when Putin ended the constitutionally mandated term limits in 2008, making him ineligible for a third consecutive presidential term, it became necessary to install a pseudo-President, Dmitry Medvedev, to keep the seat of the presidency warm for Putin so he could resume in 2012 when he duly announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive presidential term and is currently serving a six-year term. Global policy makers could not risk an unknown entity as President of Russia, lest the country would fall into the hands of an ultra-nationalist who would not only derail the advancement of global unity but could also plunge the world into war by simply withdrawing Russia’s long-standing collaboration with the architects of the New World Order within the international community. [II] The only nation that was excluded from knowledge of the planned 9/11 false flag event was North Korea. In blatant and deliberate violation of diplomatic protocols, American Airlines personnel demanded that the North Korean delegates be subjected to a search during a stop in Frankfurt. As expected, the North Koreans refused and returned home instead. [III] It is interesting to note that one of the bombs the architects of the New World Order exploded in London on July 7 was detonated in Tavistock Square. This is undoubtedly a direct and arrogant reference to the Tavistock Institute, an organization concerned with group behavior and responsible for many of the methods of propaganda pioneered to keep the masses ignorant while the international community pursued its grand social engineering goals.