We believe that within this website lies the only solution to the creation of World Peace


So far, nobody has shown us to the contrary

You may not have time to read all this website in one go. Why not save it to file or add it to favourites?

The Crucial Point


So far in this website I have not been shy about pointing out that the world contains a high percentage of imperfect, un-evolved humans. I know this for a fact because I'm one of them.  The world always has contained a high percentage of imperfect, un-evolved humans, and it always will contain a high percentage of imperfect, un-evolved humans (God bless us every one). Here then is the greatest problem that we have to confront in establishing a centralised army such as we have been discussing - who is going to run it?

Well what we don't want is any imperfect, un-evolved humans to run it, that is certain. Now let's be quite clear about this; there is nothing wrong at all with being an imperfect, un-evolved human. It is something everyone has to go through. We just don't want them to be in charge of our armies. The same way that we wouldn't leave a seven year old in charge of a loaded hand gun. It would be a recipe for certain disaster. Could you imagine an army of this nature being in the hands of Neo-Nazis or Islamic extremists, or under the control of a tyrannical despot the likes of which have been common enough in the annals of history?

Now let's consider another option; how about if it were run by highly evolved Tibetan Buddhist monks for example. In that case we could be sure that everyone would be quite safe from it. In fact we'd all be so safe from it that it wouldn't be any good at all. Everyone could just do whatever they liked (Tibetan Buddhists are the ultimate pacifists). This is the other extreme that has to be avoided.

Clearly the culture and development of the people who run this international army is of the utmost importance, in particular it must be completely free of any political, religious or racial bias, and contain men of good character. More about this later.

Another important issue is its structure and chain of command. Who would it  be accountable to? Undoubtedly, whenever the event takes place that this international army is formed, the various governments of the world are going to require that it be accountable to them in aggregate. Each government of the world of course has its own individual ideals and policies of varying stability and will try to impose its own vision of utopia through the offices of this amalgamated military unit. That is a very obvious recipe for dissent and contention if ever there was one. Bearing in mind that democratic government is both flawed and notably intolerant of other systems of government, we can envisage a considerable amount of difficulty under such an arrangement. In any case, making this army accountable to the various governments of the world is the same as putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum. The army cannot be accountable to any governments; it is the governments who will have to be accountable to the army.

To clarify this further I would like to tell you about some ordinary everyday people; Mrs Hirsham Patel of India for example: Mrs Patel gets up every morning, her main concern throughout the day is that her children are properly fed and clothed, her house is clean and well looked after, and that Mr Patel will come home safely each evening. Nothing remarkable about that; nor if we consider as well Mrs Weng Chi Yip of Beijing: Mrs Weng Chi Yip also gets up every morning, her main concern throughout the day is also that her children are properly fed and clothed, her house is clean and well looked after, and that Mr Weng Chi Yip will also come home safely each evening. Now let us include Mrs Johnson of Ohio, U.S.A.. Mrs Johnson gets up every morning as well, her main concern  throughout the day is that her children are properly fed and clothed, her house is clean and well looked after, and that Mr Johnson will come home safely each evening also. Then there are the Mr's too: Mr Ivan Robalov of Leningrad for example, he gets up every morning, his main concern throughout the day is that he can earn enough money to look after Mrs Robalov and all the little Robalovs.  Mr Wadabi of western Africa: Mr Wadabi also gets up every morning, his main concern throughout the day is also that he can earn enough money to look after Mrs Wadabi and all the little Wadabi's. In Paris, France, there is Monsieur Le Broque. Monsieur Le Broque gets up every morning, his main concern throughout the day is that he can earn enough money to look after Madame Le Broque and all the petite Le Broques. Well what does that tell you? It tells you that ordinary people the world over just want to get on with their lives without causing trouble for anyone else, that's what it tells you. All the problems in the world are caused by governments and regimes.

What is needed then is a set of international laws formulated by an organisation such as the United Nations, and enforceable by the international army, designed to regulate the behaviour of governments and keep in check the activities of regimes: "No country shall manufacture nor have in its possession any Weapons of Mass destruction" for example.

Having said that, I can see the stone tablets laid out upon the workbench, pencilled across them are the words: "Each country shall have a democratically elected government" and the masons are poised with their chisels ready to carve them out permanently.  I can only say stop this before it starts, and let me show you why.

There are three possible levels of systems of Government:

The first and lowest level, are those systems of government that are self-appointed. These systems include military coups, revolutions, dictators and succession by so called birthright. These governments assert themselves as being in charge by taking control using military strength and subjugation. It means that the person or group taking control is not necessarily the best one for the job; only that they have the most guns. It is these types of government that makes democracies think that they have the superior system . That is not to say that there have never been any governments of this nature that were any good; on the contrary, you only have to look at the great improvement in the lives of the citizens of Cuba under Castro's administration, or to consider the great restraint and character Oliver Cromwell showed when he appointed himself Lord Protector of England, or to examine the reign and administrations of Alfred the Great to see that under the right people, these governments can be as good as any. The problem is, anyone can get hold of the most guns and make themselves leaders, irrespective of their motives, character and intelligence. These governments are also invariably brutal and austere, and have little regard for human rights.

The next level of governments are those appointed by the masses: i.e. democracies. These are of course an improvement on the previous level but are by no means perfect. Under this system the population elects those candidates it feels will best represent its interests and values. In one way democracy is little better than the preceding systems, in that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get themselves elected as leaders, irrespective of their motives, character or intelligence. Only this time it depends upon who has the biggest mouth (most campaign funds) rather than who has the most guns. It is well to remember again that Hitler got himself democratically elected into power just seventy odd years ago. There is something else important to relate about Hitler- prior to aspiring to position and power, he was a great admirer and friend to many Jews. He came to understand however, that the majority of the German people resented and despised them, so he assumed a policy of resenting and despising them on  greater level in order to gain the popularity of the masses and get elected into power. Would-be democratic leaders do this all the time; they adjust their policies and values according to the political mood of the day in order to gain popularity and positions of power. This cannot be said to constitute any form of leadership; on the contrary, they are following the will of the masses rather than leading it. In any case, the majority of the masses only possess a mediocre level of understanding of what truly constitutes their best interest, so in reality they are not in any proper situation to judge who can most ably represent it for them.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all these other forms that have been tried from time to time."               -Winston Churchill.

The highest level of government is government by the wise and benevolent. This type of government would know what truly constitutes the best interests of the general public and have the will to apply it in preference to any other interests (whether the masses agreed with it or not). This would be true leadership. This type of government constitutes the next major advance in the affairs of men.  There have not been any examples of this type of  government as yet. It is not appropriate here to discuss who appoints the wise and benevolent, but please see our website: www.abetterway.worldpeace.org  The point in hand is that this type of government represents a great step forward from that of a democratically elected one and any international laws that are made should be carefully worded so as not to preclude it from being established in any country that wants to adopt it.

Far better would be to word the international law in such a way so as to prevent any self-appointed government (which democracies are really concerned about) from gaining power and influence, but allowing democracies and any higher system of government to remain a possibility.

Fortunately the United Nations is already well set up for the creation of international law, and it wouldn't be too difficult for it to create a set of laws for each Government/Country to abide by, and to define the parameters under which the international army should or should not act.

If this  international army was established however, the question arises as to how will it be restrained  from ever acting beyond any parameters that the United Nations or any other body had defined? This clearly is the issue of extreme consequence; if it goes wrong on this point there will be no way to contain it and keep it under control. The answer is it has to be self-restraining, or it is never going to work at all. How do we know that this will be possible? Well, the British army does not rise up and throw its weight around in Britain does it? The American army does not rise up and throw its weight around in America. So here is some indication that it can work. Can work however is not good enough, we need guaranteed to work  How can we do this? By taking what's already there in these two armies and perfecting it to the point that it can be counted on to work one hundred per cent.

We will discuss this further on the next page                        




Send your comments to : Comments@worldpeace.org.uk     (Please don't send attachments as we never open them).

Comments can be found at Your say

Don't forget to find out what YOU can do to help!