We have been talking about separating all the armies of the world from the influence of any government, head of state or political regime as a means to preventing them from having any powers to cause trouble. We have observed that the United Nations would be the best body to define the laws that these governments, heads of state and political regimes should abide by, and the parameters within which the combined, centralised army should operate in order to enforce them.

The problem we are addressing now is how we are going to ensure that this centralised army confines its actions to those within the parameters laid down by the UN.

The solution to this problem consists of two elements:

1. The character, education and discipline of the individuals who comprise the army.
2. The structure and protocols of the chain of command that exists within it.

In the long term the character and education of any soldiers wishing to join the centralised army can be cultivated and developed by the establishment of an international chain of cadet corps, so that the essential qualities and values that are required of its members can be inculcated and assessed from an early age.  There is no reason why the establishment of this international cadet corps could not be the first concrete step in the creation of the centralised army. 

For young people, the central theme of this cadet corps could be health and fitness education, and the development of character and discipline - in particular the aspect of character that complies with rules and regulations and respects protocols. In addition however, there are certain essential values that have to be cultivated from the outset. These are:

1. That nothing good was ever achieved by force; all real advances are made by co-operation and agreement.
2. Religious tolerance: they must be taught the truth about religion, and be obliged to practise abstinence from it. See section A below.
3. Political impartiality: they must be taught not to subscribe to any particular political leaning or faction, and that there is no need to deal forcibly with unenlightened political systems. See section B below.
4. Racial tolerance: they must be taught the truth about race and purged of any racial prejudices and intolerance. See section C below.
5. Respect for human life. The whole purpose of this army is to preserve and protect human life; it must be ingrained into the soldier's character not to take life if it can ever be avoided.

This gives an outline of what cadets for this army should be taught in order to prepare them for entry into the army proper, which has to have the values indicated above in order for it to occupy the position for which it is intended.  In order to have these values deeply ingrained on the psyche of each individual soldier, they must be educated with the following simple truths, some of which I can vouch for as being gospel by direct personal experience:

Section A: The truth about religion.

The truth about religion is as follows: there is a God, there is an afterlife, and there have been prophets. 

1. Irrespective of whether or not a person believes in God, if they practise selflessness, altruism and benevolence they will go to a higher realm when they die. (But not necessarily get to be with God).
2. Irrespective of whether or not a person believes in God, if they practise selfishness and evil, they will not go to heaven.
3. If a person vociferously denies the existence of God throughout their life, they will not survive death.
4. No-one gets to be with God, except through Christ..

The essence of any religion should be this:

1. To give thanks to God for anything and everything.
2. To ask forgiveness for our sins (we may decide ourselves what they are).
3. To pray for blessings for ourselves and others.
4. To practise benevolence, selflessness and altruism.
5. To be of generous service to others.

   It also helps to be baptised in some way.

If all religions in the world were homogenous then the world would be a much better (and safer) place to live. However, religion is a very emotive subject, and people are fearful, insecure and very defensive about any suggestion that their religion might not be exactly right, and that is why we have problems.

As for the members of our army, until such times as the discrepancies between all religions are resolved,  they cannot subscribe to any religion. They have to be tolerant of all religions by being independent of any. If they want to practise a religion then they have to choose it over and above joining the army. It cannot be any other way if this army is going to be as safe and dependable as we want it to be. Guns and religion just don't mix!  However, no soldier is going to miss their chance of getting to heaven; their spiritual needs can be catered for within the ranks of the army with a special program for troops if they wish to follow it; it can be every bit as good as anything they will find on the outside, it could in particular deal with the matter of death and the afterlife, something of particular concern to men who might have to kill or be killed.

Section B: Political impartiality

What was said about religion is also true about politics: the army has to be tolerant of all political ideologies by being independent of any. It cannot be any other way; guns and politics just don't mix either. However, there is some consolation in this philosophy for those concerned about inferior political doctrines and ideologies coming to the fore and reigning supreme. It has already been asserted that there is a heaven. Well this heaven has its own set of rules and values, and anything on earth that does not conform to the highest ideals and standards of heaven does not tend to last for any length of time.That means whatever political ideologies are set up and put into practise have to be in harmony with heaven or they will collapse about their ears without any outside agency doing anything to instigate it. We have already witnessed this occurring with the voluntary breakdown of communism and the Soviet Union. The same will happen to any political system that is out of sync; all the army or anyone else has to do is sit back and watch it without interfering, and nature will take its course all by itself.  For this reason, the army can and should be tolerant of all political movements and experiments- they are part of the growth and evolution of men's affairs. This does not mean it would be tolerant of any tyrannical regime that commits mass-murder or genocide to achieve its aims and objectives.

Section C: The truth about race

Many people these days have had experiences of remembering previous lives and former incarnations : too many for it to be anything other than the phenomenon that it appears to be. Even I, who never has any success with anything mystical, have had vague recollections of this nature. A common factor in these experiences is that of previously having lived as someone of different colours, races and nationalities, yet always remaining the same person in every one. It means any idea that one race is any better than another is pure bunkum! We all flit about from race to race one life after another - and I can tell you that those people born in one race in this lifetime and claiming to be superior to another race, are the exact same ones who will be born into that other race next time (when they will undoubtedly claim to be superior to the race they are born into now).

What can be superior or inferior, is a person's culture and development, which has nothing to do with race. It has been proven time and time again by transposing a person from one ethnic background to another, from an inferior culture to a superior one, that people of all races can acquire the same level of culture and development.

It is also apparent that there are differences in temperament between one race or another, just as there are differences in temperament between individuals of the same race. These differences cannot be construed as being superior or inferior however, just differences.

There have of course been various countries whose inhabitants claim to be some kind of master race; they like the idea that they were put on earth to enjoy all the pleasantries and refinements of life whilst the other inferior races run about doing all the work for them. We can't imagine why anybody would want to embrace such an idea as that, can we!  There are a number of things wrong with this idea however. First, there is no such thing as a master race; secondly, if there was such a thing as a master race (which there isn't), then they would be of the nature of being servants to the rest of us, using their superiority to improve the quality of life of us inferior races, not living off our backs and enjoying themselves. Thirdly, there is no such thing as a master race. I know I've already said this twice before but it is such an important point that it's worth repeating again to emphasize it. Hitler got his idea of a master race by misunderstanding  some esoteric doctrines that referred to something relating to a superior culture and nothing to do with race at all.

It must be blatantly obvious why there can be nothing whatsoever of a racist nature present in the character of our amalgamated army, which will of course be composed of many different races itself. We don't want the people holding all the guns to have any ideas that some race is inferior and should be done away with. The soldiers themselves could be trained to have the same re-incarnation experiences that others have had, and realise for themselves the absurdity of the idea that any race is better or worse than another. Any soldier who could not accept complete racial tolerance as a value to be upheld should of course be asked to leave the army without being given any quarter.

Section D: Nationality

A final point in the character and values of our international army is the question of nationality and the loyalties of each individual soldier: An international army must be composed of international soldiers.  By international we shouldn't mean coming from a number of different countries, but rather that each soldier gives up their own nationality and loyalty to any nation when he joins the army, so that they become a truly international person, impartial to the welfare and fortunes of any particular nation above the rest.

This then gives an indication of the level and quality of character that will be required for our centralised army; it will have to be reinforced with discipline, discipline and more discipline, in particular with regard to sticking to the rules, and backed up with psychological and character assessments and selections. However, even with the finest program of character development and selection, nobody in this army is going to be perfect. This means that any possible failings of character should be capable of being absorbed by the structure and protocols of the chain of command.

* We are trying to prepare a program of character development and spiritual welfare that would be suitable for an international army such as we are talking about. We've named it 'Sword of Peace'  You will find it (as it grows and develops) at: http://www.swordofpeace.worldpeace.org.uk

The chain of command

Typically an army of any description has a commander in chief; a domineering autocrat who has the first and last word in whatever action that army does or doesn't take. In our centralised army we cannot afford to have all that power resting in the hands of one individual, whose character is going to be tempted and tested continually and however well developed, will always run the risk of failing at some point and giving way to corruption (we all know what absolute power does don't we?).

We could however have at the top of our chain of command, an advisor in chief. They could be an individual with perfect knowledge of the international laws our army has to enforce, and the parameters within which the army is permitted to act to enforce it; they could be the direct link between the UN lawmakers and the peacekeeping army. This advisor in chief would have no power of authority in the army, though they would be the highest ranking officer.

Directly underneath the advisor in chief, would be a board of command. This would be a body of a dozen or so individuals of the highest integrity. Their job is to issue the orders to carry out any plan of action. They would first listen to the advisor in chief as to how any situation was in regard to international law, and what actions they could legally take to in regard to that situation. They would then have to find a unanimous agreement amongst themselves on the correct thing to do in that situation. This way any possible slips or aberrations in their individual thinking would be ironed out by the cumulative assessment of the board in total. This entire set up can be likened to a judge and jury: the advisor in chief being the wise old judge directing the jury to come to a decision based on his advise regarding the law.  Once the board of command is in agreement their order can be passed down to the next level of command which will be comprised of generals.

There can be any number of generals. These would of course be experienced military men and in this army all of equal rank. Their job would be to receive and implement any orders coming from the board of command. They would also have another job: that would be to police each other to ensure that none of them took any action that was not sanctioned by the board of command. Any general so acting could then be relieved of his position by the board of command, a decision that could be enforced by the other generals.

After that the same failsafe must be set up all the way down the line of command: higher ranking officers can make any lower rank accountable for any misdemeanour or breach of conduct according to the regulations of the army, but also there must be a device whereby any higher ranking officer can be relieved of his command by his equals or the rank of soldiers directly under him if he himself breaks the regulations and runs off track.

Under this set up or one like it our amalgamated army will be self regulating from top to bottom, the character and integrity of its members will ensure that it does not step out of line and create another worse problem than the one it was designed to resolve.

As a footnote I would like to add two further comments on the nature of this army: I have to point out that these are entirely a personal point of view, and not necessarily essential to its success and establishment:

1. It is my personal opinion that an army is an institution for men, a place where men can develop and express the male character. It is not a place for women, who are nothing like men at all, however much we love them. Women are different to men (you can trust me on that, I've been shopping with one); and there is nothing anyone on earth can do to change it. Women always do the same thing when it comes to men's exclusive domains: first they demand entry on the grounds that they are every bit as good as men; then they want to change the rules to accommodate their femininity! You never can win with them. The army (or parts of it) should be the ultimate bastion of men and masculinity; a sanctuary for maleness in a world where boys and girls don't seem to know who's who.  Sorry girls, but please stick to your careers in the commercial world.
2. It is also my personal opinion that soldiers should not get married and have families (while they are soldiers). A soldier is expected to put his life on the line at the drop of a hat; its just not fair that he should do so at the risk of depriving a wife and family of its most important member.

This then ends this critical section on the set up of our international army; next we shall take a look at how we can go about establishing this army in the world.