GOVERNMENT SAYS CHRISTIANS ARE TERRORISTS !

[Evildweeb Profile]

GOVERNMENT SAYS CHRISTIANS ARE TERRORISTS !

Upload to Disclose.tv

on Aug 2, 2012 by TheCoop30301

GOVERNMENT SAYS CHRISTIANS ARE TERRORISTS !



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL0otU-Zx1E





Mother Mary full of grace, hallowed art thou fucking bullshit.

[WillEase666 Profile]

...now I have to get back to cat fighting with the troll.

[Nihilgeist Profile]

Interesting piece to stir up the beehive. Not once did I hear or see in that Video the Government calling Christians Terrorists.

Not all christians are pro-lifers, gun-carrying nra members, to which they ARE generalizing as people to watch on a list, unless of course you subscribe to your own broad generalization that only true christians would believe in those specific values?

You and the person that made this video are no better than the government generalized profiling that you're trying to rail against Evil.

[Noentry Profile]

TPTB do not want a free thinking population.

They want zombies who wake up every morning catch bus to work for the national minimum, buy Mcdonalds at lunch, KFC in the evening and believe in nothing but what they are told by central control.

When ever in history a totalitarian regime takes over, it is always those with a sense of higher purpose, the religious cast that has been their greatest enemy.

Now a days many people have a sense of higher purpose without the need for religion but in the end when they try to implant us with chips(the mark of the Devil) it will be the Christians that will most defiantly say NO.

I maybe scornful of religion( a topic for a different post) but in this case

God bless the Christians

[mediasorcery Profile]

i support them too, even if i think they have it all wrong, but, they want the same as us,

[monica44 Profile]

Any religion of the world has a certain amount of blind faith in which those who follow put themselves at risk by giving up power to an organization who the proceeds to tell those what is right and wrong. Most people of the world understand what is right and wrong who put that aside because the church of their choice says they must go to war in the name of their god.

Until we as a race [collectively] learn that ANY religion, Christian or otherwise is a tool to keep you from learning the real truth about who you are and your divine rights as a being, then there will be more wars, more suffering and more misery.

[Hurtswhenipee Profile]

Very disturbing addition to an already drowning Americian public. (We are no longer treading water)

We are getting closer every day to being like what Russia was!

[SonOfGodEternalFlame Profile]

The Reappearance of the Christ

The Reappearance of the Christ -

Many religions today expect the coming of an Avatar or Saviour. The second coming of the Christ, as the world Teacher for the age of Aquarius, is presented in this book as an imminent event, logical and practical in the continuity of divine revelation throughout the ages. The Christ belongs to all mankind; he can be known and understood as "the same great Identity in all the world religions."

Galatians 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

The Reappearance of the Christ
Djwhal Khul through Alice A. Bailey

Always down the centuries, at the hour of man's greatest need, and in response to his voiced demand, a divine Son of God has come forth, and under many different names...

It is not for us yet to know the date or hour of the reappearance of the Christ. His coming is dependent upon the appeal (the often voiceless appeal) of all who stand with massed intent; it is dependent also upon the better establishment of right human relations & upon certain work being done at this time by senior Members of the Kingdom of God, the Church Invisible, the spiritual Hierarchy of our planet; it is dependent also upon the steadfastness of the Christ's disciples in the world at this time and His initiate-workers---all working in the many groups: religious, political & economic. To the above must be added what Christians like to call "the inscrutable Will of God," that unrecognized purpose of the Lord of the World, the Ancient of Days (as He is called in the Old Testament) Who "knows His own Mind, radiates the highest quality of love & focuses His Will in His Own high Place within the center where the Will of God is known.

He has been for two thousand years the supreme Head of the Church Invisible, the Spiritual Hierarchy, composed of disciples of all faiths. He recognizes and loves those who are not Christian but who retain their allegiance to Their Founders--the Buddha, Mohammed and others. He cares not what the faith is if the objective is love of God and of humanity. If men look for the Christ Who left His disciples centuries ago, they will fail to recognize the Christ Who is in process of returning. The Christ has no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith a man may call himself...

When the Christ, the Avatar of Love, makes His Reappearance then will the Sons of men who are now the Sons of God withdraw Their faces from the shining light & radiate that light upon the sons of men who know not yet that they are Sons of God. Then shall the Coming One appear, His footsteps hastened through the valley of the shadow by the One of awful power Who stands upon the mountain top, breathing out love eternal, light supernal & peaceful, silent Will.

Then will the sons of men respond. Then will a newer light shine forth into the dismal, weary vale of earth. Then will new life course through the veins of men, & then will their vision compass all the ways of what may be.

So a peace will come again on earth, but a peace unlike aught known before. Then will the will-to-good flower forth as understanding, & understanding blossom as goodwill in men.

The mass of straight goodness and vision in the world is enormous, and the amount of clear, humanitarian thinking is unbounded; it is in the hands of the masses of good little men, and the millions of right thinking people in every land, that the salvation of the world lies, and by them the preparatory work for the Coming of the Christ will be done. Numerically, they are adequate to the task, and need only reassurance and wise co-ordination to prepare for the service required.

When He comes...to inaugurate the New Age and so complete the work He began in Palestine two thousand years ago, He will bring with Him some of the great Angels, as well as certain of the Masters. (The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, 508)

The time is known only to two or three, but "in such an hour as ye think not, He will come." (Matt.XXIV 44)

To Him all seekers are known, and, though they may remain unaware of Him, the light which He pours forth stimulates their desire, fosters the spark of struggling life and spurs on the aspirant until the momentous day dawns when they stand face to face with the One Who by being "lifted up" is drawing all men unto Himself as the Initiator of the sacred mysteries.

His reappearance and His consequent work cannot be confined to one small locality or domain, unheard of by the great majority, as was the case when He was here before. The radio, the press and the dissemination of news, will make His coming different to that of any previous Messenger; the swift modes of transportation will make Him available to countless millions, and by boat, rail and plane they can reach Him: through television, His face can be made familiar to all, and verily "every eye shall see Him."

The reason He has not come again is that the needed work has not been done by His followers in all countries. His coming is largely dependent, as we shall later see, upon the establishing of right human relations. This the church has hindered down the centuries, & has not helped because of its fanatical zeal to make "Christians" of all peoples & not followers of the Christ. It has emphasized theological doctrine, & not love & loving understanding as Christ exemplified it. The Church has preached the fiery Saul of Tarsus & not the gentle Carpenter of Galilee. And so, He has waited. But His hour has now come, because of the people's need in every land & because of the invocative cry of the masses everywhere & the advice of His disciples of all faiths & of all world religions.

The New Age plan to kill Christians and Jews for the sake of the world community.
On April 25, 2008 · 20 Comments
Make no mistake about it Oprah and Tolle are setting the foundation for the coming persecution of true believers in Jesus Christ and Jehovah. Their satanic religion promotes the removing of all those who will not become part of the One universal consciousness. They will intend to kill us for the sake of their satanically inspired community and think they will be doing us and the world community a favor by doing so.

This teaching is not new. It has always been the teaching of New Age for many decades. Tolle and Oprah have just used their influence to popularize it under a new cover. It has always been their answer for any Rapture as well. They will say the collective mind just removed the “Neanderthals” from the earth so the “spiritually enlightened” could evolve into a higher consciousness and bring utopia on the earth.

There will soon come a day soon when those deceived by people like Oprah and Tolle will get to carry out their plan. If you look at all of what else is going on globally to set the stage for these global agendas you should understand that it it will all happen in the lifespan of this generation.

‘Does Winfrey Ride The Beast?’ – Frederick Meekins – Apr 25, 08

More importantly, by undermining individuality as in the case of Hinduistic New Age spirituality (atman is brahman) by claming that we are just a temporary cellular manifestation of the One Consciousness, when the time comes those accustomed to this mindset won’t have all that much of a problem with mass roundups and ultimately executions of those doing nothing more that questioning the worldview of those holding power. After all, one does not lament the removal of an infected hangnail or the cutting of hair since such an act benefits the overall body — or as in the case of the global community — the One Consciousness as Tolle calls it.

Such wayward intellects, according to Tolle, have failed to evolve to the point of enlightenment and “identify only with their own physical and psychological form”. Thus, for the sake of the COMMUNITY, it is imperative that such impediments be removed. Besides, doing such really wouldn’t be wrong (a concept itself outdated and bigoted since transcendent absolute standards don’t exist anyway) since distinct individuals don’t really exist and by hastening their return to the universal consciousness one may in fact be doing them a favor by expediting them onwards towards their next incarnation.

Revelations 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

upon the establishing of right human relations. This the church has hindered down the centuries,

There preparing the final fazes it seem terrorism is their # 1 mode to fool the masses 911 and so
on.
The report of iron mountain stated fictitious enemies.

Even though they plan to kill me cause I believe in the only true Christ it's cool to see Gods
prophecy come to pass and happen before my eyes.


Revelation 6
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

[Lahlaos Profile]

Number 1) That video was shit
Number 2) Honestly dont lecture scripture its highly uncared for here.
Number 3) I agree that not everything in religion is right, but a vast majority is.
Number 4) Okay so we dont listen to a governmental body, what next all of a sudden the world unites and manages food, finances etc. Dont be stupid, itd be chaos, Im kinda happy with how things are even if they fucking us over, its better than what be if some meagre peasant was in charge of things.

The day a peasant becomes king is surely the end of the world.

Number 5) Fuck your anti god messages to come!

Love and Light x

[SonOfGodEternalFlame Profile]

Number 1) That video was shit
Number 2) Honestly dont lecture scripture its highly uncared for here.
Number 3) I agree that not everything in religion is right, but a vast majority is.
Number 4) Okay so we dont listen to a governmental body, what next all of a sudden the world unites and manages food, finances etc. Dont be stupid, itd be chaos, Im kinda happy with how things are even if they fucking us over, its better than what be if some meagre peasant was in charge of things.

The day a peasant becomes king is surely the end of the world.

Number 5) Fuck your anti god messages to come!

Love and Light x

Upload to Disclose.tv

The report from iron mountain

SECTION 3: Disarmament Scenarios

Scenarios, as they have come to be called, are hypothetical constructions of future events. Inevitably, they are composed of varying proportions of established fact, reasonable inference, and more or less inspired guess-work. Those which have been suggested as model procedures for effectuating international arms control and eventual disarmament are necessarily imaginative, although closely reasoned; in this respect they resemble the "war games" analyses of the Rand Corporation, with which they share a common conceptual origin.

All such scenarios that have been seriously put forth imply dependence on bilateral or multilateral agreement between the great powers. In general, they call for a progressive phasing out of gross armaments, military forces, weapons, and weapons technology, coordinated with elaborate matching procedures of verification, inspection, and machinery for the settlement of international disputes. It should be noted that even proponents of unilateral disarmament qualify their proposals with an implied requirement of reciprocity, very much in the manner of a scenario of graduated response in nuclear war. The advantage of unilateral initiative lies in its political value as an expression of good faith, as well as in its diplomatic function as a catalyst for formal disarmament negotiations.

The READ model for disarmament (developed by the Research Program on Economic Adjustments to Disarmament) is typical of these scenarios. It is a twelve-year-program, divided into three-year stages. Each stage includes a separate phase of: reduction of armed forces; cutbacks of weapons production, inventories, and foreign military bases; development of international inspection procedures and control conventions; and the building up of a sovereign international disarmament organization. It anticipates a net matching decline in U.S. defense expenditures of only somewhat more than half the 1965 level, but a necessary redeployment of some five-sixths of the defense-dependent labor force.

( if you know the report of iron mountain was done in the 60's and guns is just the beginning )

SECTION 7: Summary and Conclusions
The Nature of War

War is not, as is widely assumed, primarily an instrument of policy utilized by nations to extend or defend their expressed political values or their economic interests. On the contrary, it is itself the principal basis of organization on which all modern societies are constructed. The common proximate cause of war is the apparent interference of one nation with the aspirations of another. But at the root of all ostensible differences of national interest lie the dynamic requirements of the war system itself for periodic armed conflict. Readiness for war characterizes contemporary social systems more broadly than their economic and political structures, which it subsumes.

Economic analyses of the anticipated problems of transition to peace have not recognized the broad preeminence of war in the definition of social systems. The same is true, with rare and only partial exceptions, of model disarmament "scenarios." For this reason, the value of this previous work is limited to the mechanical aspects of transition.

Certain features of these models may perhaps be applicable to a real situation of conversion to peace; this will depend on their compatibility with a substantive, rather than a procedural, peace plan. Such a plan can be developed only from the premise of full understanding of the nature of the war system it proposes to abolish, which in turn presupposes detailed comprehension of the functions the war system performs for society. It will require the construction of a detailed and feasible system of substitutes for those functions that are necessary to the stability and survival of human societies.


The Functions of War

The visible, military function of war requires no elucidation; it is not only obvious but also irrelevant to a transition to the condition of peace, in which it will by definition be superfluous. It is also subsidiary in social significance to the implied, nonmilitary functions of war; those critical to transition can be summarized in five principal groupings.
1. Economic. War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness.

2. Political. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war.

3. Sociological. War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies. As the most formidable of threats to life itself, and as the only one susceptible to mitigation by social organization alone, it has played another equally fundamental role: the war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations. No other institution, or group of institutions, in modern societies, has successfully served these functions.

4. Ecological. War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.

5. Cultural and Scientific. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Criteria

The foregoing functions of war are essential to the survival of the social systems we know today. With two possible exceptions they are also essential to any kind of stable social organization that might survive in a warless world. Discussion of the ways and means of transition to such a world are meaningless unless a) substitute institutions can be devised to fill these functions, or b) it can reasonably be hypothecated that the loss or partial loss of any one function need not destroy the viability of future societies.

Such substitute institutions and hypotheses must meet varying criteria. In general, they must be technically feasible, politically acceptable, and potentially credible to the members of the societies that adopt them. Specifically, they must be characterized as follows:
1. Economic. An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent "waste" must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.

2. Political. A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority.

3. Sociological. First, in the permanent absence of war, new institutions must be developed that will effectively control the socially destructive segments of societies. Second, for purposes of adapting the physical and psychological dynamics of human behavior to the needs of social organization, a credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction. This fear must be of a nature and degree sufficient to ensure adherence to societal values to the full extent that they are acknowledged to transcend the value of an individual human life.

4. Ecological. A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not necessarily the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relation to environmental supply.

5. Cultural and Scientific. A surrogate for the function of war as the determinant of cultural values must establish a basis of sociomoral conflict of equally compelling force and scope. A substitute motivational basis for the quest for scientific knowledge must be similarly informed by a comparable sense of internal necessity.

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Models

The following substitute institutions, among others, have been proposed for consideration as replacements for the nonmilitary functions of war. That they may not have been originally set forth for that purpose does not preclude or invalidate their possible application here.
1. Economic.
a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward maximum improvement of general conditions of human life.
b) A giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets.
c) A permanent, ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a system.
2. Political.
a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force.
b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace.
c) Massive global environmental pollution.
d) Fictitious alternate enemies.
3. Sociological:
- Control function.
a) Programs generally derived from the Peace Corps model.
b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery.
- Motivational function.
a) Intensified environmental pollution.
b) New religious or other mythologies.
c) Socially oriented blood games.
d) Combination forms.
4. Ecological. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.

5. Cultural. No replacement institution offered. Scientific. The secondary requirements of the space research, social welfare, and/or eugenics programs.

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Evaluation

The models listed above reflect only the beginning of the quest for substitute institutions for the functions of war, rather than a recapitulation of alternatives. It would be both premature and inappropriate, therefore, to offer final judgments on their applicability to a transition to peace and after. Furthermore, since the necessary but complex project of correlating the compatibility of proposed surrogates for different functions could be treated only in exemplary fashion at this time, we have elected to withhold such hypothetical correlation as were tested as statistically inadequate. [42]

Nevertheless, some tentative and cursory comments on these proposed functional "solutions" will indicate the scope of the difficulties involved in this area of peace planning.

Economic
The social-welfare model cannot be expected to remain outside the normal economy after the conclusion of its predominantly capital-investment phase; its value in this function can therefore be only temporary. The space-research substitute appears to meet both major criteria, and should be examined in greater detail, especially in respect to its probable effects on other war functions. "Elaborate inspection" schemes, although superficially attractive, are inconsistent with the basic premise of transition to peace. The "unarmed forces" variant, logistically similar, is subject to the same functional criticism as the general social-welfare model.

Political
Like the inspection-scheme surrogates, proposals for plenipotentiary international police are inherently incompatible with the ending of the war system. The "unarmed forces" variant, amended to include unlimited powers of economic sanction, might conceivably be expanded to constitute a credible external menace. Development of an acceptable threat from "outer space," presumably in conjunction with a space-research surrogate for economic control, appears unpromising in terms of credibility. The environmental-pollution model does not seem sufficiently responsive to immediate social control, except through arbitrary acceleration of current pollution trends; this in turn raises questions of political acceptability. New, less regressive, approaches to the creation of fictitious global "enemies" invite further investigation.

Sociological
Control function. Although the various substitutes proposed for this function that are modeled roughly on the Peace Corps appear grossly inadequate in potential scope, they should not be ruled out without further study. Slavery, in a technologically modern and conceptually euphemized form, may prove a more efficient and flexible institution in this area. Motivational function. Although none of the proposed substitutes for war as the guarantor of social allegiance can be dismissed out of hand, each presents serious and special difficulties. Intensified environmental threats may raise ecological dangers; mythmaking dissociated from war may no longer be politically feasible; purposeful blood games and rituals can far more readily be devised than implemented. An institution combining this function with the preceding one, based on, but not necessarily imitative of, the precedent of organized ethnic repression, warrants careful consideration.

Ecological
The only apparent problem in the application of an adequate eugenic substitute for war is that of timing; it cannot be effectuated until the transition to peace has been completed, which involves a serious temporary risk of ecological failure.

Cultural
No plausible substitute for this function of war has yet been proposed. It may be, however, that a basic cultural value-determinant is not necessary to the survival of a stable society. Scientific. The same might be said for the function of war as the prime mover of the search for knowledge. However, adoption of either a giant space-research program, a comprehensive social-welfare program, or a master program of eugenic control would provide motivation for limited technologies.

General Conclusions
It is apparent, from the foregoing, that no program or combination of programs yet proposed for a transition to peace has remotely approached meeting the comprehensive functional requirements of a world without war. Although one projected system for filling the economic function of war seems promising, similar optimism cannot be expressed in the equally essential political and sociological areas. The other major nonmilitary functions of war - ecological, cultural, scientific - raise very different problems, but it is at least possible that detailed programming of substitutes in these areas is not prerequisite to transition. More important, it is not enough to develop adequate but separate surrogates for the major war functions; they must be fully compatible and in no degree self-canceling.
Until such a unified program is developed, at least hypothetically, it is impossible for this or any other group to furnish meaningful answers to the questions originally presented to us. When asked how best to prepare for the advent of peace, we must first reply, as strongly as we can, that the war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear until,
1) we know exactly what it is we plan to put in its place, and
2) we are certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that these substitute institutions will serve their purposes in terms of the survival and stability of society.
It will then be time enough to develop methods for effectuating the transition; procedural programming must follow, not precede, substantive solutions.

Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate to peace research. That we have examined the fundamental questions involved from a dispassionate, value-free point of view should not imply that we do not appreciate the intellectual and emotional difficulties that must be overcome on all decision-making levels before these questions are generally acknowledged by others for what they are. They reflect, on an intellectual level, traditional emotional resistance to new (more lethal and thus more "shocking") forms of weaponry. The understated comment of then-Senator Hubert Humphrey on the publication of On Thermonuclear War is still very much to the point:
"New thoughts, particularly those which appear to contradict current assumptions, are always painful for the mind to contemplate."
Nor, simply because we have not discussed them, do we minimize the massive reconciliation of conflicting interest which domestic as well as international agreement on proceeding toward genuine peace presupposes. This factor was excluded from the purview of our assignment, but we would be remiss if we failed to take it into account. Although no insuperable obstacle lies in the path of reaching such general agreements, formidable short-term private-group and general-class interest in maintaining the war system is well established and widely recognized.

The resistance to peace stemming from such interest is only tangential, in the long run, to the basic functions of war, but it will not be easily overcome, in this country or elsewhere. Some observers, in fact, believe that it cannot be overcome at all in our time, that the price of peace is, simply, too high. This bears on our overall conclusions to the extent that timing in the transference to substitute institutions may often be the critical factor in their political feasibility.

It is uncertain, at this time, whether peace will ever be possible. It is far more questionable, by the objective standard of continued social survival rather than that of emotional pacifism, that it would be desirable even if it were demonstrably attainable. The war system, for all its subjective repugnance to important sections of "public opinion," has demonstrated its effectiveness since the beginning of recorded history; it has provided the basis for the development of many impressively durable civilizations, including that which is dominant today. It has consistently provided unambiguous social priorities. It is, on the whole, a known quantity.

A viable system of peace, assuming that the great and complex questions of substitute institutions raised in this Report are both soluble and solved, would still constitute a venture into the unknown, with the inevitable risks attendant on the unforeseen, however small and however well hedged.

Government decision-makers tend to choose peace over war whenever a real option exists, because it usually appear to be the "safer" choice. Under most immediate circumstances they are likely to be right. But in terms of long-range social stability, the opposite is true. At our present state of knowledge and reasonable inference, it is the war system that must be identified with stability, the peace system with social speculation, however justifiable the speculation may appear, in terms of subjective moral or emotional values.

A nuclear physicist once remarked, in respect to a possible disarmament agreement:
"If we could change the world into a world in which no weapons could be made, that would be stabilizing. But agreements we can expect with the Soviets would be destabilizing." [43]
The qualification and the bias are equally irrelevant; any condition of genuine total peace, however achieved, would be destabilizing until proved otherwise.

If it were necessary at this moment to opt irrevocably for the retention or for the dissolution of the war system, common prudence would dictate the former course. But it is not yet necessary, late as the hour appears. And more factors must eventually enter the war-peace equation than even the most determined search for alternative institutions for the functions of war can be expected to reveal. One group of such factors has been given only passing mention in this Report; it centers around the possible obsolescence of the war system itself.

We have noted, for instance, the limitations of the war system in filling its ecological function and the declining importance of this aspect of war. It by no means stretches the imagination to visualize comparable developments which may compromise the efficacy of war as, for example, an economic controller or as an organizer of social allegiance. This kind of possibility, however remote, serves as a reminder that all calculations of contingency not only involve the weighing of one group of risks against another, but require a respectful allowance for error on both sides of the scale.

A more expedient reason for pursuing the investigation of alternate ways and means to serve the current functions of war is narrowly political. It is possible that one or more major sovereign nations may arrive, through ambiguous leadership, at a position in which a ruling administrative class may lose control of basic public opinion or of its ability to rationalize a desired war. It is not hard to imagine, in such circumstance, a situation in which such governments may feel forced to initiate serious full-scale disarmament proceedings (perhaps provoked by "accidental" nuclear explosions), and that such negotiations may lead to the actual disestablishment of military institutions.

As our Report has made clear, this could be catastrophic. It seems evident that, in the event an important part of the world is suddenly plunged without sufficient warning into an inadvertent peace, even partial and inadequate preparation for the possibility may be better than none. The difference could even be critical. The models considered in the preceding chapter, both those that seem promising and those that do not, have one positive feature in common - an inherent flexibility of phasing. And despite our strictures against knowingly proceeding into peace-transition procedures without thorough substantive preparation, our government must nevertheless be ready to move in this direction with whatever limited resources of planning are on hand at the time - if circumstances so require. An arbitrary all-or-nothing approach is no more realistic in the development of contingency peace programming than it is anywhere else.

But the principal cause for concern over the continuing effectiveness of the war system, and the more important reason for hedging with peace planning, lies in the backwardness of current war-system programming. Its controls have not kept pace with the technological advances it has made possible. Despite its inarguable success to date, even in this era of unprecedented potential in mass destruction, it continues to operate largely on a laissez-faire basis.

To the best of our knowledge, no serious quantified studies have ever been conducted to determine, for example:
optimum levels of armament production, for purposes of economic control, at any given series of chronological points and under any given relationship between civilian production and consumption patterns
correlation factors between draft recruitment policies and mensurable social dissidence
minimum levels of population destruction necessary to maintain war-threat credibility under varying political conditions
optimum cyclical frequency of "shooting" wars under varying circumstances of historical relationship
These and other war-function factors are fully susceptible to analysis by today’s computer-based systems, [44] but they have not been so treated; modern analytical techniques have up to now been relegated to such aspects of the ostensible functions of war as procurement, personnel deployment, weapons analysis, and the like. We do not disparage these types of application, but only deplore their lack of utilization to greater capacity in attacking problems of broader scope.

Our concern for efficiency in this context is not aesthetic, economic, or humanistic. It stems from the axiom that no system can long survive at either input or output levels that consistently or substantially deviate from an optimum range. As their data grow increasingly sophisticated, the war system and its functions are increasingly endangered by such deviations.

Our final conclusion, therefore, is that it will be necessary for our government to plan in depth for two general contingencies.
the first, and lesser, is the possibility of a viable general peace
the second is the successful continuation of the war system
In our view, careful preparation for the possibility of peace should be extended, not because we take the position that the end of war would necessarily be desirable, if it is in fact possible, but because it may be thrust upon us in some form whether we are ready for it or not. Planning for rationalizing and quantifying the war system, on the other hand, to ensure the effectiveness of its major stabilizing functions, is not only more promising in respect to anticipated results, but is essential; we can no longer take for granted that it will continue to serve our purposes well merely because it always has. The objective of government policy in regard to war and peace, in this period of uncertainty, must be to preserve maximum options.

The recommendations which follow are directed to this end.


The economic implications assigned by their authors to various disarmament scenarios diverge widely. The more conservative models, like that cited above, emphasize economic as well as military prudence in postulating elaborate fail-safe disarmament agencies, which themselves require expenditures substantially substituting for those of the displaced war industries. Such programs stress the advantages of the smaller economic adjustment entailed. [11]

Others emphasize, on the contrary, the magnitude (and the opposite advantages) of the savings to be achieved from disarmament. One widely read analysis [12] estimates the annual cost of the inspection function of general disarmament throughout the world as only between two and three percent of current military expenditures. Both types of plan tend to deal with the anticipated problem of economic reinvestment only in the aggregate. We have seen no proposed disarmament sequence that correlates the phasing out of specific kinds of military spending with specific new forms of substitute spending.

Without examining disarmament scenarios in greater detail, we may characterize them with these general comments:
Given genuine agreement of intent among the great powers, the scheduling of arms control and elimination presents no inherently insurmountable procedural problems.
Any of several proposed sequences might serve as the basis for multilateral agreement or for the first step in unilateral arms reduction.
No major power can proceed with such a program, however, until it has developed an economic conversion plan fully integrated with each phase of disarmament. No such plan has yet been developed in the United States.
Furthermore, disarmament scenarios, like proposals for economic conversion, make no allowance for the nonmilitary functions of war in modern societies, and offer no surrogate for these necessary functions.
One partial exception is a proposal for the "unarmed forces of the United States," which we will consider in.

just sit back and enjoy the ride freedom isn't it great ha!