It is the trillions of dollars of drug money and oil money controlling the weak and ignorant
yes-men that has destroyed our era and our civilization.
A new civilization arises from the ashes:
Fanatical informed courage to wage universal Gandhi resistance.
That is all it takes -- simply the ability of every man woman and child on earth to be able to say "no" to even trillions of dollars offered, to all the bribes and temptations in the world and to endure whatever suffering those yet-slaves will dish out
to get you to serve that gigantic idolotrous lump of oil & drug money.
This is not a contest of races or religions or ethnics or ideologies -- although the great idolotrous lump of oil and drugs has warped each of these into its service. So lay down all of your animosities -- you have been duped, like O.J. and Osaman, you
have been framed, you have been made patsies by all the brains and cunning a lump of trillions of dollars of wealth can buy.
And every leader and ever convict must be converted to the spiritual brotherhood of fanatical informed courage to wage universal Gandhi resistance.
All soldiers duped into the service of oil and opium must throw down his arms and stand courts martial -- and the courts martial must walk out of the courtroom and refuse to try the
case -- but let Gandhi and Tolstoy tell it --
The solution has been found and it will do the job.
The Taliban was half right and half wrong: Right in fighting the opium and oil powers (which control the United States, Britain, Israel, and the rest of the oil and drug owned puppet governments and organizations of the world). It was wrong in using violence.
Taliban too, lay down your arms once you understand and trust that the solution lies in
fanatical informed courage to wage universal Gandhi resistance.
(You have other words for this concept. Translate for yourself until heart and will agree.)
The solution from Gandhi (derived from Jesus teachings):
"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.
"The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees himself and shows the way to others. Freedom and slavery are mental states. Therefore the first thing is to say to yourself, 'I shall no longer accept
the role of a slave. I shall not obey orders as such but shall disobey when they are in conflict with my conscience.' The so-called master may lash you and try to force you to serve him. You may say, 'No, I will not serve you for your money or under threat.' This may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put out."
Add to that the following concept from Tolstoi, author of *War and Peace* and of *The Kingdom of God is Within You* which inspired Gandhi.
(Note: The term "Christianity" might not be the right word for your understanding, It could be Islam, or other idiology, and "the State" can stand for all organizations ultimately controlled by drugs and oil -- corporations, NGO's, mafia organizations, any institution or association.)
Christianity versus the State
by Lev Tolstoi
Christianity in its true meaning destroys the state. Thus it was understood from the very beginning, and Christ was cricuifed for this very reason, and thus it has always been
understood by men who are not fettered by the necessity of proving the justification of the Christian state. Only when the heads of state accepted the external nominal Christianity did
they begin to invent all those impossible finely spun theories, according to which Christianity was compatible with the state. But for every sincere and serious man of our time it is quite
obvious that true Christianity -- the teaching of humility, of forgiveness of offences, of love -- is incompatible with the state, with its magnificence, its violence, its executions, and its wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing the state, but even destroys its very foundations.
But if this is so, and it is true that Christianity is incompatible with the state, there naturally arises the question: "What is more necessary for the good of humanity, what more
permanently secures the good of men, the political form of life, or its destruction and the substitution of Christianity in its place?
Some men say that the state is most necessary for humanity, that the destruction of the political form would lead to the destruction of everything worked out by humanity, that the
state has been and continues to be the only form of the development of humanity, and that all that evil which we see among the nations who live in the political form is not due to this
form, but to the abuses, which can be mended without destruction, and that humanity, without impairing the political form, can develop and reach a high degree of well-being. And the men who think so also adduce in confirmation of their opinion philosophic and historic, and religious arguments, which also seem incontrovertible to them.
It is possible to write volumens in the defense of the first opinion (they have been written long ago, and there is still no end to them), and there can be written much against it (though
but lately begun, many a brilliant thing has been written against it).
It is impossible to prove, as the defenders of the state claim, that the destruction of the state will lead to a social chaos, mutual rapine, murder, and the destruction of all public
institutions, and the return of humanity to barbarism; nor can it be proved, as the opponents of the state claim, that men have already become so wise and good that they do not rob or
kill one another, that they prefer peace to hostility, that they will themselves without the aid of the state arrange everything they need, and that therefore the state not only does not
contribute to all this, but, on the contrary, under the guise of defending men, exerts a harmful and bestializing influence upon them. It is impossible to prove either the one or the other by means of abstract reflections. Still less can it be proved by experience, since the question consists in this, whether the experiment is to be made or not. The question as to whether the time has come for abolishing the state, or not, would be insoluable, if there did not exist another vital method for an incontestable solution to the same.
Quite independently of anybody's reflections as to whether chicks are sufficiently matured for him to drive the hen away from the nest and let the chicks out of their eggs, or whether or
not they are yet sufficiently matured, the incontestable judges of the case will be the chicks themselves, when unable to find enough room in their eggs, they will begin to pick them with their bills, and will themselves come out of them.
The same is true of the question whether the time for destroying the political form and substituting another form has come or not. If a man, in consequence of the higher
consciousness matured in him, is no longer able to comply with the demands of the state, no longer finds room in it, and at the same time no longer is in need of the preservation of the
political form, the question as to whether men have matured for the change of the political form, or not, is decided from an entirely different side, and just as incontestably as for the
chick that has picked its shell, into which no power in the world can again return it, by the men themselves who have outgrown the state and who cannot be returned to it by any power in the world.
"It is very likely that the state was necessary and even now is necessary for all those purposes which you ascribe to it," says the man who has made the Christian life-conception his own, "but all I know is that, on the one hand, I no longer need the state, and, on the other, I can no longer perform those acts which are necessary for the existence of the state. Arrange for yourselves what you need for your lives: I cannot prove either the common
necessity, or the common harm of the state; all I know is what I need and what not, what I may do and what not. I know for myself that I do not need any seperation from the other nations, and so I cannot recognize my exclusive belonging to some one nation or state, and my subjection to any government; I know in my own case that I do not need all those government offices and courts, which are the product of violence, and so I cannot take part
in any of them; I know in my own case that I do not need to attack other nations and kill them, nor defend myself by taking up arms, and so I cannot take part in wars and in preparations for them. It is very likely that there are some people who cannot regard all that as necessary and indispensible . I cannot dispute with them, -- all I know concerning myself, but that I know incontestably, is that I do not need it all and am not able to do it. I do not
need it.
The only way to break the power of oil and opium, remember, is
fanatical informed courage to wage universal Gandhi resistance.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
