**********************************************************************************

UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES,

INCLUDING E.G.:

MONETARY FREEDOM, FREE MIGRATION, FREE TRADE, VOLUNTEER MILITIAS,

RIGHT TO RESIST, RIGHT AND DUTY TO DESERT FROM A DICTATORSHIP, TYRANNICIDE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE,

EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOIL ALL VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES - BASED ON INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, DECISION ON WAR AND PEACE BY THE PEOPLE,

ALSO ON: UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, DESTRUCTION OF ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ON RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS.

THESE AND MUCH MORE ARE HERE DESCRIBED AS GUARANTIES AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR.

YOU COULD HELP TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR - BUT SO FAR YOU STILL DISAGREE WITH MOST OF THE ABOUT 500 SUGGESTIONS MADE HERE.

PEACE PLANS series, combined issues 16 - 18, PLAN No. 251, 1.000 impressions, 1975,

published, edited, printed and distributed by: J. M. Zube, 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia .

Phone: (02) 48771536 No FAX! jzube@acenet.com.au www.acenet.com.au/~jzube (2,001!)

Appearance irregular. Since 1964, since 1977 published only on microfiche.

Reprints of up to 10.000 copies of this edition are free and desired.

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED: REFUND UPON RETURN OF WELL KEPT PAPER COPY.

AN ABC AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR: PEACE PLANS 16-18, plan No. 251

Pages Appx. Headings

1 - 4 - INTRODUCTION

5 - 199 - ALPHABETICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIC SECTION

200 - 208 1 SUMMARY

208 - 209 2 IDEAS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR

209 - 211 3 WHAT DOES REALLY MAKE FOR NUCLEAR WAR?

212 4 A LISTING OF WRONG IDEAS

213 - 216 5 STEPS TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR

216 6 THREE STEPS TOWARDS NUCLEAR WAR PREVENTION

217 7 FROM PARTICULAR SINGLE STEPS ALL ELSE COULD FOLLOW

217 8 THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE POINT FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR

WAR

218 9 WHAT HAS THIS PROGRAM IN COMMON WITH AT LEAST SOME OTHERS?

219 10 IN WHAT POINTS DOES THIS PROGRAM DIFFER FROM MOST OTHERS?

219 11 SECTIONS OMITTED IN THIS BOOK .

219 - 221 12 SOME NOTES AND COMMENTS BY ULRICH VON BECKERATH

222 13 A SHORT LIST OF RELATED SCIENCE FICTION BOOKS

222 14 SOME OF THE RELATED PEACE PLANS SO FAR PUBLISHED

223 - 233 15 PANARCHY

234 - 237 16 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, RIGHT OR WRONG - MY COUNTRY &

DEFENSIVE APP APPEALS

238 - 240 17 RAILWAY MONEY & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT,

REVOLUTION AND RELIGION

241 - 244 18 MILITARY JIU JITSU OR: HOW CHINESE SOLDIERS DETERMINED

THE LIMITS MILITARY OBEDIENCE

244 - 246 19 LET US TURN WARS INTO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

246 - 250 20 DEMOCRATIC NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

250 - 256 21 SOME DETAILS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE

256 - 257 22 SOME EDITORIAL NOTES

258 - 260 23 INDEX OF THE HEADLINES OF THE ALPHABETICAL SECTION

1

WE STILL LIVE IN THE SHADOW OF THE BOMB - AND YET WE GO ON IGNORING IT.

WHY?

That there is a danger of nuclear war is common knowledge. There are only disagreements as to how large and how acute the danger is.

Nobody appears to believe that there are no risks involved at all and yet at the same time nobody seems to value his own Life and that of mankind enough to draw the conclusion that no matter how small this man-made risk might be, one should not take such a risk with the survival of mankind, no more so than one would wager the lives of ones children in a social game of chance. The democratic "law and order" system and despotic state socialism, both supposedly defended by nuclear weapons, have both their popular appeal but do not, objectively, justify risking nuclear war. Neither the "socialist" societies of the East nor the "free" societies of the West are worth defending because, among many other reasons, both make for nuclear war. Thus they really deserve each other and would not do each other wrong if they wiped themselves out in a holocaust. But what about all their non-consenting and yet conscripted victims?

Is there anything more important to think about than how to deprive all those, who prepared for nuclear war and keep society at its brink, of all their war-making powers?

DESTROY ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND EVERYTHING THAT MAKES FOR THEM!

Nothing but the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons, their manufacturing facilities and the prevention of their re-building will assure our survival.

How could this be achieved?

At present everything has been done to bring about nuclear war soon and as yet nothing effective has been done to prevent it.

Governments are unable to prevent nuclear war.

They have done what they could do and still do what they can do.

Everybody can see what can be achieved in this way.

New paths must be taken.

They consist mainly out of self-help and disobedience measures, leading to the destruction of all nuclear weapons,

and of steps replacing all institutions making these "weapons" by free and peaceful alternative institutions.

THE MOST IMMORAL AND IRRATIONAL BET:

It is self-evident that real threats, large or small, do not go away by ignoring them, by hoping for the best or by relying on myths. And yet, this is apparently the common practice towards the nuclear threat.

Everybody bets his whole property, his Life, the Lives of his family members, those of all his friends and the future of mankind on his opinion that either

1. nuclear war will not occur or

2. that it would not be so bad after all or

3. that he couldn't prevent it anyhow.

There is no truth in the first supposition. Presuming that no radical social changes take place it will occur rather sooner than later.

The second opinion amounts merely to hoping for the best, no matter how much the laws of chance and of war gaming are against it.

But there is some truth in the third supposition - if the present situation is accepted as unchangeable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

APATHY

People are apathetic because they are at present powerless to act directly upon the danger.

Moreover they are apathetic because they are still too ignorant to act indirectly, getting themselves at first into a position from which they could do something directly to abolish this danger. This should not surprise us because they experienced only a society which gives tem no power at all in this sphere and they are ignorant of the peaceful characteristics of a free non-statist society because in the state's education system they are not even taught a glimpse of this alternative vision.

POWERLESSNESS

People are powerless because, among other things, they are not organized, trained and armed militarily for the protection of their rights and because all other essential powers are also centralized away from them.

Their powerlessness rests largely on ignorance and this ignorance is understandable because:

a) since tribal times they were never given responsibilities regarding external policies and war, peace,

armament and disarmament decisions,

b) they do not know from personal experience the type of political organization which would allow

different ideologies to coexist and be acted. upon in the same country and which would never tend to

lead to nuclear armament (Only few books describe such experiences in the past.),

c) they do not know the right means organizations and methods to defend their rights forcefully, if need

be, and without nuclear weapons, even against an enemy regime armed with such weapons. (Only

literature on how to conduct totalitarian wars and revolutions is common.) and

d) they are indoctrinated with the wrong ideas, the ideas making for nuclear war.

Schools, universities recognized experts, political leaders and the mass media confirm these errors,

continuously.

NO SIMPLE SOLUTION

As indicated above, the threat of nuclear war is by no means a simple and easy task which could be solved by one or two obvious steps. For that reason the rather involved steps towards the solution have been recognized only by a few.

One might be inclined to sum up the hints given in this book with slogans like: "Power to the people" or "Power to the individual" - but what would they mean here?

They should certainly not be interpreted to mean: "Power to use nuclear devices into the hands of a majority or nuclear weapons into everybody's hands" as e.g., Alfred Bester suggested in: "The Stars My Destination". Majorities and individuals are all too often all too irrational and should therefore not have any power over the basic rights of others.

But they should have all the powers and motives required to allow them to participate in one way or the other in the destruction of all mass extermination weapons.

These powers should reside in every individual.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to envision a society in which that will be the case.

The roots of the nuclear mushroom have penetrated all of society and specialization of knowledge has gone so far that only few see the extent of this penetration and few can see more than a few roots at a time. (The author

does not exempt himself from this rule. )

What is involved?

Almost every social organization, principle and idea!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

WHY AN ALPHABETICAL HANDBOOK?

The nuclear war threat requires an enormous amount of re-thinking and re-organizing. That's why it still exists. The present "society", in all its ramifications is an almost perfect recipe for nuclear war and we are merely lucky that it has not happened as yet.

Before this threat is over, an extensive change of public opinion is required, a change of principles, a change of aims, a change of institutions: together the most comprehensive revolution ever.

A peace lover must attempt to think a few hundred moves ahead or of hundreds of moves made either simultaneously or in connection with each other - in order to realize how to defeat the threat of nuclear war presented by the present suicidal power game. Even grand masters of chess can't think that far ahead.

At the same time, we must realize that the hundreds of steps required to prepare for nuclear war, and to bring it about, at almost any time, have already been taken. Moreover, many of them are very popular. Furthermore, no effective moves have so far been made to prevent nuclear war. These steps have not even been recognized or looked for.

For this reason this book has collected numerous steps leading to the prevention of nuclear war, as well as those leading to the abyss, in handbook form.

The alphabetized form was also preferred because only few are able to grasp, in a single vision, all the full freedom alternatives to collectivist and nuclear power, i.e., after reading a book-length enumeration and conventional description of the alternatives.

Too many misconceptions have to be overcome first. Thus the simple alphabetical ordering of this book was chosen. It allows everyone to see details of the peaceful and free alternative (to the coercive society making for nuclear war), point by point, according to his interest, knowledge and commitment and allows a continuous integration of newly found understanding through numerous cross references.

Scholarly tomes, with their elaborate classification and subdivisions are read, studied and understood only by a few. I want this work to be an easy-to-use handbook, one which everybody can use to rapidly clear up many doubts he has regarding solutions.

The alphabetical order makes it easy to jump from one related point to another. Relationships are rarely linear. One can thus find answers to particular questions almost instantly while, otherwise, one would have to read the whole book, or a large section of it. Correlations can thus be continuously checked and kept in mind.

Lastly, the alphabetical arrangement makes it easy to include, later on, more relevant material which will, I hope, be supplied by some of my readers.

Please make the fullest use of the alphabetical order and try to get the whole picture, idea by idea. Measures, which on their own appear rather futile, will often appear effective if seen in combination with the other proposals.

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

This book certainly hasn't got all the answers but I am conceited enough to believe that its collection of ideas from all sources contains enough of the bare bones, general ideas, guidelines and hints to practical steps - to discover, sufficiently explain and prove, with your assistance, all the remaining detail and additionally required steps.

If anyone knows another, simpler and better way to prevent nuclear war than the one here described, please, don't keep it from me.

I have attempted to keep this exposition short, Much more could be said on every point but even fully developed essays on particular points will be easier to understand when this program survey is already at hand. If you love life enough, not necessarily what it means now but what it could be for you and your children, then you will think ahead further on this subject, on any of the remaining problems. Give me the benefit of your thinking and write - but do not expect a personal reply.

Anyone wanting to develop any of these themes in specialized articles, essays and books, would be welcomed by me. But I could not promise to print and distribute them at my expense in money and labour. Do your own thing in this sphere but, please, let me know what you are doing and thinking. At least I want my files on the subject complete and could then possibly offer an information and clearing centre for those interested.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

Some monographs, on some of the topics summarized here, are planned by myself. Others will, I hope, be written by others.

The tools to bury the nuclear threat cannot be forged and wielded by one man alone.

I do intend to work on the following subjects: Monetary Freedom, Secession - individual, Exterritorial Imperative, Compulsory Unionism, Bill of Rights, Price Control, Inflation, Tyrannicide, Cultural Revolution. With some others I have already dealt at some length in my PEACE PLANS series e.g, with Panarchy, Devaluation, Tax Strikes and Voluntary Taxation. Please help me by collecting material for any of the above topics, Also, let me, and, possibly through me, others as well, know about the related subjects you are working on. A listing of all libertarian research in progress could do much to promote it.

SEPARATE APPEAL TO LIBERTARIANS

All others either missed the main issue, are making the problem worse or have only non-solutions to offer. They are to some extent excused because they cannot see the freedom solution. But those, who call themselves libertarians, and do not see the libertarian solution but, instead, rely on nuclear strength for "defence" or as a "deterrence", are not to be excused. They are acquainted with the solution and are merely mentally too lazy to apply it to the international sphere as well.

The solution to the problem of nuclear war is individual liberty in EVERY sphere and there is no excuse for libertarians who overlook this. Libertarians now must not only make sure that all will be free, or as free as they want to be, but also that we will we will continue to exist at all!

Or would you rather want to leave it to governments to deal with this threat? If you do not help yourself out of this dilemma, then the government won't do it either because, objectively, it cannot, On the contrary, it, EVERY TERRITORIAL government, even a "limited" one, is the most important factor making for nuclear war. Who else but governments has any genocidal powers at present? Libertarians can no longer afford to ignore this danger. They have a duty to spread the knowledge of the libertarian solution to this greatest problem of our time and perhaps of all times.

THE CHANCES TO REVERSE THE CURRENT TREND TOWARDS NUCLEAR WAR?

The danger itself is fairly well recognized - although not its acuteness and its causes. People are rational enough not to like paying taxes, People do not like forced labour, Regardless of collectivist indoctrination and opinions, given the chance, most people will follow their rational self-interest, e.g. they smuggle and cheat regarding income taxes. Nor do most people like being outvoted in democratic decision-making. In general, "the people", individually and in most of their voluntary groups, when free to express and inform themselves, and free to act, are more peace loving and trustworthy than their present rulers. Mostly they are not power-addicts. Given a chance to act, most people would act against nuclear war preparations. They have no wish to become mass murderers. Most abhor the very thought or possibility of mass murder. I do know that there are exceptions and our present territorial States do tend to breed them.

Unfortunately, the people have presently not the vision of the sound alternative society, a complete enough vision to induce them to act on it. It has not yet been put before them in a convincing and comprehensive way.

With that vision, individual liberty could be established, point by point, even if at first only by a few, until, finally, new communities of free men could openly opt out of the nuclear power system, protect their freedom and proceed to destroy the nuclear powers of the remaining old communities.

The nuclear threat itself is and can be used as the strongest incentive to induce people to opt out of the territorial power systems with their inherent nuclear war threat.

The enlightenment required could be sufficiently speeded up with the cultural revolution program indicated in this book.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************************************************************************************

5

ABDICATION: ABDICATION OF RULERS AND ABDICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

There are two important and different types of abdication: The abdication of power and the abdication of liberty.

The abdication of liberty is the primary one and leads inevitably to political power and all its inherent abuses and corruption. Has it ever been offset by abdications of political power? The rulers may change but their office, resting on the abdication of individual responsibilities, remains.

When citizens wrongfully abdicate their rights, liberties and responsibilities, there are always some who (although they are unable and unwilling to fill the vacuum thus created, nevertheless, and with the approval of the victims,) take over political powers and only rarely give them up again - unless death does them part, The solution to problems which only individuals could solve is then rendered a prerogative of the crown or the presidential office, although both by their very nature, cannot solve them, The result is a mess - and now the threat of nuclear holocaust.

Seeing that the nuclear threat rests on political power, of the own and other governments, it would be desirable if those holding this power would voluntarily abdicate. But it is rather unlikely that they will do so. In history cases of formal abdication are rare. Moreover, abdications of power are rarely done deliberately, voluntarily, wisely, in recognition of ones incompetence to sensibly regulate the lives of millions of others. Usually, the abdications that did occur were only cover-ups for previous real losses of power, or actions arising out of prejudices, religious ones for instance, as in the case of Charles V., or enforced actions, arising from fear, e.g. of execution, or loss of succession rights of one's heir - due to some scandal, defeat or corruption. Sometimes it happened due to strong public opinion pressure exerted by those wanting another leader in their endless, hopeless and utopian quest for the ideal one. It may also have happened under the threat arising out of conspiracies from competitors for the throne or office or, maybe, under pressure from the men of one's own party, who are afraid of exposures of their cases of corruption and are thus looking for scapegoats.

Forced resignations would usually be a more apt description. But these forced resignations were not happening very frequently, either. The old observation: "For every tyrant a thousand ready slaves" explains this. Even when they get rid of one tyrant, slavish people see to it that they quickly get another: "The king is dead! Long live the king!" - characterizes this state of development. This principle, when applied to rulers armed with nuclear devices, makes now less sense than ever before.

All rulers ought to abdicate their present powers because these powers threaten us with nuclear war and because they, as rulers, are unable to prevent nuclear war. From this it follows that they should at least be put under the conventional pressures to abdicate. How difficult it is to induce a public servant, like the U.S. President to, resign by e. g. impeachment procedures against him, was very well demonstrated recently.

Such pressures are rarely strong enough to be successful or they are so senseless that they lead only to the rapid replacement of one regime by another, not necessarily a better one. Often they merely lead to riots which usually can be suppressed and are, with bloodshed. New types of pressures ought to be applied, These pressures could all arise from ending the abdication of individual rights, liberties and responsibilities, abdication from the rightful powers of self-rule or self-government based on individual consent and individual sovereignty.

To induce some politicians, especially elderly statesmen, to resign, one moderate means, sometimes sufficient, would be to assure them of a good pension and some honorable position. The old Romans did this with consuls who could not be elected again and Americans still offer this to their former presidents.

A forceful pensioning off of all public servants would go much further. It would be a cheap expenditure compared with the costs and risks of continuing nuclear war preparations. It would also appeal as a reform proposal to a very powerful and large lobby: that of the public servants. A free market system, rid of the obstructions they caused, could easily bear this temporary charge. Many public servants would also be likely to decline acceptance of this charity, at least after a while, and after having taken up some productive work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

Those unwilling to abdicate or resign could be threatened with the loss of all their pension claims.

Those who have to fear for their lives, when they have lost power, would have to be offered an amnesty backed up by asylum, anonymity, protection and economic support in their retirement.

Such measures would certainly help to thin out the ranks of the true enemies of peace, the men in power. But. to defeat the remaining fanatics and power addicts, some stronger measures would be required, measures like outlawry, tyrannicide, military insurrection and revolutions, secessions, accompanied by a step by step and as fast as possible destruction of all their powers.

Self-rule, not rule over others, is the solution to the problem of peace. All rulership powers over others, i.e., all rule over involuntary subjects, ought to be renounced, removed or destroyed.

Ordinary citizens in democratic countries ought also to abdicate their wrongful powers, those inherent in their present "right to vote", i.e., their power over the fate of others, as expressed in majority-democratic elections, whose results are enforced upon minorities. The abdication of this part of the present voter's limited power would amount to his recognition and re-assertion of his own right to rule himself and of the right of others to self-determination. He would thus abdicate his position as a subject of a territorial political body, one whose fate is mainly decided by the votes of others

The wrongful abdication by citizens of their liberties, rights and responsibilities must be ended, A sufficient but not the only reason is that it makes for nuclear war. Citizens must abdicate from their present position of powerlessness over their own fate, or of subordination and obedience towards others, and must gain new rightful, self-limiting and responsible powers over their own lives, They could achieve this by individual secession and voluntarist re-organization on an exterritorial and personal law basis.

Compare Appx 3 & 5 and see under the following headings: Amnesty, Asylum, Autonomy, Broadcasting, Censorship, Decisions, Declarations, Democracy, Desertion, Disarmament, Disobedience, Duty, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Migration, Free Trade, Government, Government-in-Exile, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Motives, Obedience, Outlawry, Pension Claims, People, Politicians, Power, Prize Money, Recall, Referendum, Resistance, Rights, Rulers, Secession, Social Contract, Sovereignty, Statism, Subordination, Tax Strike, Tolerance, Voluntary Taxation, Tyrannicide, Voting, Weapons Monopoly.

One type of mass murder makes the other appear more acceptable, People habituated to one type of mass murder do not object strongly enough against another. From the fire-bombing of Dresden & Tokyo to the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki no great progression in immorality. Morality is indivisible. Think yourself through, from the realization of the immorality of abortion to e.g. the recognition of the rights of noncombatants and innocents. You will then be closer to a rightful definition of "the enemy" and you will, by that much, come closer to the solution of the nuclear problem, a problem which is also mainly a moral problem and thus a problem which can be solved only with a new moral stand.

People remaining insensitive to the murder of 25 to 40 million humans every year, murders committed not by strangers but by the victims' own parents and with scientific assistance, will remain insensitive to the moral questions involved in the nuclear war threat, as insensitive as the other barbarians. What makes this murder worse than any other - is the fact that the victims of this war of extermination are all noncombatants. They are so young that they are completely helpless, more helpless even than the 1-2 million Jewish children that were murdered by the Nazis. See - Morality and plan 243.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

"If nuclear weapons and their factories are not destroyed, then the end will come for the same reason fire comes to a depot of easily inflammable material, sooner or later, when it is continuously frequented by people handling lighters, burning cigarettes and lanterns, no mater how careful they are in their use." - U. von Beckerath.

When accidents can occur they will occur. They are so certain to occur that sound insurance systems have been built upon their statistical regularity. No fail-safe system is fail-safe enough to prevent them altogether and only a 100% fail-safe system would suffice. All factories for explosives and all ammunition dumps have, in the average, only a limited Lifespan and then they blow up. Nuclear weapons are set off by "ordinary explosives" and also by "explosive" human natures, by computer-malfunctions or misinterpretations of radar screen observations and could thus similarly "self-ignite".

There are numerous chances which might lead to an unpremeditated nuclear attack. It might be a bad trip of a drug addict among those having their fingers on the buttons. The buttons are there for many fools to press them - and there was never a shortage of fools. The occasion might be irrational national hatreds or religious fanaticism, or the all too wide-spread notion of "collective responsibility". Some Christian sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, in Germany, before I left it, in 1959, assure us in their pamphlets that "you can be happy that so little time is left." - They expected to get to their "heaven" all the sooner! It might be thirst for glory. Instance: DeGaulle's motivation for nuclear armament. Or it might be nothing more than a sudden fever attack. Hitler was by no means the only contemporary madman. (In recent years, when the government of Pakistan, largely a military dictatorship, acquired nuclear "weapons", its ignorant and prejudiced subjects, unaware that they are anti-people mass-murder devices, were dancing in the street in they joy about this event! - J.Z., 10.10.01.) What makes all this worse is hat madness among rulers tends to remain a well kept secret for a considerable time. The power urge itself is a kind of madness and it has led to more senseless destruction already than that of all certified madmen put into insane asylums for being dangerous to the public. Mass hysteria among statists and collectivists is the equivalent to the madness of power addicts among the "leaders". Among the essential preconditions for such mass hysteria are territorialism and notions of collective responsibility as well as the false notions that arise from them regarding "enemies".

In 1959 Krushchev admitted to Mr. Nixon that a Russian missile had headed for Alaska by mistake and only by luck fell short of the American continent. (Daily Telegraph, 31/10/60.)

A volcanic explosion like that of Krakatoa might be interpreted as a nuclear attack, The same could happen in case of a large meteor hitting earth without advance warning given by astronomers.

Nuclear war might even be started as a practical joke, e.g. on the 1st. of April. Or has nobody ever paid with his life or limb for irrational jokes?

Was there ever any real shortage of thrill killers - and are not those striving for life and death powers over their fellow men somewhat related in their attitude to these not so uncommon criminals? Rulers, like others groups of mien, have vices and one sadist among them could spell the end.

Wrong radar observations might suffice, or suicidal tendencies or irrational hatreds or drunkenness or love-sickness of a commander. They could all lead to nuclear wars not intended by most of those in power. Even WW I and WW II largely "happened" unintentioned by most of the decision-makers. The arms race itself increases the risk of accidents and so does any policy of strength, deterrence, secrecy and deception. Even civil defence preparations have been interpreted as preparations for a nuclear first strike.

The analysis of radar observations has to be undertaken so fast that mistakes are inevitable. Indeed, they occurred already several times. Due to a technical breakdown the instruments have sometimes indicated the approach of bomber formations at supersonic speeds. Only the discretionary hesitation of the commanding officers, which some might interpret as treasonable, has then prevented a massive retaliation. Even flocks of geese were sometimes mistaken for missiles. A formation flight of UFOs or a swarm of meteors could well once be interpreted as a flight of IBMs and could thus be a motive for a "counterstrike".

Even in conventional wars, when there is still some time available and there are some eyewitnesses, there arises, nevertheless, and remains a doubt on who began it and who would, according to popular ideas, have to be considered as the aggressor. Due to military secrecy, monopolized decision-making and censorship, both sides might then engage in a "defensive" war against each other which might well escalate into a nuclear war.

Suitcase bombs might be exploded prematurely in situ, and start the nuclear war, e.g. when a radio amateur accidental broadcasts the frequency sequence required to start them off. There are 60,000 HAM radio amateurs in the Soviet Union alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

World Wars I and II were not intended as world wars either by most, if not all of the participants. They just slid into them without having foreseen them, without having planned for them, Many books have described Europe on the brink of WW I in terms of "a startling and often tragic picture of the blunders, misunderstandings, irresponsibilities and sheer fatalism that sent 20th.-century Europe lurching into self-destruction: "'This is a war that nobody wants, unleashed, as it were, by elemental forces,' saith Bethmann Hollweg, while in London the icy, patrician Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, was pounding his desk and crying in a voice high with frustrated passion: 'I hate war! I hate war!"' - Geoffrey Scott, The Bulletin, 25 .7.64, in reviewing "The Twelve Days, 24. 7. - 4.8.14", by G. M. Thomson, Hutchinson.

According to Krushchev, Stalin was mad during his last 3 years. Only during the last three? one might ask.

Dag Hammarskjoeld, according to his memoirs, "Road Signs", almost certainly regarded himself as God's instrument in guiding the U.N. along its path. (Bulletin 4/11'6.3.) How many more such instances are required before most people wake up to this danger?

Numerous novels were written, all believably describing this risk and their stories were not without reason considered fascinating and believable by millions of readers. They were thus confirming that this risk is neither infinitesimal small or unbelievable.

There is no moral duty to obey any government which involves all in such risks. To expose mankind to any of these risks reveals a degree of irresponsibility which borders on insanity.

As long as any nuclear powers remain this danger remains. Thus a complete nuclear disarmament is a must and even a unilateral one is preferable to none.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Automated Warfare, Decisions, Defence, Disarmament, Fail-safe, Madness of Rulers, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

ACTION, FREEDOM OF - :

Without all non-aggressive people gaining not only freedom of expression and information but also freedom of action, they will always risk being forced, hands tied, into a war situation, now even into nuclear war.

When any man feels certain - and who does not? - that he has no powers at all, to directly protect his life, property and freedom and those of his family and friends, against the threat of nuclear war, then the diagnosis is quite simple: He actually has no freedom of action.

"To destroy freedom of action is to destroy the possibility and consequently the power of choosing, of judging, of comparing; it amounts to destroying reason, to destroying thought, to destroying man himself." - F. Bastiat (Roche III: Bastiat, 213.)

There is no other way to introduce peace promoting alternative institutions and Systems and to convince others of their effectiveness than to gain freedom of action first: "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right." - said H. D. Thoreau.

Men are not yet adapted to the requirements of a free society - but there is no other way to get them adapted than to give them freedom of action first and to hold them only individually responsible: "It is only in freedom of action that a mans full powers are used and developed." - Dr. H.G. Pearce in: "Good Government", Dec.1971.

If you ask : "But what can I do?", you have not yet fully' realized how much of your liberty you have handed over to politicians and bureaucrats. Enlighten yourself. Demand your freedom of action back from them. Secede, Use your tax money for your own expenditures. Run your own budget. Make your own friends and enemies, Arm and train yourself with rightful weapons and resist. Do not expect advice on how you can be free and could directly act to prevent nuclear war - under the present restrictive system.

For some instances of what freedom of action would mean see under - Autonomy, Capita-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

lism, Competition, Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Disobedience, Economic Freedom, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative Freedom, free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Individualism, Militia, Monopolies, Powerlessness, Referendums, Resistance, Secession, Self-help, Separate Peace, Subordination, Tolerance, Weapons Monopoly.

"1945 gave us a whole new situation. Up to then it was people who ran out of time. Now there is always the chance that time will run out of people first." - William Garner in: "The Us Or Them War", ch. 27.

"The experts think the chances of nuclear holocaust in the next five years are about even." - Henry Schoenheimer, The Australian, 16/6/73.

Madmen are in power and will be again. Men in power, as a class, are the most criminal class. The whole nuclear war preparations are irrational and immoral. Who could feel safe under the power of terrorist madmen?

The production of overkill nuclear stockpiles goes on and on and does in itself indicate irrationality. We come closer and closer to the Doomsday Bomb.

More and more nuclear power plants produce more and more nuclear weapons material. More and more powers and politicians and generals have their fingers on nuclear buttons. Some do so openly and other, smaller powers, may already be armed secretly with nuclear weapons, e.g. Israel and Egypt.

The sequence of narrow escapes. which we had so far, will not be continued indefinitely.

Balance of power preparations always failed in the long run and often led to war.

Arms races have resulted in war in 99% of all cases.

Deterrents are never 100%.

Fail-safe precautions are never completely reliable and now nothing less would do.

All preparations and incentives for nuclear war are ready. See Appx. 3 & 4. Nothing suitable has been done, so far, to prevent it. None of the basic requirements for preventing it are fulfilled. See Appx. 1,5,6 & 8,

Nevertheless, we have apathy regarding this question, even among most of the libertarians who, due to their moral philosophy and knowledge of practical solutions to economic, social and political problems, are closest to the solution. Their apathy really frightens me because the realization of the program to prevent nuclear war depends largely on them.

I hold that there is nothing more important now than working to prevent nuclear war. If we do not cope with nuclear power before it is too late, nuclear power will cope with us.

Ulrich von Beckerath remarked in a letter to Dr. R., 25.6.57: "In this situation in which Germany and the whole world find themselves, the thoughts of all, who are able to think, should concentrate on one single point:

How can one abolish the danger that all life becomes extinguished in Germany, including sparrows and moles, and in the rest of the world almost all life? The nuclear devices to bring about this condition are ready. Factories which allow to produce still more of them, more and more cheaply, are also present. Madmen who would rather today than tomorrow throw nuclear devices at "the enemy" do also exist. Common men who consider these madmen as leaders or prophets in the same way as they recognized Nero, Jenghiz Khan, Tamerlane and Hitler are available en masse (the all too many, as Nietzsche called them rightly). An insignificant coincidence can close this cosmic mousetrap. Then the liberated life-energies of herrings, octopuses and perhaps albatrosses at the South Pole will seek new avenues, but they will hardly get further than we did.

What is to be done? Everybody can do something and even if it were nothing else than to challenge others to occupy themselves with this crisis and try to find a way out."

See : Accidental War, Deterrence, Miscalculation, Research, Time Factor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

The problem is not a wrongfully assumed aggressiveness of man in general but how to stop the own and foreign governments from practising their inherent aggressiveness. Man is supposed to be aggressive but is not really inherently so. Only his upbringing, his institutions, his indoctrination and the poverty of his ideas make him so. Otherwise civilization would not have survived wars. Continuous wars combined with diseases would have wiped man out. There are even a few instances of primitive tribes who do not know systematic and organized violence of man against man. Herbert Spencer in "Political Institutions, par. 437 & 574, gave eight examples from races of different types. In Principles of Ethics he mentions the Lepcha, the Hos and the Wood-Veddhaa. Pitirim A. Sorokin, in "Contemporary Sociological Theories", page 484, refers to researches revealing nine peoples who did not know war at all. P. Kropotkin has also shown, in his work "Mutual Aid", that in spite of it all man is still the most cooperative animal and that most of his successes are due to this fact.

When we see men acting aggressively, we must not simply assume that they do so because this is bred into them, We must realize that their actions could also be due e.g. to wrong ideas forcing them to live in wrong institutions. Instances : The employer m employee relationship creates and preserves antagonism between employers and employees. Monogamy, combined with difficulties for divorce, have led to many a husband and wife struggle and sometimes to murder. Sexual mores and the outlawry of prostitution led to many a rape, Sexual repression in armed forces and gaols led to many perverse assaults and rapes. With other aggressive behaviour of man it is similar.

How aggressive really free men will be we do not know as yet from experience. They might be habitually quite peaceful - unless their lives or liberties are meddled with. Once the "exterritorial imperative" (see under this heading) is obeyed, no nuclear threats will be made any longer, no nuclear strength preparations will continue, nuclear aggression will be avoided by the voluntary and even unilateral destruction of all nuclear weapons. (Compare: Motives, Targets.) But up to then the mere production and storing of ABC weapons or of the raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons, is an aggressive act, a conspiracy to commit mass murder or genocide, warranting any act of resistance, Through their nuclear strength policies both, East and West, are aggressors.

Any rightful definition of aggression, a definition which governments so far could not agree upon, would have to contain a clause like the following:

Whosoever suppresses elementary human rights, on any large scale, does thereby declare war to all human beings and has no reason to be surprised and to complain when thereupon mankind takes up arms against him, treats him as an aggressor and helps his victims to resist him. Compare peace plan 100.

"Governments which do not respect human rights are to be considered as a group which has declared war against mankind. It is an inborn and holy duty of every human being to seriously consider how to destroy their means of power, how to enlighten their subjects, teaching them that subordination under such a government must never be voluntary and how to reorganize society after these common enemies of man have been rendered harmless." - Ulrich yon Beckerath, 3.6.59.

An ideal militia would not resist an enemy occupation force which would not threaten but help to realize individual human rights but would rather welcome them as liberators. It would invade another territory only when this would be essential to protect human rights and when in its own normal sphere of action all human rights are already realized and protected. Thus such a militia would not conduct unjust defensive wars like the war of Hitler against the Americans in 1944/5. It would rather offer its services, as a body, to a German government in Exile which is allied to the U.S. On the other hand, this kind of militia would participate in as just a defensive war as that of Prussia against Napoleon I in 1812 was. One of its maxims would be the statement of Machiavelli: "Not whosoever first resorts to arms is the aggressor, but whosoever makes this necessary."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11

The ideal militia, the only rightful military force, would not conduct wars for any nationalistic or imperialistic interests. It would not conduct wars of conquest or for the suppression of people, races, classes or religions. Neither would it conduct wars of aggression in the old sense. Its wars, although sometimes appearing aggressive in the old sense, would be something completely new: wars for the protection of human rights, wars conducted in a way that human rights are not any further infringed by acts of warfare. Such wars of liberation could hardly be called unjust. Every nation considering to shake off the chains of despotism would thereby become an ally of this militia force. The militia would then, generally, grant generous military and other assistance. Instance: Until Gustav Adolf's Swedish army suppressed human rights in occupied territories its participation in the 30 years' war was justified. It was an act to protect the rights of Protestants. Ideally, it should also have protected the rights of Catholics and religious tolerance generally.

If the despotism to be overthrown has nuclear weapons at its disposal, then the assistance given must be mainly moral and economic and militarily confined to advice on how to organize military uprisings and popular revolutions successfully. If you want, call it aggression to defeat aggression. But know what you say and know the difference.

That man is not inherently aggressive will be demonstrated once he gains, in a revolutionary or direct democratic wary, the freedom to secede from all aggressive governments the rights and freedoms required to resist them effectively, including the right to have a say on whether there is to be a war or not, the right to arm, train and organize militarily, to refuse payment of taxes and to refuse the acceptance of a dictator's paper money. Until such liberties are fully realized one can still always rightly say that men are forced into wars. Governments certainly do not rely on any inherent aggressiveness in man when they conscript their soldiers.

See: Class Warfare, Communism, Conscription, Derision-making, Defence, Dictatorship, Enlightenment, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Imperialism, Invasions Liberation War, Militia, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Social Contract, Subordination, Territorial Integrity, Territorial Organization, Weapons.

Introduction of free market, contractual and property relationships within enterprises and involving all employees, would bring about industrial peace, defeat the class warfare ideology, increase the general standard of living and would thus help to defuse the international situation.

See: Communism, Cooperative Production, Hierarchical Production, Class Warfare Ideology, Purchase of Enterprises, Unions, and also peace plans 150, 180-2, 215, 226

As long as there are still nuclear weapons around, all bombers and even all civilian heavy aircraft pose a threat as their means of delivery. The bombers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specially converted planes. Boing studies show that the Boeing 747 jet could be converted into a missile carrier. (The Australian, 4/2/74.)

Thus military bombers ought to be dismantled and the large civilian air carriers at least militarily disabled and afterwards closely supervised.

Maybe, for a while at least, helicopters, gyrocopters and other light and slow aircraft would have to be the only aircraft to be used. (While chemical and biological warfare threats continue, even these aircraft may have to be outlawed. Perhaps the numerous people no longer free to fly would become interested in steps to prevent nuclear war? They seem to take their air travels more serious, so far, than the survival of themselves, their children and grandchildren, in the face of threats from ABC mass murder devices and institutions that promote their use. - J.Z., 11.10.01.)

If we accept that then modern aircraft should be reconsidered only once it can be safely assumed that all nuclear weapons have been destroyed and no more of them will be produced, Compared with the cost of nuclear war this would be a very low price to pay. Compare this risk and cost e. g. with the news that on one of any of the Pan Am jets an ordinary high explosives bomb would be hidden. Immediately, all these aircraft would be grounded. Why, then have we up to now ignored the larger danger? Because it is government organized?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

Air raids, particularly carpet bombing air raids, or "strategic" air raids against civilians and incendiary air raids, designed to cause fire storms, set the precedents for mass destruction and mass murder mayhem by means of the ABC anti-people weapons. They must be ended for the same reasons.

According to Murray N. Rothbard: "The very nature of nuclear war" is "resting on the annihilation, of civilians.' - From his essay: "War, Peace and the State."

The international laws of warfare, outlawing attacks on open cities and on noncombatants, must become respected again. Only those have a chance to survive who will respect them.

See: Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Destruction, Disarmament, Enemy, Indiscriminate Warfare, International Law, Noncombatants, Open Cities, Scorched Earth Policy, Weapons, Peace Plan 186.

People who, in their leisure hours, put themselves into any degree of alcoholic stupor, are unlikely to think rationally about the causes of nuclear war and are still less likely to do anything sensible about them. Alcoholics or drunken people cannot even drive a car safely. Far less can they or are they interested in preventing nuclear war, Drunken people think and act belligerently and they can be used to engage in and continue a senseless slaughter. Any non-coercive measure to induce people to reduce or stop their alcohol consumption would indirectly be peace promoting. According to some teetotalers the sense of justice, the perception of and respect for the rights and liberties of others, are more impaired by frequent drunkenness than any other capacities, perhaps permanently. Any drunkenness causing slight dizziness causes the destruction of thousands of brain cells. The mere possibility of such a crippling effect would be enough for me. I would not want to wait for a statistical proof which might not be available for another few decades.

A drunken commander might even start off nuclear war. Although drunk he may stall be cunning enough to bypass the fail-safe precautions, I doubt very much that all nuclear weapons are manned only by confirmed teetotalers. People who are completely sober and rational, and who would stay thus long enough, would not arm or continue to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Militiamen would have to be teetotalers at least while on duty.

See: Accidental War, Drugs, Escapism, Nuclear Strength,

A lasting peace requires the repeal of all Alien Acts. All coercive discrimination against all non-aggressive aliens must cease. Freedom of movement and settlement must be introduced for all rational people. The more aliens are forcefully discriminated against by special alien acts, the less are likely to immigrate, The less alien immigrants are living next to us (but exterritorially independent from us, if they want to), the greater is the likelihood that we become targets for their home countries' nuclear rockets. There is safety in the number of aliens among us. They, for the same reason will one day welcome many of us. This motive may not be praiseworthy but the results would be. I doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed had they contained not only about 10.000 Japanese Christians but, let us say, 50.000 Christians of mixed origin, Christians who were autonomous, i.e. not subservient to the Japanese emperor.

See: Emigration, Exterritorial Imperative, Immigration, Minority Autonomy, Secession, Segregation, Peace plan 232.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13

ALLIANCES, NEW ALLIANCES AGAINST THE NUCLEAR THREAT

Conventional. territorial alliances do not prevent but accentuate the nuclear threat. Thanks to them every minor crisis might escalate into World War III or even the nuclear holocaust.

We should use other, new types of alliances instead:

Let the potential victims themselves form alliances, defensive alliances which could be trusted.

Let minorities rule themselves - to allow all peaceful and rightful changes and to disperse extreme powers.

Let even world-wide autonomous and exterritorial communities of volunteers be established freely, i. e.,. on a peacefully competitive basis.

Let all traders trade freely, at least within their own alliances.

Let all potential migrants freely ally themselves by migration and voluntary associations.

Let tax payers ally themselves against the tax gatherers who buy nuclear weapons out of tax funds.

Let the targeted cities make alliances between them to gain power against all rulers, who have put them on their target maps.

Let Moscow's and New York's people get thus together- against the Kremlin and the White House.

Let every ideologically motivated terrorist and warmonger be ideologically disarmed - by granting him all the opportunities for his utopia among his voluntary allies which he can rightly ask for, that is, all chances to practice it at their risk and expense.

Let all tolerant people practise solidarity against the intolerant ones.

Let the disarmed people arm themselves with rightful weapons against those who so far stood over them, with the help of the weapons monopoly and that for military organization.

Let the people conclude separate peace treaties and alliances over the heads of their rulers.

Let all those who appreciate their human rights ally themselves against all those who threaten them.

Let people be free to use all the so far unused and peace promoting ties in form of rightful, voluntaristic and individualistic alliances, across all present frontiers and areas of jurisdiction.

But, do not tolerate any longer any of the territorial, collectivist and conventional alliances of political powers which now make for nuclear war. Secede from them. Resist them.

See: Balance of Power, Bases, Cities, Decision-making, Declarations, Defence Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative Governments-in-Exile, Militia, Motives, Negotiations, Referendums, Separate Peace Treaties, Trust. Compare: Desertion, Enemy, Secret Allies.

Would a rational man complacently relax knowing that there is a time bomb ticking away in his cellar?

Either man will, in the not so far future, destroy nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons will destroy him.

Once enough people are thinking rationally on this situation they will no longer tolerate it but engage instead in the numerous actions required to change it.

As long as territorial and monopolistic States remain, organizations sanctioned by all kinds of social institutions, they are unlikely to be deprived of their nuclear powers. They remain the holy beasts, the holy cows, in the eyes of most. People who cannot imagine privately run post offices, social insurance, roads and garbage removal services, will go on trusting what governments offer under the misnomers "defence" and "national security".

Thus all institutions which grant exclusive State powers and prestige, institutions whose apex is the nuclear deterrent, must be replaced by peaceful, harmless, rightful, voluntaristic and competitive ones, which do not grant to anyone any immoral and

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

irresponsible powers.

Alternatives must be established for all present public services:

We will have to allow market alternatives to e.g. State Housing Commissions, Education Departments, Tax Offices, Courts, Police Forces, Main Roads Departments etc.

Likewise, all their more directly war promoting powers must be replaced by peace-promoting ones. The replacement must be done by self-help measures of the citizens - otherwise it would not be done. The abdication tendencies of this hierarchical society are not strong enough to allow us to rely on them.

See: Abdication.

Defence ministries, presidential powers, standing armies, departments for foreign affairs, must all be replaced by decision-making by the people, volunteer militias, negotiations and peace declarations by the people themselves. For some of these alternatives see under: Communication, Decision-making, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Economic Freedom, Free Trade, Exterritorial Imperative, Immigration, Military Organizations, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Political organization, Panarchy, Power, Production, Rights, Social Security, Taxation, Trust, War Aims, Weapons.

Every tyrant should be threatened with outlawry and tyrannicide if he persists in his suppression of human rights.

Wrongful assassinations or murders must be distinguished from tyrannicide or rightful executions of major criminals.

Everyone with mass extermination weapons at his disposal is also to be considered and treated as a tyrant. But in order not to drive them to desperate steps, they ought to be offered an amnesty period during which they could surrender safely. Moreover, holders of nuclear weapons should be offered amnesty even after this period expired, provided only they render at least one nuclear weapon harmless or hand it over.

The amnesty offer to former rulers and commanders of nuclear devices should be accompanied by offers of anonymous asylum, pension and protection, whenever required. These would be cheap compared with the destruction a single nuclear device could cause.

See: Asylum, Outlawry, Tyrannicide.

An anarchic society would have neither the means, the power, nor the motives to build nuclear weapons or to keep them in readiness.

An anarchic society is one in which not one single non-aggressive and rational being is either ruled over at all or ruled over without his individual consent:

"Anarchism... advocates the abolition of all government as we today understand the term, save that originating in voluntary cooperation." - Encyclopaedia Americana, 59.

Usually, those who want to destroy the State are as intolerant as those who want to destroy what they call capitalism or communism or churches or insurrectionist secessionist groups like the Biafrans. But the State need not be forcefully destroyed in the short run. People have only to become free to desert it individually and it will collapse relatively soon. (Recent examples are the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Iron Curtain in general. Alas, we have set up other walls against those trying to vote with their feet. - J.Z., 12.10.01.)

Only, its aggressive, coercive, monopolistic powers need be destroyed or, rather, competitive services should become free to compete its disservices out of existence.

Any State might be your worst enemy - but it is still the beloved one for many other people. They are entitled to their love, to their self-imposed punishment for their illusions and self-deceptions. They have the right to make their own mistakes - at their own expense and risk. Thus any form of anarchy or libertarianism for you and any form of State for them, each according to his choice, is the only just answer.

That does not mean that dissenters have to go on tolerating any aggressive powers of the remaining States. Instead, we must realize, and we would soon see, that as soon as dissenters are free to secede, individually, and in groups, and to organize themselves in their own volunteer communities, under exterritorial autonomy, then the remaining States would

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

soon be reduced to the status of relatively powerless, voluntaristic, individualistic and cooperative societies, no matter what particular spleen or utopia they attempted to put into practice among themselves.

Neither rule through nor be ruled by nuclear power! Nor by compulsory membership and a territorial monopoly.

See: Alternatives, Decision, Disarmament, Democracy, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Libertarianism, Motives, Panarchy, People, Territorial Organization, Tolerance.

The desire for annexations, no matter how worthless and depopulated a country is, is still one of the factors making for nuclear war. The fact that a country conquered with nuclear weapons might be nothing but a radioactive wasteland, for hundreds of years, does not necessarily deter a politician. Pakistan and India fought a war, not long ago, for a worthless piece of desert. Moreover, is much of the land the Israelis and the Arabs fought about really worth conquering?

Only the exterritorial re-organization of society would eliminate this motive for war.

See: Conquests, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Governments, Imperialism, Power, Red/Dead, Secession, State, Territorial Organization, War Aims.

Anti-communism, of the unthinking and all too common type, applying the principle of collective responsibility and considering all under communist rule, even its victims, as enemies, leads logically to nuclear weapons to "defend" us against such an imagined enemy while leaving the real menace of communism untouched.

This "defence", instead of threatening the communist regimes, does in reality strengthens them by threatening their subjects and thus driving them into the hands of their rulers, who offer them "national" defence.

Anti-communists should attack one of the Achilles Heels of communism: the fact that it threatens to exterminate the proletarians it has promised to "liberate". Whosoever "thinks" that we should wipe out all the "Reds" is threatening the survival of all red-blooded animals. All those who want to fight what they consider to be "capitalism" by threatening, what they believe to be its victims, the "proletarians", constitutes a threat not only to all proletarians but to all other innocent people as well. For decades these quite immoral and irrational threats to our survival persisted because the "enemy" was never properly defined, on either side.

See: Asylum Class Warfare, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Declarations, Defence, Desertion, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Liberation War, Nuclear Strength, Revolutionary Warfare, Socialism, Tolerance, Tyrannicide, War Aims.

The anti-man movement is presently stronger than ever before - apart from the religious eras, like the Christian one with its strong belief in "original sin". This anti-man movement upholds nationalistic, racist and economic myths, class warfare and collectivist ideas, overpopulation notions, the denouncement of rights, liberties, science, technology, progress, trade, property, profit and wealth. It shows preferences for flowers and animals in place of humans. It is responsible for all the crimes of Statism.

Whosoever most strongly represents this negative attitude has usually the least understanding of individual human rights.

Numerous books are now in print on man as the destroyer, the polluter, the arsonist, the naked ape, the territorial animal. Behaviorists try to describe him as a mere bundle of pre-programmed impulses and instincts.

All these hypotheses undermine the faith in man, what he sometimes already is, often could be or could become and thereby they weaken the belief in the rightfulness and rationality of efforts to save him.

The welfare state considers and makes persons immature. Only a free society develops

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16

and reinforces the character of a free man. Power corrupts, slavery corrupts even more and only individual liberty or laissez faire, laissez passer, releases all the creative powers of man and turns him into a sufficiently moral, rational and reasonable being.

The right to make mistakes the right to experiment, the right to secede, are essential steps in this direction.

The belief in the potential of individual rational man has to be reestablished.

See: Class Warfare, Conservation, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Ideas, Man, Overpopulation, Racism, Reason, Religion, Self-help.

Antisemitism once used the old-fashioned extermination camps extensively and is now aspiring to or has already at its disposal their concentrated essence: ABC mass murder devices. It immoral basis is the principle of collective responsibility. Collective responsibility is also behind the wrong definition of the enemy, which has led to the use and preparation of ABC devices. Survivors from the holocaust, or their descendants, now being armed with "nuclear weapons", or scientific mass extermination packages, are as much a moral obscenity as are "anti-semites" armed with such mass murder devices.

Only full autonomy for semites and anti-semites alike, as well as for non-semites, has a chance to reduce this enmity to a bearable level and would eliminate nuclear targets. That would require the elimination of all geographical and borders, of all territorialism, and its replacement by "borders" around individuals and their voluntary associations, no matter how dispersed their members live.

Only in forced association does one fear to become outnumbered and overpowered by people one considers to be aliens or enemies. When one is free to mind the own business, in all spheres, then one does not mind when others do mind their business in their ways.

In the long run these ancient animosities will anyhow disappear by individuals crossing these artificial borders, by voluntary integration or intermarriage.

A great precedent has already been set by religious liberty or tolerance - to the extent that it has been introduced and become traditional custom or habit anywhere.

As for racism: By now almost all of us are "bastards", of very mixed descent, with almost everybody related to almost everybody, if one goes back long enough. Not so long, if one takes into consideration how long man has already existed on this planet.

See: Arabs, Collective Responsibility, Exterritorial Imperative, Israel, Minority Autonomy, Racism, Religion, peace plans 200-203.

What do you do with people who elect and obey governments armed with anti-people weapons? One might rightly say that all those who take no interest in the prevention of nuclear war do not deserve to survive. Unfortunately, they are not the only one who would be killed.

"Man is so built that he cannot imagine his own death" - said Robert Heinlein in: "Stranger in a Strange Land", page 337. Thus he partly explained this apathy and the popularity of the deterrence policy.

But the threat of nuclear war is not to be apathetically accepted like a bad climate or weather - and yet this is just what most people do. No wonder: They are rendered powerless in a rather effective way. It is only too obvious that, directly, immediately and individually, they can hardly do anything directly to prevent nuclear war.

Once we accept that for one or the other reason most people are today apathetic in this respect we have to ask ourselves: What should the few non-apathetic people no? What kinds of freedom of action for all should they strive for to release everybody's creative energies rather than their destructive prejudices?

What means are available now to spread enlightenment fast?

Once that is decided upon, and convincingly conveyed, then sufficient people might be induced to drop their apathy and help to prevent nuclear war.

See : Cultural Revolution, Enthusiasm, Ideas, Ignorance, Interest, Powerlessness, Self-help.

APPEALS, PUBLIC APPEALS BY THE PEOPLE AND TO THE PEOPLE

All appeals to governments "to do something" are condemned to failure. Governments neither know what is to be done nor could they do it if they knew it.

But certain public appeals can help prevent nuclear war and promote peace generally. Such appeals can be used as "weapons", as means which could make the use of other weapons largely unnecessary - as they could bring about an extensive voluntary disarmament of the enemy's conscripts. Naturally, to be "disarming", the offers made in these appeals must really be "disarming". General aim of all such appeals is to turn one's secret allies into open and active supporters, even comrades in arms against a common enemy. Then, due to desertions, uprisings and secessions, the real and remaining enemy could be rendered relatively harmless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

Appeals, declarations, proclamations and manifestos were frequently used with great success - by generals and statesmen and, generally, the more rightful and trustworthy their contents was the more successful they were. The most famous examples are the American Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789. This "weapon" should be used in its most perfect forms, e.g. the offers made should be exclusively rightful ones.

Publicity is not a drawback but an essential feature for the effectiveness of such appeals.

The appeals must not only be made with the most extensive publicity but they must also be made long before an acute crisis, preferably years before. They must also be frequently repeated - so that almost everybody will become aware of them and reminded how to apply them in particular and foreseeable crises.

Moreover, the appeals must be made in a serious, truthful and trustworthy manner. This almost automatically excludes most governments from making any such appeals successfully.

To fulfil all these conditions the appeals must be made on a people-to-people basis, i.e., over the heads of the rulers.

There should be separate but interrelated appeals to the own people and to foreign people, separate ones to the soldiers and to the citizens among them.

There should e .g. be appeals to the own people, especially the opinion makers, to help in the prevention of nuclear war by the proclamation of a new morality, a new political cal organization, a new military constitution, a new economic system.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament by itself, if well publicized, would constitute a unique and most important appeal and so would a unilateral peace declaration.

Among the other more important public appeals, serving as non-violent "weapons" to promote peace, would be appeals e.g. to the Red Armies of Soviet Russia and Red China to cease obeying the Moscow and Peking regimes, to destroy their nuclear weapons, to conclude separate peace treaties with the Western communities, to organize themselves into exterritorial and autonomous bodies of volunteers, to send delegates who could convince themselves and their comrades of the complete destruction of all ABC weapons in the West and the sincerity of all the appeals made.

Whenever and wherever they could not disobey , resist, rise or secede successfully, they should be asked to desert at the first opportunity - to their own governments an exile or to Western exterritorial communities of their choice. ALL these associations are to offer them asylum, protection and a chance to earn their livelihood in freedom

The appeals should also encourage them, in any rightful way, to form militia units wherever they are or have to flee to.

Declarations of rightful war aims would be very important appeals to deprive soldiers on the other side of their motives to fight us. They should, in essence, declare:

In case of war we desire no conquests and no reparations from innocents. We will not attempt to dominate the people of the defeated regime or forcefully recruit them into our armies or workforces. Our aim is exclusively the introduction or reintroduction of individual human rights. We are proving this by already accepting, in peace time and, naturally, in wartime, any refugee and deserter, without infringing in the least any of his individual rights.

To be successful and predictable in their results, the appeals must be directed mainly to the moral sense, to reason and rationality and a well understood personal interest and not to ill defined feelings like nationalistic sentiments, readiness to sacrifice and subordinate oneself, religious or racial emotions. They should appeal to personal honor and courage only of those who do appreciate and respect human rights.

This would often require a prior and prolonged and extensive propaganda and enlightenment effort. One cannot deal, on an intellectual level with irrational people. But the allegiance or at least neutrality of unenlightened people could be literally bought with monetary offers made in the appeals, e.g. with prices for surrendered weapons or on the heads of tyrants, and with good and earned wages for free jobs taken up by the refugees and deserters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

Appeals to the enemy's soldiers should offer them amnesty, asylum autonomy, jobs, the alternative of a free, peaceful and just society, a society without a nuclear threat. They should assure them that they would not be treated as enemies but rather as guests and friends - if they surrendered or fled to us.

They should induce them to rise, if that is possible, and offer practical advice for this purpose, particularly advice on how to finance such an a rising.

They should appeal to them to execute their tyrants and to destroy their ABC mass murder weapons.

They should be asked to usurp and properly protect their freedom of assembly, association, expression and information and to form militias for the protection of their rights.

They should be offered a separate peace, individually and in whole units.

The appeals should induce them to avoid the usual mistakes and crimes committed in military insurrections in the past: arson, inflation, requisitioning, curfew declarations etc.

They should be asked to secede from dictatorships while keeping their arms and military organization and to organize themselves exterritorially and autonomously according to their individual ideological preferences.

Appeals ought to be directed to all the enemy regime's civilian subjects to recognize and respect individual rights and should make them realize that the realization of these rights and nothing else is our aim.

These appeals should also induce them to form or join militia units for the protection of individual rights.

They could inform them how to start, organize and finance a revolution and how to help in the destruction of their regime's nuclear devices.

The appeals should motivate them to secede from their regimes, whenever and wherever this becomes feasible, and to organize in exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers instead.

They should also be asked to reveal, as soon as possible and publicly, their peaceful and friendly intentions towards us - in a way sufficient to convince the most suspicious nationalists on our side.

See: Amnesty, Asylum, Broadcasting, Communism, Decision Declarations, Desertion, Employment, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Enlightenment, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights, Liberation War, Morality, Motives, Noncombatants, Open Air Meetings, Peace, People, Propaganda, Referendums, Secrecy, Separate Peace, Trust, Tolerance, War Aims.

ARABS: THE TERRITORIAL STATISTS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS AMONG THEM

In their extermination war against Israel (the nationalistic and socialistic state of a minority of the Jewish people) and, seeing the terrorist, totalitarian and extortionist inclinations of many of their States & movements, they will sooner or later resort to nuclear weapons - if they can get hold of them. Then they may involve all of us in nuclear war. In spite of the declarations of Egyptian rulers that they see in nuclear weapons the solution to Egypt's external affairs problems, the U.S. has now offered them the technology to produce nuclear weapons. The most powerful government which, in spite of all its powers, could not cope successfully with guerillas in Vietnam, with rioters, smugglers, tax evaders and criminals in its own country, does now pretend to be able to prevent the abuse of nuclear materials and technology in another country Some people dig their own graves believing that they are engaged in mere agricultural activities.

Nothing but the recognition of the ancient Arabic tradition that Islamic Law applies to Muslims only - wherever they may be living - and that the non-believers are to remain "condemned" to live under their own laws, would preserve us from a nuclear holocaust initiated by Near East territorial politics. This would require, among other things, fully free migration for all Arabs, even into Israel, and fully unrestric-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19

ted autonomy for all Arabs, even within the present borders of Israel. Naturally, the Israelis would have the right to insist upon this same autonomy for their own nationals or faithful. If they initiated it, they could induce the same transformation among their neighbours. They could rely for this on the numerous tangential and decentralizing and diverse forces existing among the Arabs as well as among all other peoples.

See : Antisemitism, Exterritorial Imperative, Israel, Minority Autonomy, Panarchy, Tolerance, peace plans 200 & 202.

ARBITRATION COURTS, INTERNATIONAL

International arbitration courts should be set up in advance to settle disputes which might arise between members of different exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers. The basic law they ought to apply would be an improved code of individual rights (compare peace plan 110) and Jerome Internoscia's "New Code of International Law", New York, 1910. Generally, unless otherwise agreed upon between certain communities, the particular personal law of the accuser ought to be applied, whenever not only his feelings and interests but his rights were hurt. See: Exterritorial Imperative, Panarchy.

Without making the fullest use of all reasonable peace promoting ideas and abilities, we may not achieve peace. The only way to find and fully use all these ideas and talents and to distinguish them among the multitude of others, would be to gather all of them in a central archive and register, combined with a research and information service. Rightful ideas are, potentially, the most powerful force. They can set off a constructive and enlightening chain reaction, one which can be more powerful than the destructive one of nuclear devices.

See: Education, Enlightenment., Ideas, Myths, Prejudices, PEACE PLANS Nos. 20 & 183 & compare Appx. 4.

Almost all arms races end in war. The nuclear arms race will also, as soon as the deterrence does not work strongly enough, somewhere temporarily, among some people.

"Among 1656 arms races since 650 BC no less than 1640 led to war", stated Otto Lehmann Russbueldt in: "How can we win peace?"

Nuclear power plants are part of the nuclear arms race efforts and must be destroyed as at least potential nuclear arms factories. (See a Atomic Energy.)

Most arms races feed on motives for war (See: Motives.), on territorial organization and on compulsory taxation and would stand or fall wish them. (See under the relevant headings.)

Today we need today a race to destroy all nuclear devices.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Accidental War, Decision, Defence, Disarmament, Espionage, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Secrecy, Trust, War Aims, Weapons.

Freedom of association does not yet exist because it would also mean freedom to set up e.g.:

1. New States or societies - exterritorial and autonomous ones.

2. New armed organizations for the protection of human rights.

3. New unions e .g of young or coloured people or women whenever the existing unions infringe their rights.

4. Payment associations using other than the government's currency as means of exchange and standards of value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

5. Free Trade associations.

6. Associations of experimenters who are exempt from certain laws for all their internal relations and actions.

See.: Alternative Institutions, Autonomy, Freedom of Action, Competing Governments, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Minority Autonomy, Panarchism, Parallel Institutions, Pluralism, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Unity.

Deserters and political and other refugees from dictatorships should be offered unconditional asylum and protection, upon request, everywhere. Otherwise, they are likely to be among the conscripted soldiers and workers used against us one day.

Those who surrender or destroyed a nuclear device should not only be offered asylum but also protection, a reward, and amnesty for past offences. This should apply even after they had previously been outlawed. We cannot afford to drive people with nuclear weapons to desperate steps.

See: Amnesty, Desertion, Outlawry, Refugees, Tyrannicide.

The "peaceful' use of atomic energy can lead, in the long run, to mass extermination through radioactive pollution as well as through nuclear war. It produces more radioactive materials for still more nuclear devices. It has too high an accident, sabotage and garbage disposal risk and would attract nuclear weapons in case of war.

Due to this risk, no nuclear reactor should be built or continue in operation unless it has been approved in a referendum by the people living in a circle of several hundred miles diameter around it.

People who become informed on the subject will refuse use to permit such power production. Such referendums ought to be initiated everywhere and repeated when they fail at first.

No international safeguards are likely to prevent the abuse of such facilities in case of war by a nationalistic government. Nuclear power is still uneconomic. Even if it were possible to produce it cheaper (than power could be produced by other means), the difference should be considered as an insurance premium against the risks involved. Moreover, since transmission costs make up to 95% of the cost of electricity to the consumer, it is obvious that even if nuclear energy could be produced free of charge and risk, in a few central power plants, then this would not significantly reduce the price of electricity.

The future does at present, indeed, appear to belong to nuclear power - not to us! It leaves us no future.

The following is a free version of some remarks by U. von Beckerath in a letter to Prof. H. R., 18.10.56:

"After a referendum has outlawed the use of atomic energy even for purposes of research, within the area of this decision, every nuclear installation has to be considered as an attack on the people's safety and health, an action which could be regarded as a preparation for a mass murder. Every citizen has to practise self-defence against such installations and those building or using them. Every citizen, moreover, may make preparations to practice such self-defence, It does not matter that the offender may be unconscious of the immorality and dangerousness of his actions to others. The others would still act in self-defence. The situation is similar to one in which the promoters of a new religion would consider it as a pious act to poison the water works with Prussic Acid and would refer to the fact that Prussic Acid would also be used in medicine and for various purposes in industry. I have no doubt that the people, once they are free to act, would prohibit the

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

use of atomic energy. In any case, it is extremely undemocratic that the authorities act to realize their opinions over the heads of the people. After such a referendum the concessions, granted by the authorities, will be declared invalid and those responsible will be sued for damages."

See: Decision, Democracy, Disarmament, Peaceful Use, People, Radiation Hazard, Referendum.

There is no justification for the new nuclear aristocracy which led to a situation in which a handful of men have the fate of mankind in their hands. Or is any man good enough to be rightly authorized to decide whether millions of others, whole nations or mankind, are to killed? Who was ever so authorized by all concerned, that is, by all his potential victims?

See : Centralization, Consent, Decision, Democracy, Monopoly, Power, Responsibility, Tyrannicide. On authoritarian forms of production see under: Class Warfare, Cooperatives, Hierarchical Production, Purchase of Enterprises, Unions.

"The 'ideal' of nuclear war is the complete automation of slaughter." - said Frances Hoffer. (Quoted in Peace Research Abstracts Journal, 33443.)

Automated radar and computer analyses will now often indicate within seconds or minutes whether we are being attacked or not. Sometimes these indications are wrong, due to a technical breakdown. Sooner or later one of these wrong indications will be accepted as right by one of the deciding humans. To make the right decision only minutes are available. Compare this with the fact that in Dec. 73 the astronomers of the world were wrong by a factor of 1 to 50 on size and appearance of one comet they had already observed for 3 months. Nuclear defence machinery may even automatically unleash a nuclear counterattack - to what it interprets as a nuclear attack.

See: Accidental War, Decision, Doomsday Bomb, Extermination Camps.

AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL AND VOLUNTARISTIC - FOR ALL MINORITIES AND MAJORITIES

The old type of territorial sovereignty and national independence must be replaced by full autonomy for all groups and individuals desiring it. Otherwise, the nuclear targets and motives and powers to use nuclear weapons would remain.

See: Decision, Exterritorial Imperative, Minority Autonomy, Motives Nationalism, Panarchy, Power, Secession, Self-help, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Voluntarism.

Seeing the degree of the danger, it is surprising how much the topic of nuclear war is avoided in discussions and conversations. The unpleasant, the "unthinkable" is not treated seriously until it is too late, until it happens.

Most people avoid this topic, probably because so much innovative and unconventional thinking is required to find the way out.

Avoidance of such discussions is one of the main causes for the present powerlessness of individuals. A small fraction of the attention now given to health and natural deaths would suffice to overcome this threat. A fraction of the funds now going to heart and cancer foundations or to sports activities would suffice to finance all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

research required in this sphere. See: Apathy, Cultural Revolution, Deterrence, Education, Enlightenment, Escapism, Ideas-large, Myths, Powerlessness, Prejudices, Statism.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons but indiscriminately destructive and even suicidal devices. No nuclear weapon can be safely used without harming noncombatants, not only among the enemy's subjects but also among the own fellow citizens. Radioactive fallout from each nuclear explosion finds its way all around the world. This was one of the few lessons to be learned from nuclear testing. Why was atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons banned by most governments? Precisely for the indiscriminate spread of radioactive pollution everywhere.

Nuclear weapons do not respect borders. For them there is no enemy territory to be exclusively attacked. No matter where they explode, in enemy or in friendly territory, in deserts, on the high seas, in the arctic, in New York, or in Moscow or Peking, everywhere, they will, at least to some extent, harm friends with the enemies. Never mind the motives and intentions of those who use these devices.

Due to the hardening of firing sites, or their dispersal or naval mobility, or due to interceptors or interfering broadcasts etc., it is almost certain that no surprise attack will be able to prevent a strong retaliation. This kind of backfiring does deter rational beings but this does not mean that it would always deter rulers and similar madmen.

There is always a dilemma when two sharpshooters have each other in their gun-sights and their fingers on the triggers. The guns have then the unhappy tendency to be fired even against the will of those holding them. They might as well direct their shooting against themselves. Regarding wars the situation is similar. Almost all arms races ended in wars.

But nuclear war is comparatively worse in that the own bullet will return and poison the one who shot it off. Not only will it kill the armed men, against whom it was intended (assuming it is not directed against hostages in the first place), but all his friends, relatives, acquaintances and others, who may never have met him but just happen to live in the same country. There would be no spectators either who could have fun watching fools killing themselves off, for a point of "honor" - as the spectators would also be wiped out. The situation is even worse in that the shooters do not fully realize their situation and are separated from the spectators by a wide abyss so that they cannot easily disarm these madmen.

Whosoever threatens others with nuclear weapons must expect that sooner or later the others will likewise threaten him. Two can play at that mad and criminal game, a game which is logical only at present, due to the absurd and immoral situation we find ourselves in.

See : Accidental War, Arms Race, Balance of Power, Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Fail-safe, Madmen, Motives, Noncombatants, Nuclear Strength, Radiation Hazards, Revolution, Rulers, Suicide, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tests, Weapons.

A precarious balance which, once upset, may end in total disaster, and which may easily be upset by the chances of technological advances, the uncertainties of espionage efforts, censorship and secrecy attempts, suicidal threats and the unbalance minds of excessively powerful and corrupted men, who are often deceived by their own propaganda, is an insufficient basis to base the survival of man upon.

"We cannot live forever in a world where our safety and our security depend on a

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

precarious balance of terror .... This is a balance of insanity, an immoral balance, that undermines our very claim to be civilized." - Vice President Humphrey, The Australian, 26/10/68.

The attempts to keep up an assumed balance of power caused perhaps more wars than they prevented. The best reference I found was an essay by W. G. K. Duncan: "The Balance of Power and the Preservation of Peace", in: "Paths to Peace, edited by V."H. Wallace, Melbourne University Press, 1957, pages 241-246:

"The closer one looks at balance of power, the less helpful it becomes as a maxim of statecraft, or a goal of policy. Each of its terms is vague and ambiguous. What exactly is power, and in what unit is it to be measured? Square miles of territory and density of population? Think of the helplessness of China until very recently. Industrial development? Certainly; but what sort of industries are of military significance? That depends on the technique of war. And how certain are these industries of access to the necessary raw materials in time of war? Self-sufficient United States of America and navally supreme Britain were obviously in a different category from continental powers vulnerable to blockade or military invasion. But what about counter-blockade? Might not submarines cut Britain's life line? And what limits can be set to the discovery of synthetic substitutes for raw materials? On what assumptions are any such calculations to be made in an age of increasingly rapid technological change?

"And this is only the beginning of the problem. When one comes to such subjective factors as morale, or fighting skill and spirit, stubborn endurance and ability to 'take it', political stability and reliability, how does one measure these things or assess their military equivalence? Even when military alliances have been formed, how much reliance can be placed upon them? The Allied Powers succeeded in detaching Italy from the Triple Alliance in World War I, but failed to detach her from the Axis in World War II. Britain interpreted her commitments under The Entente Cordiale as much more binding than Germany hoped they would prove to be, white the United States completely upset Germany's calculations in both world wars.

"'Balance' the other term in the phrase, turns out in practice to be equally difficult, for it is capable of contradictory interpretations. As Lowes Dickinson pointed out years ago: 'It means, on the one hand, an equality, as of the two sides when an account is balanced and, on the other hand, an inequality, as when one has a "Balance" to one's credit at the bank. The balance of power theory professes the former, but pursues the latter. It is thus, in fact, a perpetual effort to get the better of the balance; and as this effort is prosecuted on both sides, the ultimate issue is war.' ("The International Anarchy, 1904-1914", 1926, p. 4.)

"It is because power is so difficult to measure, and its constituent elements so constantly changing, that each power (or group of powers) deems it necessary to have a margin of safety on its side of the balance. But the achievement of any such margin by one power or group makes its opponents feel so insecure that they are driven to redouble their efforts to tilt the balance in their favour. Everyone must, for safety's sake, be ahead of everyone else. Hence the vicious spiral of the armament race, which itself becomes one of the factors leading to war. Balance of power turns out, in practice, to be a chimera, a myth, an ideology, a cloak to disguise the realities of foreign policy from critics, at home as well as abroad...

"Sooner or later balances of power break down, and the powers fight it outs. But, the same search for a balance starts again immediately afterwards. 'The balance has gone - long live the balance' seems to be the inescapable treadmill of competing sovereign states; or, in perhaps a more appropriate figure, 'from one slippery path to another, all leading to damnation..."

In a foreword to the same book, pages XVI / XVII, Nehru (or his ghostwriter) commented:

"The advent of thermonuclear power and the weapons of mass destruction as part of the armory of the great powers, has totally deprived the conception and policies of balance of power of any validity which it might have had, and has rendered it a menace instead of a means of security in the world of today. This is the case both in regard to the nations concerned on either side in the present bipolarity and to the rest of mankind. These weapons and the magnitude in which they will be employed have erased the differences between the capacity to inflict punishment and of receiving the same; for

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24

the side that employs them is not immune from the lethal effects of their own offence. They have no defence before the proximate and almost instant retaliation any more than the enemy had against the attack delivered on her... "There are those again who have begun to look on the hydrogen bomb and the capacity for mass destruction as a 'deterrent' to war. It may be conceded that this may be the case in the beginning and in the short term. But fear is no basis on which to build peace and, what is more, we cannot be certain that the hydrogen bomb will function as a deterrent against its use by the possessor of it, Some miscalculation panic or some internal changes within a country, and even fear overreaching itself, can trigger this force. Nothing deters global conflict thereafter … "

Even the World Federalist concept is still based on the unchecked premise of a balance of power: the idea that certain powers of States must continue to exist and cannot be abolished. Quite obviously, once all these dangerous powers are withdrawn, there would no longer be any motive for attempting to establish a lasting balance between them.

It does take a degree of mental imbalance to totally rely on the success of any balance of power politics.

See: Accidental War, Alliances, Arms Race, Deterrence Immorality, Madmen, Miscalculations, Nuclear Strength, Power, Property Concept of Citizens, World Federation.

Don't just ban the bomb; destroy it! Disgust with taxes is not enough to get rid of them. One has to know how to do without them. It's just the same with the bomb. How does one ban the bomb? Is it any easier than banning diseases, stupidity, ignorance, crime and irresponsibility? Bombs must not only be banned but physically destroyed. The governments would not even ban them. Self-help against the bombs is the only way out.

Actually, one cannot "ban" the bomb but only those producing, stockpiling and preparing to use them.

Once nuclear weapons are no longer considered as weapons then, obviously, no ban would be any longer proposed. Those holding them would destroy them themselves.

Until then, the best agency for banning or rather destroying nuclear "strength" would be a volunteer militia for the protection of human rights.

See: Decision, Destruction, Disarmament, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Outlawry, Resistance, Self-help, Tyrannicide. Compare: Demonstrations, Protests.

BASES, FOREIGN NUCLEAR STRENGTH BASES

All foreign and the own bases, which directly or indirectly promote nuclear strength, ought to be subjected to referendums and destroyed once they are condemned by them. This should also apply to communication centres, even when they are also used for peaceful purposes at present - as some of the bases are, which allow the more accurate positioning and targeting of nuclear submarines.

All nuclear armed allied troops should be sent home. According to an article by Ian Moffitt in: The Australian, 3/9/71 , there are at least 28 secret bases in Australia and its territories. Australia is simply considered as 'a large empty aircraft carrier, available for use.'

Naturally, all nuclear weapons of one's own national government and all plants for their construction should also be destroyed - by the people themselves or under their supervision and that of the world public.

In short : All primary nuclear targets should be abolished. They invite and provoke nuclear attack. They are inherently aggressive.

See: Alliances, Atomic Energy, Defence, Disarmament, Referendums.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

BET, THE ULTIMATE BET

Many people who would not even bet a few dollars on a dog or a horse race are, nevertheless, among the worst gamblers - by having bet their lives and that of their families on their conviction that nuclear war will not occur. Rational men would hedge their bets but in this respect very few have, We are all walking willingly to the "Final Solution" furnaces, betting that they are only delousing chambers.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Decision, Deterrence, Enlightenment, Ideas-large, Myths, Powerlessness, Reason.

BIGNESS, WRONG IDEAS ON THE VALUE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BIGNESS

Most people uncritically assume anything very large and powerful to be also very valuable and effective. But going e.g. after tyrants with anti-people weapons is no more effective than artillery fire against sparrows.

An effective weapon against a tyrant need not even be as large as his heart - and only one heart makes him tick. The weapon which could make it stop need not be powered by anything stronger than a human arm.

The weapons which could prevent a thousand ready slaves from following their tyrant any longer could be as small as words are.

The larger and blunter a cutting instrument is the more useless it becomes, e.g. for cutting out a brain tumor. No surgeon could do it with an axe or high explosive. Killing the patient would also get rid of the tumor but it would hardly be a moral or efficient way. Tyrants cannot be wiped out by nuclear devices without also killing all too many of his victims. But a single dagger or bullet could do the trick. See: Centralization Decentralization, Defence Desertion Discriminating Warfare, Governments Myths, Rationalism, Nuclear Strength, Power, Revolutionary Warfare, Tyrannicide, Weapons.

Governments restrict numerous basic rights by laws and regulations and they do not even have any or a halfway complete and consistent paper bill of rights in their constitutions to prevent this.

Good bill of rights codes attempt to settle what basic rights no government of whatever persuasion may interfere with (unless they are exterritorial ones restricting only the rights of their voluntary members with their full individual consent) and allow us to realize and extend these rights.

A completed bill of rights, protected by an armed citizenry, would contain many basic rights which would help prevent nuclear war:

The right to trade, travel and migrate freely, the right to bear arms, organize and train for the protection of human rights, the right to resist and revolt against oppression the right to secede as an individual, the right to associate exterritorially, the right to remain neutral, the right to participate in nuclear disarmament and other war and peace decisions, the right to refuse paying taxes, the right to refuse acceptance of a dictator's deteriorated paper money and the right to issue or accept sound alternative exchange media and value-standards instead.

Such human rights declarations ought to be included in all constitutions - at least as basic codes for international if not for internal conduct. Citizens, public servants and militiamen ought to swear to abide by them as their highest law.

See: Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Freedom of Action, Freedom to Experiment, Free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Militia, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Voluntary Taxation - and the anthology of about 100 PRIVATE human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589/590.

Apart from technical detection, prevention and destruction measures and financial steps, the same preventive measures apply as for nuclear weapons.

See : Collective

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

Responsibility, Control, Decision, Disarmament, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Individual Responsibility, Inspection, Militia, Motives, Power, Targets, Weapons.

BLACKMAIL, NUCLEAR

If any community is threatened by a blackmailing and nuclear armed government then it should formally surrender, preferably even before the first nuclear weapon is used against it, That means that all official military resistance would have to cease, The fight would then have to be continued on another level, that of revolution, tyrannicide and military insurrection, among the occupation forces and the home forces of the enemy government. If preparations for such a resistance are far advanced and this fact is made well known to dictatorial rulers then this would severely dampen their aggressive spirits - and it would promote their overthrow.

See: Crime, Surrender.

No blockade in war or peace! Their common premise with nuclear war is collective responsibility and it feeds on and supports this immoral and all too popular fallacy.

Trade with the enemy's subjects but not with him - as far as this is possible.

Offer his subjects and victims food, clothing and medicines, either in exchange or as a loan or even as a present. Sell or lend them, sometimes, weapons to be used against their and our enemy.

In some instances it would even be wise to supply his troops with food and medicine to soften them up and ready them for uprisings, fraternization, surrender or desertion. (Wrongful blockades are still all too common. Instead of executing Saddam Hussein, Western troops killed masses of his conscripts and kept food and medicines from his civilian victims. As a result, according to some estimates, a million innocent people died and these indirect killings continue and hardly inconvenience this dictator and his henchmen. - J.Z., 12.10.01.)

Although not usually classed and recommended as such, a tax strike, combined with a refusal to accept a government's paper money, could well serve as a rightful and sensible blockade of the real enemy, one which would have to be practised mainly by subjects against their own oppressors.

Under armed protection by newly formed local militias and after taking precautions, so that the militia itself would be able to continue essential payments, this kind of blockade could blockade a dictator better than most others. Other blockade measures are not likely to prevent nuclear war or to promote peace, on the contrary.

See: Boycotts, Free Trade, Monetary Freedom, Revolutionary Warfare, Tax Strike.

BOMBING, AIR RAIDS

All heavy bombing, especial area or carpet bombing, is, in its effects, all too similar to the use of nuclear devices, namely, capable only of indiscriminate murder and destruction. An exception are the recently developed "smart" bombs. But they are by far not as smart as yet as they are said or believed to be. If they were, then they might be useful even for tyrannicide.

Thus all ordinary bombs and bombers usable only for carpet bombing and, naturally, all heavy aircraft, which could be used for the transport of nuclear weapons, ought to be rendered unusable or, if necessary, ought to be destroyed.

Until all nuclear "weapons" are destroyed we have to go back to relatively slow and small aircraft, small helicopters, gyrocopters and small private planes. Seeing the threat posed by biological and chemical mass murder devices we might have to do without these as well, while we allow this threat to continue.

The great losses in transport capacity and time savings would be more than offset by the greater security. Anyhow, we have now rapid trains and e-mail. We can't go on indefinitely as if the nuclear war threat did not really exist. Instead of trying to develop Star War capacity, we ought to aim at destroying all rocket delivery capacities for ABC mass murder devices. That can be achieved by fully collaborating with the victims of all dictatorships, including most of their conscripts.

See: Aircraft, Air Raids, Carpet Bombing, Collective Responsibility, Disarmament, Discriminatory Warfare, Indiscriminate Warfare, Rockets, War Aims, Weapons.

Those who made and use nuclear devices are best protected against counterattacks and thus least deterred. Those who have nothing to do with their production and

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

use are threatened most. Nuclear devices are anti-people "weapons" or mass murder devices, in a situation where the people are rendered powerless and helpless, The bomb-makers and users would be rightful targets but even they could not be safety be attacked with nuclear weapons without hurting innocents. They have to be rendered harmless in other ways.

See: Amnesty, Asylum, Decision, Deterrence, Disarmament, Militia, Prize-money, Referendums, Resistance, Revolution, Rulers, Secession, Tyrannicide, War Aims

People tend to react only to immediate and temporary dangers. They get accustomed to large and persistent ones, and do even get bored with them, especially when they cannot imagine a way out. How else could one explain the current apathy towards growing government powers, aggressive acts of communists and towards the nuclear threat? Children have only a very short attention span on almost all subjects. That of adults is comparatively onger but it does not last either, for decades, at full strength, with them. This also helps to explain the current attitudes towards statism, totalitarian communism and nuclear holocaust. People got accustomed even to slavery, oppression and tributes - especially when they come not under terms like "taxation", "selective service", "compulsory schooling" and "general franchise". They would no longer be bored by such problems once they became liberated to act themselves and directly against such dangers. So far their State-controlled "education" does not include lessons on such freedom options and this organized miseducation will probably never include such lessons.

See a Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Enlightenment, Enthusiasm, Freedom of Action, Ideas -large, Ignorance, Powerlessness, Secession.

Ambrose Bierce, in his: "The Devil's Dictionary", defined a boundary as: "in politics, the imaginary ine between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of the other."

Boundaries in today's military "thinking" define the "enemy" and "targets" large enough to make people think of using nuclear mass destruction and mass murder devices against them. Without such boundaries nuclear weapons would be useless, as useless as they are for fighting criminals in a large city.

Nuclear devices appear suitable only against a large collective enemy located in a large separate territory which is exclusively his own, i.e., against the practice of the "national unity" myths, expressed and upheld by coercive boundaries and imposed laws and governments.

Under full freedom for territorial secessions new boundaries would multiply so much and political units would become so small that many of them might become excluded as nuclear targets, except, perhaps, for the smallest nuclear mass murder devices, those called "tactical nukes".

But boundaries and the danger they bring with them could be fully removed not by multiplication but by individual exterritorial secessions only, or you will, by allowing everyone to draw a boundary around himself, his companions and his property, no matter where he has chosen to live at his own expense. Even mini-States can be despotically governed and could be expanded into empires. Compare the history e.g. of Athens, Sparta and Rome and that of the British Empire. Even within the U.K. some fighting still continues because neither all the Irish nor all the Scottsh and Welsh people, not to speak of all the other kinds of dissenters, have attained, even there, all the liberties they desire for themselves. Territorialism cannot offer it for widely desired territorial subdivisions have their dissenters, too. Enforced territorial unity can at most achieve temporary armistices - and it breads revolutionaries and terrorists.

See : Collective Responsibility, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Governments, Nationalism, Rights, Rulers, Secession, Territorial Organization, Targets, Unity, Weapons.

Boycott nuclear powers, i.e., make no alliances with them, Grant them no bases. Boycott all engaging in nuclear power "games" - apart from counter-propaganda efforts, which should go on - and refuse also to pay for nuclear armaments. Don't in any way give the consent of the victim to any preparations for the nuclear holocaust.

See: Alliances, Bases, Decision, Employment, Freedom of Action, Powerlessness, Referendum, Secession, Tax Strike, Uranium Mining.

At any time some "strategic" bombers are in the air and some IBM rockets on the ready. The warning time in the U. K. is supposed to be down to 2 minutes, according to some even to 20 seconds. Thus we are on the brink all the time now and could got from an unstable "peace" or armistice to a nuclear holocaust very rapidly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

Under the nuclear strength and deterrence policy every incident involves brinkmanship.

"Only men of small worth would ever have let things drift this far. And if they were such small men they wouldn't have the humility to, draw back now" - said Lauran Paine in: "This Time Tomorrow", World Distributors, London 1963.

A comprehensive listing of all those occasions, at which nuclear threats were made so far, might go far to help overcome apathy towards the nuclear threat As much secrecy surrounds these events that often we have no more than speculations and suppositions to mark these occasions. The following list is very incomplete.

Years ago I saw once a survey listing about 12 such events. Most of them were revealed only much later, years later, if at all. Thus, those condemned to die through the use of nuclear "weapons", without having been accused of anything, without having had a hearing, may hear of their death sentence only when it is already too late, when they are already being exterminated as if they were a pest.

During the Korean War Gen. McArthur was supposed to have been dismissed by Truman for his intention to use nuclear weapons against North Korea.

In the Cuba Crisis the threats with nuclear weapons were rather openly committed by both sides.

The Hungarian revolutionaries, it has been said, were isolated from their Western sympathizers by nuclear threats made by the Soviet Regime.

The 1955 dispute for the Quemoy and Matsu islands involved a US nuclear armed fleet.

"The Eisenhower Administration offered in 1954 to sell France four atomic bombs for use in a last ditch defence of its embattled forces at Dien Bien Phu, a leading U.S. aerospace magazine reported yesterday." - The Australian, 1/9/71.

The 1967 Arab/Israel Six Day War involved nuclear threats , and so did the 1973/4 Arab/Israel war.

Several Berlin Crises brought us to the brink and were possibly only stopped by threats of massive nuclear retaliation.

Please add your information and suspicions on this subject.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Accidental War Automated Warfare, Censorship, Decision, Deterrence, Nuclear Strength, Power, Retaliation.

Under government control broadcasting is more an instrument of war than of peace. The Nazi's use of broadcasting was one of the worst examples but even the BBC's broadcasting on Rhodesia's UDI went pretty far towards advocating aggression. (I was pleased to hear on the grapevine that British air force officers, in talks among themselves, had agreed to refuse orders to attack Rhodesia's white regime. Alas, Unilateral Declarations of Independence for ALL people in Rhodesia, were not part of the public debate.)

"One must bear in mind that throughout the last seven thousand years of human history the twenty large empires and hundreds of little empirettes were held together mainly by control of all major systems of communication.' - said Dagobert D. Runes in his excellent "Handbook of Reason", page 105.

We shouldn't let broadcasting be monopolized, taxed or licenced any longer. We should introduce freedom in the airwaves and should tolerate no censorship of any kind except self-censorship.

Without freedom in broadcasting we could not easily come to an agreement with the people on the other side, over the heads of our rulers, building up trust between them and us, enough for common action against the threat of nuclear war.

Moreover, without free broadcasting bringing e.g., numerous specialized talk-back shows, public opinion cannot be changed rapidly enough to remove all other institutional and mental obstacles to peace.

See: Cultural Revolution, Declarations Enlightenment, Ignorance, Negotiations, Open Air Speaking Places, Peace Declarations, People, Publicity, Referendums, Trust, War Aims, peace plan 249.

COULD CRIMINALS GET THEIR HANDS ON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES?

CRIMINALS, OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, DO ALREADY HAVE THEIR HANDS ON ALL OF THEM!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29

Whosoever talks of the brotherhood of man has probably no brothers or has never seen brothers fighting. The utopia of brotherly love between all humans need not be realized - if only we learn to concede justice to each other, whether we are brothers or not.

Brotherhood is dangerous if enforced and beneficial only if it leads to the toleration of diversity and to justice between the various independent groups, each practising one or the other degree of "brotherly love" within the group. In short, it can be achieved only by individual secessionism, for even brothers disagree and have the right to disagree. They need not love each other - as long as they leave each other alone.

See: Alliances, Appeals, Declarations, Diversity, Freedom, Human Rights, Justice, Love, Negotiations, People, Referendums, Rights, Separate Peace, Segregation, Selfishness, Tolerance, Trust, Unity, War Aims, World Federation.

Only bureaucrats can conceive of and prepare for a nuclear war. If your life span continues to be administered by a handful of bureaucrats, what chances do you have?

Bureaucrats, whether they are in or out of the armed forces, by their very nature, cannot prevent nuclear war nor do they even want to. Their whole thinking is conditioned to consider only attempts to solve everything with power and if this proves to be difficult, then they are always inclined to use not less or no power at all but instead more and more concentrated power. The nuclear threat does perhaps best illustrate the absurdity of this attempt - but this has not deterred the bureaucrats as yet or induced them to use their underdeveloped reasoning powers. Nor is it likely that they will do so in the future.

See : Decision, Governments, Leadership, Monopolies, Power, Rulers, Self-help, Secession.

Canals, like the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal, should not be subjected to national control but rather to an open access system - similar to the principle of the High Seas. They should be treated as if they were scarce natural resources of a monopolistic kind. The owners and investors in such a canal should only be entitled to the free market prices of their services no matter who would use them. Canals would then cease to be objects of contention between opposed States, Moreover, without obstacles and threats by national governments, another Suez and another Panama Canal would probably have been built long ago.

See: Nationalism, Natural Resources, Open Cooperatives.

Capitalism is not one of the causes of but one of the major cures for the threat of nuclear war. Why is it peace promoting? Because in essence it means nothing but fully free and competitive production and trade - based on private property rights and the absence of monopolies - and both are inherently peaceful, without any privileges, and powers over others. Thus it offers only advantages to all involved. Only when capitalism becomes mixed with State power does its State power aspect become dangerous to others. As somebody once said:; To call our present system capitalistic is a slander of capitalism. It amounts to more or less fascistic or communistic rule over "free" enterprises and "free" people.

Only if one defined, with Ulrich von Beckerath, the present situation, popularly called capitalistic, as one in which most people don't know much about their own important affairs and are not even

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

interested in them, could one attack this situation as war promoting. But this has nothing to do with capitalism as an ideal, as the unknown ideal which Ayn Rand described in her works. Compared with the ideal capitalism, this kind of "capitalism" is nothing but a misnomer.

See: Cooperative Production Economic Freedom, Free Migration, Free Trade, Greed, Human Rights, Investments, Laissez Faire; Monopolies, Profit, Property, Purchase of Enterprises, Self-help, Socialism, Welfare State.

CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION OF ALL CAPTIVE NATIONS.

"You cannot have freedom until the captive nations are free." - Mr. Darby, MLA, 9/72.

Captive nations increase the threat of nuclear war in at least four ways:

1. They provide the manpower which seemingly can be defeated only with nuclear devices.

2. Their uprisings might be countered with nuclear weapons and this could involve outside nuclear powers.

3. There are good reasons for being afraid of any regime which suppresses whole nations and only the most

"powerful and modern" weapons seem strong enough against such empires.

4. The suppressed nations themselves might, out of nationalistic hatreds, use clandestine nuclear weapons against

their oppressors.

No captive nation has any worthwhile chance to see liberation through nuclear war or even to survive it. To have a good chance for liberation and to avoid the danger of nuclear holocaust, they must be re-defined as minority or majority groups which have the right to full exterritorial autonomy on a voluntaristic and personal law basis but no right at all to rule over dissenters. Free secession from all nation states, including formerly captive nations, and from all empires, individual secession as well as territorial secession, is the answer. We must recognize that among the present world population, being as mixed up as it is now, there are no ethnic borders left except those around individuals and their freely chosen associates. See: Exterritorial Imperative.

Totalitarian communism holds now more nations captive than any other ideology if one excludes the ideology of territorial organization.

"The Berlin Wall is a concrete example of captivity" - said a contributor in the Mosman Debating Society, Sept. 72 - and this is as far as the concrete-bound thinking of most sympathizers with the most obviously captive nations goes today. Most do no longer realize that "communism is not content with holding one third of the world captive, It is determined to hold the whole world captive, if it can," (Mr. Darby ibid.) Often it is overlooked, particularly by those advocating the use of nuclear strength in this situation, that "the Russians are just as much captive as the other captive people in the Soviet Union." (Mr. Darby, ibid.) Very few people ask themselves, as Mr. Darby did at the same opportunity: "Are we the same people who said in 1939 that Poland must be kept free?" I heard only one person so far (Mr. John Holt, ibid.) ask the question: "Why wasn't war declared also on the Soviet Union when it divided Poland up, together with Nazi Germany?" We must be aware, in asking such questions, that Poland was neither a fully free country before that division and also that it hasn't been freed yet, not even through the immense efforts of W.W. II. Obviously, wrong methods were used to keep it free or to liberate it and these, there and elsewhere, finally led to W.W. II and to the continued enslavement of Poland. (There are considerable differences in the degree of enslavement. Today's Poland has probably more internal political freedom than Soviet Russia has while Eastern Germany has less. At the same time, the standard of living in Eastern Germany is higher than in Russia and Poland, although it, too, is an exploited satellite and captive nation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31

For any chance to dissolve the communist empires and the nuclear threats they pose, the whole idea of captive nations has to be explored and clarified. Most importantly, the popular concept of "captive nations" ought to be very much extended:

While the most obvious and worst types of captive nations are those behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains and while these oppressions have no objective justification, they are not the only examples of captive nations, nor are, as some would have you believe, the Spanish, Rhodesian, Ugandan or South African suppressed majorities the only or equally captive people.

All captive nations should be released. This applies also to minorities and majorities not only in the above-mentioned countries but in India, Ireland, Scotland, the U.S. Canada, and most of the "self-governing" new African states. One should definitely not confine liberation attempts to nations under communist dictatorships but extend them to nations (and other voluntary communities) under any dictatorial regime, including those under democratic majority despotism.

Admittedly, many of these other nations are far from being equally unfree but this should not lead us to assume that they are not unfree or sufficiently free or as free as they have the right to be. Certainly, the various people in Formosa are not as much in bondage as the various people are in Mainland China, e.g. the Tibetans, but they are also in some kind of bondage which offers not a sufficiently strong contrast and alternative to the Red Chinese system. Arthur Koestler summed such criticism up when he stated:

"Between us and the communists there is not black and white. We are the grey."

From this follows one conclusion which very few have drawn so far: Freedom for the nations captive under totalitarian communism and security for ourselves becomes obtainable only after we ourselves grant full freedom to the various communistic, socialistic and numerous other movements in the West, which are now subjected to the political and mixed economy laws of the Western democracies. This domination, moderate as it is, is nevertheless considered - by some of the so restrained fanatics - as severe enough to justify their subversion, terroristic and revolutionary attempts and their alliances with communistic nuclear powers.

To disarm this enemy ideologically and, lastly, also militarily, we have to allow them all the self-imposed restrictions they aspire to. We have to let them suffer freely under the system of their choice, We should not prevent them from experiencing their system in practice. We should cease to be the scapegoats for their failures. We should let them live in their own fool's paradise. There is no better way to cure them and to save us from the nuclear and other threats of their Big Brothers. A society offering freedom even to communists is the most attractive alternative to totalitarian communism. It could easily become the ideal for revolutionaries fighting what they consider to be e.g. "capitalism", "democracy", "globalism", etc., and it could unify them sufficiently for common liberation efforts that would liberate all of them - each group only to the extent that it would want to be free.

The Imperialism of the Captive Nations:

Even the recognized captive nations intend to hold other nations captive after their own liberation. They are also territorial imperialists although on a smaller scale: Biafra , for instance, did not favour secessionism in the territory it claimed but suppressed a variety of small tribes during its own empire building attempt. To my knowledge none of the captive nations today, which is working for its liberation, intends to permit territorial secession freely, to all dissenting minorities and communities, far less would it permit individual secessionism. Thus, without realizing it, they all give the consent of the victim to the very principles of imperialism.

None of the Existing Nations Permits Secessions Freely:

In all nations existing today, not even those claiming to be the freest excluded, neither minorities nor majorities are granted a formal right to secede - with or without territories. Thus all existing nations claim the right - as the communist dictators do - to keep dissenting nations in their own territories down and to ignore their aspirations.

All Nation States Hold Nations Captive:

The prison of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a prison for all, was and is the Nation State. Every territorial nation state is a prison - at least for some

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32

freedom lovers. Thus the conventional "captive nations" should be given only a limited support, one limited to their rightful claims and not one extended to their wrongful ones. The sympathizers with Biafra should, e.g, have insisted that the Biafrans do not impose the Biafran type of federalism upon dissenting coastal tribes and that, instead, they should grant to these and the Federalist Nigerians in their midst, nothing less than full exterritorial autonomy. This would have reduced their own federation to a rightful, exterritorial and voluntarist one and might have even gained the victory for them - and for all others so liberated.

The conventional captive nations advocates do also wrongfully assume that the conventional democratic decision-making process would, on its own, guarantee freedom, But this is not necessarily so when decisions are made on a collectivist, uniform and territorial basis and when human rights are unknown to the majority or insufficiently known and thus e.g.. a "soak the rich" mythology is popular.

Small Scale Imperialism:

Small scale imperialism is not the proper answer to large scale imperialism, although quite often it would improve matters considerably and might even save many lives otherwise sacrificed to "nation-building".

Old-fashioned coercive nationalism will no longer convince and motivate relatively enlightened people or not sufficiently to fight totalitarianism effectively. It has only a new boom among illiterate and semiliterate peoples and among them it ought to be defused - by supporting individual as well as territorial secessionism.

Among the more advanced people the old type of coercive nationalism is, by now - apart from its economic forms - largely out of fashion, Due to its inherent intolerance it is also unsuitable to unify them in their resistance against totalitarianism. But it is not yet dead and it should not be ignored, either, Otherwise, once the pendulum swings back to small scale territorial nationalism, it might come to the suppression of the remaining large-scale territorial nationalism and do wrong and harm there. Territorial secessionists should and only individual secessionists would as well respect the voluntary unity or federation aspirations of Chinese, Russians, Americans and Cosmopolitans, World States and World Federalists. To each his own. But to none any exclusive State territories!

The large-scale as well as the small scale national aspirations can be rightfully satisfied, that is, without hurting the rights of the various captive nations in these areas, only by the voluntary establishment of exterritorial nations or commonwealth organizations or world federations which apply among their own voluntary members personal law, not territorial law.

The idea of giving different nationalities their own land or "territorial integrity" is not right at all but completely wrong and impracticable, as wrong as the territorial rule of any particular church.

Independence? Yes, Territorial independence? No! They could not have it all at the same time and in the same territory. Thus nobody should have it - because it could exist only at the expense of the rights and interests of the others.

The genuine captive nations - not the people happening to live together in certain territories, but volunteers agreeing among themselves on certain basics and being forced at present to live under laws given by others - should be allowed their own personal laws or institutions or, rather, a chance to establish them for themselves and this at their own risk and cost. They should not be allowed anything more. All their other aspirations, amounting to the intention to lay down the law for others, an inclination they may have still in common with their present oppressors, ought to be resisted, forcefully if necessary.

Individual Sovereignty:

To settle the question of captive nations we must ask ourselves: "What constitutes a nation? One million people? 1000? 10? A family? One person?"

Does it have to have the population at least of a city like Singapore, Bremen and Berlin or does a village population suffice? Is a national club the minimum or a city district like Harlem? I assert that there is no minimum collective size

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33

required. A population of one is good enough in some instances and one is bad enough in others.

In other words, the captive individual ought to be discussed. It is the most suppressed minority, in the territorially defined captive nations and even in the democratically ruled territories as well as in dictatorships. Only when we recognize the rights of the individual as inviolable would we reduce nations to the classic definition given by Caroline Chisholm: "Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name of national"

Every individual is a captive nation today - with the exception of collectivists - and may rightfully liberate himself or be liberated if he wants to. Otherwise as Charles Brooks said in September 72:

"Slavery is alive as long as the power of tie State can be wielded against any people."

Or, as Patrick Brookes said at the same time: "Everybody is captive - because of the fascist attitudes of those in control."

As long as one man's freedom is not secure no man's freedom is secure. We could best support secessionist aspirations, like those of the now somewhat recognized captive nations, by going beyond their aims and being more rational moral and consistent than they are, i.e. by recognizing individual secessionists also, in "their' territories as well as in 'ours", by recognizing e.g., Len Casley's Hutt River Province in Western Australia. Under the restrictions imposed on it, it is a captive nation as well.

If we, in a supposedly free country, suppress secession, what could we expect from Stalinists and Maoists and other collectivists? By not recognizing all voluntary secessionists one gives the sanction of the victim to all repressions of individuals, minorities and majorities striving for independence.

Indeed, all captive nations ought to be liberated - except those which want to continue geographical exclusiveness and domination (going beyond the private properties of their members), and instead of introducing freedom want to continue imperialism on a smaller scale, with themselves as rulers or the dominating faction. They ought to be confined, like all others, to exterritorial and autonomous self-government.

We should establish diplomatic relations with the captive nations but not with their oppressors. This would require, among other things, freedom of broadcasting to the captive nations. We should also boost the brain drain from the Soviet Union and Red China, recognize all governments in exile which have only exterritorial aspirations, welcome refugees and deserters, repeal our alien and immigration acts and allow immigrants to organize themselves autonomously and encourage even communists to set up their utopias in our midst - but among themselves and only at their expense and risk.

See: Appeals, Communism, Declarations, Defence Imperialism Liberation War, Motives, Negotiations, Nationalism, Peace Declarations, Referendum, Revolutionary Warfare, Secession, Separate Peace, Socialism, Targets, Trust, War Aims.

Career soldiers tend to be the less intelligent and obedient types of people, i.e., the types which prolong wars unnecessarily and even might start them off - in order to increase their chances for promotion. We can no longer afford them. Whosoever makes a career out of collectivist military organization and fighting is unsuitable to organize genuine peace efforts or a worthwhile defence. While, perhaps, physically and technically very skilled in the purely military sense, he will also be largely blind to all alternatives, as blind as the native witchdoctor is to modern meteorology.

A career involvement in nuclear war preparations does automatically disqualify, at least morally, for all desirable military defence and, naturally, for all peace work.

To further their career they just might obey orders to use nuclear weapons.

Soldiers armed with nuclear devices are engaged in a career to end all careers. Thus the careers of all require that this career be brought to a non-explosive stop.

To induce career soldiers to desert or to hand over nuclear weapons they may have to be bribed or threatened or both.

They must be replaced by part-time and voluntary soldiers of local militias who are trained and sworn in to defend nothing but individual human rights and would gain nothing but such a satisfaction out of their military

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34

activities. See: Amnesty, Asylum, Conscription, Defence, Desertion, Employment, Experts, Espionage Mercenaries, Military Insurrections, Militia, Oath, Obedience, Pension-Claims, Prize Money, Subordination, Tax Strike, War Aims, Weapons.

Carpet bombing set the precedents for nuclear weapons use - with its devastating explosive effects on large areas and the firestorms it caused. Until all its fallacies are clearly recognized nuclear devices will continue to be considered as genuine weapons.

Carpet bombing is not the most efficient use of air superiority. It did not significantly reduce the German war potential during W.W. II. It did not break the German soldiers will to resist. On the contrary, the terror bombings tended to increase the morale of soldiers who saw their women and children attacked and murdered from the air. The self-defeating effects in Korea and Vietnam were similar. The civilian victims of war became a higher and higher percentage of those killed, Nuclear strikes against open cites would almost exclusively murder civilians. Carpet bombing is thus one of the roots of nuclear war. The losses suffered in carpet bombing raids confirm this. The firestorms caused by carpet bombing (a clever mixture of explosives and incendiaries was used) in Hamburg Dresden and Tokyo, are said to have cost more lives in each of these cities than the nuclear explosive used against Hiroshima. I remember a particularly vicious feature added to the fire bombs. For a while the attacked had a chance to extinguish a burning phosphor bomb by covering it with sand. To prevent that self-defence of their property, explosive cells were added to these small stick bombs, so that people would rather let their property be burned than go near these new and exploding incendiaries.

See: Air Raids, Bombers, Collective Responsibility, Indiscriminate Warfare, Weapons. Compare peace plans 43 & 44 on discriminate air raids.

Most people cannot fully or do not often enough apply abstract causal thinking. Instead, they use personal thinking. To them everything is caused by the actions of persons with bad or good intentions. This kind of "thinking" always looks for leaders or culprits instead of causes, And it is not very discriminating in looking for leaders or culprits either. For this mentality e.g. antisemitism, racism in general, nationalism or, more abstractly expressed, the principle of collective responsibility, are good instances. Such people see an evil and immediately believe that some evil persons must have brought it about, with malice aforethought. Thus numerous people still believe firmly in ore or the other conspiracy theory on freemasons, bankers, financiers, capitalists, the Catholic Church, Jews, communists and others. All are collectively accused by one or the other group of "true believers", of having brought about practically every evil in existence.

Religious people can conceive the world only as one created and regulated by some superman, God, and influenced by an evil spirit like the Devil. When a ruler makes a wrong decision on war and peace then this is perceived as due only to his personal imperfections and not to the imperfect system which allows one man to make such a decision for all others, They are all demon-ridden primitives still.

When they recognize that a certain government is particularly bad, then they merely want its positions filled by presumably better persons. They do not see the defects in the mere existence of powerful offices. When finding themselves in a depression or a war then, according to them, this is due to bankers, speculators, the wrong finance ministers and politicians, or "price-making" producers and retailers, but not at all to inherent flaws in the monetary and constitutional system imposed upon them. Thus, in numerous ways, personal thinking prevents people from seeing the real causes of nuclear war and the real solutions and only causal thinking could show us the way out. See: Collective Responsibility, Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Cultural Re-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35

volution, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Freedom of Action, Morality, Myths, Prejudices.

The causes of nuclear war are numerous and they must all be revealed and treated, no matter how small and insignificant they may at first appear, Consider the alternative, if a single one of them were overlooked

Only with this in mind should the most important factor be considered: the forceful subdivision of this Earth among sovereign, centralized and territorial States. Without this institutionalized intolerance and coercion over large areas of the Earth's surface, the diverse groupings which would develop naturally through voluntary association, would have no more wars between them than churches have today - in the more advanced countries -under the rule of religious tolerance or religious freedom. We do need the same kind of tolerance and autonomy in the economic, social and political spheres

See: Alternatives, Autonomy, Exterritorial Imperative, Parallel Institutions, Panarchy, Appx. 3 & 8.

Presently censorship and systematic misinformation exist even on fall-out news from nuclear tests. Peace requires the total abolition of all censorship which infringes human rights, There should be no censorship on war games that took place, a censorship undertaken with the excuse that the calculated results might panic the population, No censorship on nuclear bomb production and nuclear stockpiles produced with the help of "peaceful" nuclear research and power production. No censorship on war and peace aims, on foreign nuclear bases, on freedom of expression of soldiers. No war secrets except regarding times and places of particular counterattacks and names and addresses of resistance fighters, revolutionaries, conspirators and spies for peace Maximum publicity during wartime. Let truth be a weapon., Consider the precedent set by Athens under Pericles. If Napoleon I had realized before Waterloo that his soldiers were already so war-weary that one tenth of them had deserted or avoided conscription and were hiding in the forests, then he would probably not have dared giving battle But censorship of one kind or the other kept the truth even from him, 1n he long run not only the subjects but the dictators themselves fall victims to their own propaganda machines - but what a costly way to achieve their overthrow!

See Appeals, Broadcasting, Decision, Declarations, Freedom of Expression, Negotiations, Open Air Meetings Overestimation, Propaganda, Publicity, Referendums, Revolutionary Warfare, Secret Diplomacy, Soldiers, Rights, Trust.

The common aspiration is no longer to have only one king or one pope but one State, one body of aws, one money issuer etc., all with the same disastrous weaknesses and excess powers.

Centralism has been driven to the heights of absurdity when only a handful of men, in an extreme case a single person only, may decide whether mankind is to continue to exist or not.

"The President and Mr. Brezhnev between them have the capacity to annihilate humanity… " - Dr. Henry Kissinger, quoted in The Australian 19.11.74.

No centralization could be more irresponsible than this one and yet it is almost sanctified by severe and well protected monopolies Nuclear devices are something like the materialized essence of over-centralized power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 6

"Caligula would have preferred the people to 'have only one head so that he could easily chop it off and a conqueror would like a people to have only one spiritual head so that he could easily replace it." - said Jean Paul in Peace Talks, p. 60.

See: Control, Decentralization, Decision, Exterritorial Imperative, Government, Monopolies, Nuclear Strength Power, Secession, Self-help, Sovereignty, State, Uniformity, United Nations, World Federation.

Atomic destructive devices are the largest chaos makers of them all. Nevertheless, their defenders pose as upholders of law and order - or of the socialist "order".

No chaos presumed to follow from some of the measures advocated here would come in any way close to that which would certainly follow a nuclear exchange or that demonstrated daily by the coercive territorial system which makes for nuclear war.

See a Anarchy, Freedom, Laissez Faire, Law and Order, Libertarianism, Nuclear Strength, Panarchy.

Chemical warfare with mass extermination poisons is probably as large a risk as nuclear warfare. Luckily, the same preventive measures apply, amounting to elimination of targets, motives, power, finance, and secrecy required to prepare and conduct such a war.

See: Control, Disarmament, Exterritorial Imperative, Inspection, Militia, Motives, Panarchy, Secrecy, Targets, Weapons.

As long as not even children's rights are clarified and respected, we need not be surprised that the rights of men are not secured either. Al barbarisms are interrelated. Children should, e.g., have a right to decide on whether we ought to have nuclear weapons or not. Their lives are also at stake, And they may have less of a death-wish than many of those over 18 or 21.

See: Abortion, Death Wish, Decision, Referendums, Rights, Voting, peace plans 244/5, & the private rights drafts in PP 589/590.

Mao once declared that he is not afraid of nuclear war and that China would survive it not only as a communist power but as the mightiest power on Earth, With such a belief he needs only more nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver them in order to start the holocaust. He is close to having reached both these aims. Red China is perhaps better prepared with fallout shelters than any other nation. This preparedness is ominous. To induce and support anti-totalitarian revolutions and military insurrections in Red China is thus one of our highest priority duties.

See: Appeals, Communism, Declarations, Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Free Trade, Government-in

Exile, Immigration Restrictions, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Revolutionary Warfare, Tyrannicide, War Aims, Weapons.

Cities are the main targets of the modern anti-people weapons and in many countries they accommodate most of the population, in Australia about 90%. It would thus make sense if they allied themselves across national borders and against

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37

all nuclear armed regimes. They do have the political, military, financial and general economic power and the strongest possible motive to do so and they could easily take some or all power out of the hands of the national governments, They would be much less likely to keep or use nuclear weapons, particularly if their municipal

governments made nuclear armaments an election issue.

Admittedly, this would only be an interim step at which they should not stop.

Internal justice and peace, and thereby also external peace, they could achieve, in the long run, only if they also allowed individual secession and personal law communities.

In the meantime let us have leagues of targeted cities against those with anti-city "weapons".

See: Alliances, Exterritorial Imperative, Militia, Nationalism, Open Cities, Secession, Separate Peace, Targets, Tax Strikes, World Federations.

Civil Defence attempts in vain to offer enough protection, It accepts mass-murder and mass destruction as inevitable and attempts only to reduce their effects. Only the prevention of nuclear war makes sense. Everything else is a waste of time and resources.

When people make individual or family survival preparations at their own expense, then they do at least waste only their own resources and this they are entitled to do.

Civil Defence advocates accept the future occurrence of nuclear war almost like a natural catastrophe - and thereby and by the suspicions which a large scale Civil Defence effort causes, on the other side, it might actually help to bring nuclear war about. It did worry me when I read recently that Red China is very advanced in providing fallout shelters and that it has e. g. in Peking alone built enough to house no less than 4 million people. A people which publicly renounced all shelters and instead declared and practised unilateral nuclear disarmament and rightful war and peace aims, would be much safer and might even, by a kind of chain reaction, help to prevent nuclear war between other people. It must be admitted, though, that civil defence is useful to two groups of people: building contractors and bureaucrats.

See: Declarations, Defence, Disarmament, Nuclear Strength, Shelter Program.

A war with ABC "weapons" or mass murder devices means, primarily, war against civilians, innocents or noncombatants, a war against people as hostages, against open towns and cities, a war which is inexcusable.

Even conscripted soldiers are usually only camouflaged civilians who ought to be given, whenever possible, a chance to surrender, desert or rise against their war lords. See: Air Raids Collective Responsibility, Desertion, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Hostage, International Law, Militia, Noncombatants, Targets, Terrorism, Warfare.

If the class warfare ideologists were consistent and were not predominantly territorial nationalists, then they would not dream of preparing and using mass extermination devices. But their systems are territorially organized and territorially threatened (by "our" nuclear devices). Thus they do not prepare themselves exclusively for subversion and revolution but for nuclear war. In this they are supported by their belief that morality does not count, that it is nothing but a bourgeois prejudice. Their intolerance is worsened by adherence to a number of prejudices like e.g. the belief that socialistic experiments cannot be undertaken on a small scale, that people can be rightly held collectively, responsible ( e.g. for the class origin of their parents) and that nuclear devices are powerful and modern weapons, although they cannot distinguish between "capitalists" and "proletarians", "imperialist aggressors" and "oppressed people" on our side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38

Our side is similarly guilty by

a) on the one side describing the countries under communist rule as totalitarian dictatorships , as people to be liberated from the communist yoke, one imposed and upheld by a small minority only and maintained by terror and then

b) threatening the majority, the victims of the regimes, with the ultimate terror weapons: nuclear mass murder devices.

But inconsistent as the ideologists of class warfare as well as those of majority democracy are, they have contributed to the status quo of large territorial nations engaged in a nuclear arms race against each other. To defuse this system becomes possible only once individuals become free to secede from it and join any other system of their choice. This can be done only on the basis of individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy.

In the Western nations this requires an enlightenment and propaganda effort which would amount to a genuinely cultural revolution.

In the East this cultural revolution cannot take place directly, for obvious reasons, but its ideas and opinions could be transmitted through free broadcasting (now also through the Internet. - J.Z., 12.10.01) and it should lead to military insurrections, secessions and revolutions which would destroy nuclear weapons and all dictatorships.

Once every ideology could easily be practised by converts, within a tolerant framework, then it would soon gain leaders & members who would no longer advocate coercion but only improved persuasion and practical demonstrations.

They would not see any sense in going to war or engaging in civil war to realize something that they could peacefully establish among themselves, immediately, without having to wait for a far-away or never-never heaven or paradise and without having to make any more sacrifices than their own free experiments would require of them and without having to persuade a dissenting majority.

See: Communism, Cooperative Production, Cultural Revolution, Disarmament, Employer-Employee Relationship, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, General Strike, Military Insurrections, Minority Autonomy, Open Cooperatives, Revolutions, Socialism, Strikes, Tolerance, Totalitarianism, Unions.

The more indiscriminating in their effects, the more some "weapons" appeal to some governments. Some psychologists might say that some kind of "penis envy" is involved or the power madness of impotent people. Here one should take into consideration that most "leaders", who acquire this kind of "potency", are already at an age where their sexual potency is diminished, to say the least.

How could any rational person seriously consider not only assaulting, with nuclear explosives, whole cities, countries and populations but, with the resulting radioactive poisons, among the survivors, if any, the future generations as well? How could these unborn possibly be considered as enemies - unless one holds that everyone with a spark of rationality in him would be an implacable enemy of such governments?

See: Deterrence, Doomsday Bomb, Neutron Bombs, Nuclear Strength, Radiation Hazard, Retaliation, Terror, Weapons.

Should we learn to coexist with nuclear devices? Their mere existence makes sooner or later for nuclear war. A safe, long-term coexistence with such devices is impossible.

Man never has to live with man-made blunders. We didn't have to continue living with slavery, religious intolerance, the inquisition, the burning of witches and widows or with madmen like Hitler, with the Black Death, Cholera, Small Pox etc. Moreover, we are actively fighting e.g. cancer, heart disease, tuberculosis, malaria etc. So why should we accept the extreme immorality and irrationality of the nuclear war threat?

See: Accidental War, Arms Race, Disarmament, Madmen, Miscalculations, Tyrannicide.

Territorial States cannot peacefully coexist with each other, at least not in the long run. They are organized to antagonize each other and their own citizens. They are only as safe as corroding high pressurized containers are - even while nothing appears to happen for the time being.

Peaceful coexistence is possible only when nobody has conquest in mind or between those who are not aggressive, and those who are not forced into aggressive institutions and actions, like e.g. conscripts are. At present even democracies are acting like conquerors , at least towards minorities, whom they do not allow to secede, Demo-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39

cracies are so oppressive today that they would usually rather conduct a unification war than permit secession freely. Even they put barriers up against Free Trade and do not permit individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. They all practise degrees of majority despotism and factional despotism. See the Congo, Sudan, Biafra and Bangla Desh.

They have not learned either how to peacefully coexist wish large numbers of unemployed, refugees and deserters and rather employ despotic means than concede to them and others all the rights required to achieve full employment and self-support via freedom in production and exchange.

Only a system based on individual secession and thus allowing every whim, spleen, belief and ideology to either disprove or prove itself already among the first adherents and thus to be defeated early or to spread from the smallest successful group to many or all others, has sufficient safety valves (as many as there are dissenting citizens) to allow for a peaceful coexistence.

Totalitarians talking about peaceful existence, are, as somebody once said, no better than the farmer who talks of peaceful coexistence with his turkeys - until Christmas. Tolerant and intolerant groups can no more coexist than cats and mice,

Only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteers could organization coexist peacefully for long periods.

See: Alternatives, Communism, Dictatorships, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Totalitarianism.

Nuclear weapons are an extreme case of applying the principle of collective responsibility. In nuclear war the principle is applied to the territorially organized enemy states and all their populations and thus it leads logically to territorial or genocidal weapons.

"From ancient times till today & to a large extent even in private relations, the following principle is still applied:

1. A subject has to suffer for the crimes of the government which taxed and ruled him,

2. Every subject is to be held responsible for the crimes of any of his countrymen against members of other groups or nations, provided his government has ordered the commission of these crimes. This applies even if he has not known of these crimes or had no influence whatsoever on his government or his countrymen involved. It applies even when he has criticized these actions and tried to resist them.

"We have here an old religious principle. It is assumed as self-evident in the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as in the New one. This has certainly facilitated the uncritical acceptance of it into the moral code of all nations calling themselves Christian." - Ulrich von Beckerath, n.d.

"The subject is responsible for the behaviour of his rulers" is the most common, application of the principle of collective responsibility.

"One member of a race is responsible for the behaviour of other members of his group" - is another. Subjects of a ruler accused a war monger may "naturally" be wiped out with nuclear weapons - is the essence of the most acute application. 90 % of all Americans, Russians, Chinese, Frenchmen and Englishmen and members of other nations agree upon this. Whether these people are in reality peaceful is considered irrelevant. Their subordination is held to be sufficient to apply the principle.

"The principle of collective responsibility lies in the blood of 90 % of the population, When the Nazis destroyed Coventry, they did this in realization of this principle. When Churchill declared: 'For every English town 10 German towns', then for him and 99% of all Englishmen, the principle of collective responsibility was considered as self-evident. When W.W. III starts, then public opinion will demand the H.-bombs - in accordance with this principle. That very soon afterwards the enemy government will also use H.-bombs is not taken into consideration or they do not want to think about it. Under a totalitarian regime they would not even be free to talk about it." - Ulrich von Beckerath, 4.4,55

W.W. I began when the Austrian Government held the Serbian Government responsible

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 0

for the terrorist act of the Serbian student Gabrielo Princip, who had murderer the Australian successor to the throne.

Hitler began W.W. II after holding the Poles collectively responsible for bad treatment supposedly or really meted out to Germans in Poland.

Every nation-building attempt is an attempt to build a new collective which at one time or the other is likely to be held collectively responsible for the misdeeds of some of its voluntary or involuntary members.

The only "guilt" of many of the victims of collective responsibility is frequently that they are taxed or repressed like all other subjects of a criminal government, and that at least to some extent they do believe in the "principle" of "collective responsibility" themselves, as shown by their ideas, opinions and actions.

Article 50 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare explicitly prohibits the application of the principle of collective responsibility in war - and it is one of the most forgotten or ignored articles, It runs:

"No fine or other punishment may be imposed upon a whole population for the action of individuals for which the whole population cannot be considered as responsible."

There is a moral obligation to criticize, flee from or, if possible, to resist all those who apply the principle of collective responsibility.

To fight against this principle should be the main concern of parties, churches and ideological associations and all individuals capable of rational judgments.

Should be!

The principle could be rightfully applied only in a very limited sphere, that of convicted criminals of a kind. (See peace plan 227.)

This subject deserves a full-scale libertarian study.

See: Air Raids, Enemy, Hostages Individual Responsibility, Nationalism, Property Concept of Citizens, Responsibility, Targets, Unity, Weapons.

If you can be drawn into a nuclear war because of a nuclear alliance then your security is as low as can be - in the long run. Collective security among nuclear armed governments is only as good and as weak as the deterrence policy is.

See: Accidental War, Alliances, Bases, Decision, Defence, Deterrence, Nuclear strength, Nuclear Umbrella, Nuclear Power Problem, Retaliation, Security.

All who treat economic relations as if they were military ones (and frequently express this by the language they use, e.g. "fighting" inflation) and who would rather use force than let two parties voluntarily make a deal for their mutual benefit, do indirectly and directly contribute to the danger of war and lastly to nuclear war. Their national economies preserve nuclear targets, prevent peace-promoting international investments, keep immigrants and refugees out, block access to natural resources, reduce international trade, etc.

See: Capitalism, Communism, Economic Freedom, Free Economy, Free Enterprise, Free Trade, Free Market, Investments, Laissez Faire, Planning, Protection, Socialism.

COMMON MAN, POWERLESSNESS OF THE COMMON MAN

As long as the common man remains powerless, is not free to run his own affairs,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41

not free to take steps to preserve his own life, the danger of nuclear war will persist. What are needed are common sense and uncommon actions taken in common by common men. They can help themselves only once they become free to act. Thus is should become their ambition to achieve the required freedom of action, i.e., to cease to remain sheep led to the slaughter. Powerless men will remain apathetic in the face of the nuclear threat or merely appeal to their territorial governments, whose continued existence caused the problem in the first place, "to do something about it." No territorial statist, from the mere single voter to the prime minister, knows what to do about this threat. No statist education system enlightens its victims about this.

See : Authoritarianism, Centralization, Collective Responsibility, Consent, Decentralization, Decision, Democracy, Dictatorships, Disarmament Disobedience Enlightenment, Experimental Freedom, Experts, Freedom, Freedom of Action, Human fights, Individualism, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Monopolies Obedience, People, Personal Law, Power, Power Powerlessness, Referendum, Resistance, Responsibility, Secession, Self-help, Subordination, Totalitarianism, Voting, Weapons

Common sense of rulers is a contradiction in terms, They all suffer from delusions of grandeur. Their common sense can certainly not be relied upon to assure the survival of man. They make numerous wrong decisions every day and one wrong decision by one of them, involving nuclear weapons, may mean the end of us all.

There is only one rightful decision about nuclear weapons, namely to destroy them, even one-sidedly.

That nuclear war has not happened so far was more luck than sense. Rulers are bent on power for themselves and this in itself is an indication not of common sense but madness.

See: Accidental War, Automated Warfare, Decisions, Deterrence Doomsday Bomb, Fail-safe, Leadership, Madness, Nuclear Strength, Overkill, Power, Reason, Responsibility.

"We can't spread the word" is a frequent excuse for those who have not yet answered sufficiently the counter question: "What word?"

Even if the anti-nuclear-war-program were complete, communication would remain a problem - but not an insuperable one. By now we have not only e.g. microfiche & floppy disks at our disposal but also CD-ROMs and websites to cheaply and permanently publish any information on this subject widely enough, at little cost and, in many countries, even at little risk to ourselves. But have we made, so far, sufficient use of such opportunities? (J.Z., 12.10.01.)
See : Appeals, Broadcasting, Censorship, Cultural Revolution, Declarations, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Freedom of Expression, Ideas Archive Negotiations, Oaths, Open Air Speaking, prejudices, Propaganda, Publicity, Pubic Opinion, Questions, Referendums, Talent Registry, War Aims.

Not only do nuclear arms in the hands of communist rulers refute the declared aim of "liberating" the "oppressed" "proletarians" but the danger of nuclear war also emanates from the communistic ideal of an all-powerful State, a State which in reality is the greatest monopolist, enemy and exploiter of all workers.

Would most of the Western democracies "arm" themselves with nuclear weapons against any but communistic or other totalitarian dictatorships? The elimination of totalitarian governments, especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons, is therefore one of the most important steps towards the prevention of nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons are not only immoral but extremely unsuitable for this purpose. Any dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons would, as a result, have at least some popular support among those afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of "our" governments.

Obviously but largely overlooked, nevertheless: Nuclear weapons are no more a means to liberate the Russian and Chinese people from the communist yoke than they are a means to convert any Americans, Englishmen or Frenchmen to communism. They are immoral and absurd.

The victims of a regime should never be held collectively responsible for its actions.

The rulers are likely to survive longest after a nuclear wars. The most guilty ones would thus suffer the least. Probably much of the hatred in the world against the USA originated from its position as a monopolistic nuclear power after W.W.II.

With Soviet-type means, that is, under almost complete disregard for individual human rights, with totalitarian means, with coercively recruited or at least coercively managed and coercively financed armies and weapons, with a military organiza-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42

tion that, in peace and war, forms a model of communistic "life, with a regulated economy which comes all too close to the communistic model, with totalitarian military discipline for their "citizen soldiers", the democratic governments attempt to resist advances of communism. The poverty of the ideologies predominating in the democratic states could hardly be better shown. Moreover this whole "democratic" might is not directed against the despots on the other side, the Soviet rulers and their relatively few voluntary supporters, but against the whole Russian people, the whole Chinese people. Thus we might succeed again, as Hitler once did, in driving the Russian people into the arms of its oppressors, into another war "for their fatherland'.

Communism must not only be fought, in all its totalitarian forms and aspirations, but also tolerated and protected in all its voluntarist forms, Otherwise the animosity which now threatens us with nuclear war would continue, the targets and motives for nuclear war would remain. Fanatics with nuclear weapons at their disposal must be given other choices, other aims than execution or submission. Communists must be convinced that communism like any other ism has only once chance to survive the threat of nuclear war and to continue in existence, at least among its remaining volunteers: through exterritorial dispersal or voluntary and autonomous segregation under communistic personal laws.

See: Amnesty, Capitalism, Class Warfare Ideology, Collective Responsibility, Conscription, Defence, Democracy, Desertion, Dictatorships, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Minority Autonomy, Refugees, Socialism, Totalitarianism, War Aims.

War means that governments are fighting, not competing. Competition means a peaceful effort to gain more customers and profit by satisfying customers with a better product or service. It leaves the customers free to choose. Not the supplier but the customer is king. Individual consumer sovereignty prevails. Any consumer or citizen may at any time transfer his patronage to another agency.

If the same principle is applied to governments and citizenship, then the remaining communities would be neither able nor willing to keep nuclear weapons and engage in nuclear war. They would be no more likely to do so than churches are under religious freedom. An extension of competition into all spheres of non-aggressive human action is essential if nuclear war is to be prevented.

See: Alternatives, Autonomy, Capitalism, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Free Economy, Free Market, Free Trade, Minority Autonomy, Monopolies, Motives, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Pluralism, Secession, Sovereignty, Targets, Unity, Voluntarism, Voting, Voluntary Taxation, plan 153.

Compromise, although usually considered as peace promoting, has also the characteristic of perpetuating a struggle based on disagreements - because, by its very definition, it does not fully satisfy either party. Its unchecked premise is the supposed need for uniformity.

When compromises are made between right and wrong actions, then the right side always loses and the wrong side always wins. As any lasting peace must be based on the full realization of human rights, on justice, the effects of compromises on peace are obvious. Justice, freedom and peace should never be compromised There is no need or justification to agree upon compromises in all spheres where opposed interests and practices can be rightfully separated between autonomous groups, which can be set up on an individualistic, i.e. personal law basis, in full agreement with personal knowledge, preferences and prejudices. There are few exceptions, like left or right-hand drive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43

Such a society would not breed class warfare, national warfare or conspiracy ideologies and practices and would test mad ideologies to the limit in practice, before they could grow and spread dangerously and come to dominate whole large territories and populations.

See: Coexistence, Competition, Democracy, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Governments, Human Rights, Liberation War, Majorities, Minorities, Segregation, Tolerance, War Aims.

In all too many ways our society rests on compulsion: from e. g. compulsory fluoridation or vaccination over numerous monopolies to the compulsory imposition of an ideology or constitution on dissenters, to compulsory taxes and military or other dictatorial rule.

The ultimate in compulsion is nuclear power. To abolish it compulsion must be abolished at all levels (except against well defined criminals and aggressors) starting anywhere, and be it with the abolition of the municipal garbage removal system or the postal monopoly.

Nobody has the exclusive authority to offer services and nobody at all has the right to force disservices on others (taxation bureaucracy, nuclear war). Let's undermine this whole social tendency at its weakest part: individual consent, by instituting individual secession. Then the fallacies upholding the nuclear strength policy would soon be revealed.

See: Autonomy, Exterritorial Imperative, Force, Freedom, Freedom of Action, Militia, Monopolies, Nationalism, Secession, Statism, Subordination, Tolerance, Voluntarism, War Aims.

Computers are not only used to simulate war in war games but also to direct and sometimes to fire such "weapons". None of them is fail-safe and thus nuclear war might actually be started without any human finger touching any buttons. Computers do make mistakes, not only in the calculation of debts, salaries and pensions. "Thus we have reached a situation in which our fate may depend on an electronic brain and the mistakes it can make Its decisions are made automatically. It has not the capacity of the human brain for rational considerations. Its conclusions follow very fast but without the thoroughness and the reliability of the human brain. Its function relies entirely on the perfection of all its parts.! - Albert Schweitzer , 1958. (By now computer viruses number probably around 50,000 and there are thousands of hackers with totalitarian or fundamentalist mentalities, who would love to cause nuclear "accidents", given the chance. No "fail-safe" computerized and nuclear "defence" system is fail-safe enough against all such attempts. Radioactive bomb material has already, repeatedly, appeared on blacks markets. - J.Z., 12.10.01.)

See: Accidental War, Automated Warfare, Brinkmanship, Centralization, Derision, Deterrence, Doomsday Bomb, Fail-safe.

Conferences between heads of states to bring about peace are like conferences between heads of organized crime groups meeting on the agenda of eliminating crime. Peace conferences, at best, are assemblies of people full of good will - and ignorance and powerlessness, where it counts most. Conferences of military leaders are conferences of people full of ill will, myths, prejudices, suspicions, full of ignorance of any sensible alternatives and at the same time with all too much power to do wrong and harm.

See: Centralization, Decision, Governments, Ignorance, Negotiations, People, Power, Rulers, Statism, Summit Conferences, U.N., Appx. 12.

To reconcile all interests one has to separate or even individualize them first. Then one can harmonize them by leaving all individuals free to pursue their own

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44

interests, to mind their own business, with only justice remaining as a common bond between them.

See: Alternatives, Capitalism; Communism, Exterritorial Imperative, Greed, Harmony, Human Rights, Individualism, Justice, Laissez Faire, Market, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Rights, Secession, Segregation, Tolerance, Totalitarianism, Voluntarism, War Aims.

Conquests make only sense when one persists in territorial organization. In the "nuclear age" territories have become senseless liabilities which are inviting nuclear holocaust. Even hanging on to "one's own" exclusive territory invites its transformation into a radioactive wasteland - by rulers who still think of territorial "possessions" and conquests.

See: Aggression, Defence, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Natural Resources, Personal Law, Property Concept of Citizens, Secession, Territorial Organization, War Aims.

Whilst there are many conscientious objections that can be raised against nuclear war preparations and actions, what is commonly called "conscientious objection" is, by itself, not enough to prevent nuclear war - unless all played that game and participated, including the "baddies". A few, using armed terrorism, could defeat a majority of conscientious objectors. The scheme is thus as impracticable as that of Christ's suggestion: "Love thy Enemy".

During the transition stage to a free society, in which conscientious objection would indeed tend to become automatic and quite natural and would not require any sacrifice but be a very selfish action instead, many forceful but limited resistance steps must be taken.

See: Boycotts Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Employment, Force, General Strike, Love, Military Insurrections, Militia, Morality, Non-violent Steps, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Tax Strike, Tyrannicide, Weapons.

To be conscripted into a war, which might become a nuclear war, is the height of immorality and absurdity. The nuclear arms race conscripts all of us into this at an indefinite date in the near future.

Moreover, the mere existence of conscription creates some of the nuclear war threat because some rulers imagine that against the conscripted masses of some other rulers they could fight successfully only with mass-extermination

weapons.

See: Defence, Desertion, Human Rights, Military Insurrections, Militia, Revolutionary Warfare, Secession, Separate Peace, Volunteer Army, War Aims.

Governments retain nuclear powers because all their powers are based on the fiction of democratic or popular consent.

This consent is never unanimous. It rarely shows majority consensus regarding particular policies. It expresses only a general consensus based on ignorance and the assumption that governments are necessary in many instances. In practice, the only consensus all citizens are free to give is one giving full approval to everything the government does. As soon as any citizen disagrees with his government on any point he finds himself in difficulties when he wants to act

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45

on his beliefs.

Consensus is extremely doubtful regarding questions like conscription, taxation and inflation. There it is doubted even by the rulers themselves, Thus the power to impose either is rarely ever subjected to a referendum.

No government has ever received a formal consent by all of its citizens for its nuclear arms, deterrence and alliance policy.

Consent can only be assumed to exist in a society where individual citizens are so free that they may secede as individuals from any government and may withhold from it the payment of taxes and may also freely associate themselves with others, without having to migrate first.

See: Decision, Democracy, Disarmament, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Governments, People, Power, Powerlessness, Publicity, Referendums, Representation, Responsibility, Voting, War Aims.

The nuclear war threat and nuclear reactors constitute perhaps the greatest threat to rightful conservation aspirations. They have turned man into an endangered species - unless, of course, you consider man merely as a pest, and then, please, speak only for yourself.

See: Anti-Man-Attitudes, Atomic Energy, Doomsday Bomb, Radiation Hazard.

A more or less open conspiracy to destroy all nuclear weapons is a rightful and dutiful activity in which every rational being should participate.

But wars are not the result of some or the other evil conspiracy. Only ideas, opinions, prejudices, ignorance and conditions "conspire" to bring about nuclear war. These causes are all openly revealed for all those able and willing to look for them and judge them intelligently.

See : Causal Thinking, Decision, Disarmament Exterritorial Imperative, Militia, Prejudices, Racism, Resistance, Revolution, Statism, Tyrannicide, Appx. 3 & 7.

Among the main constitutional changes to assure a lasting peace and, especially, to prevent nuclear war, are the following:

A Bill of Individual Human Rights,

Recognition of an International Law based on these rights,

Monetary Freedom,

Right to resist and revolt,

Tyrannicide and outlawry,

Militia for, the protection of human rights,

Referendums on questions of war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties,

Equal access to natural resources and, probably most important of all,

Voluntary State membership, based on individual secession, exterritorial organization, personal law, tolerance and

voluntary taxation.

See under the relevant headings and Appx. 10. See also: PEACE PLANS 61-63.

Directories, guides, Lists, calendars and short descriptions of minority group activities, activists, talents, facilities, meeting centres etc., can ALL act as catalysts to make the best use of all forces for positive change in society. They would help to bring about a free market of ideas, talents and facilities to promote freedom and

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46

peace, a genuinely cultural revolution.

See: Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Ideas Archive, Open Air Speaking, Propaganda, Publicity, Talent Registry.

Freedom of contract means that one may freely contract on anything, even a "marriage" to any political or economic system, but for oneself only and at one's own risk and expense. Thus, under full freedom of contract, one neither has to win over the majority to enjoy one's preferred system, nor does one have to fight a war or win a revolution and set up a dictatorship in order to realize it.

Full freedom of contract would also do away with unemployment and inflation - through monetary freedom, freely spread from the successful experiments of the first voluntary pioneering experimenters.

Moreover, one could contract some form of voluntary taxation (fee, price, subscription or dues) system for oneself, only for services one desires and this would exclude nuclear "defence".

Furthermore, freedom of contract would allow insurance contracts with companies which are not under legal compulsion to finance an arms race with their funds. It would allow to opt out of all monopolies.

It would embrace the freedom to dissociate oneself individually from every aggressive government.

Nuclear targets would be eliminated - as everywhere there would be one's contractual associates or friends or trading partners.

One would be able and free to contract peace for oneself. One could not be forced into military servitude or tax slavery to a military regime.

In this and other ways freedom of contract would remove all motives, means and institutions making for nuclear war.

See: Desertion, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Neutrality, Secession, Separate Peace, Targets, Taxation, Tolerance, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims.

A mythology has been built up in defence of controlling man and preventing him from becoming a free individual. This mythology led to the ultimate crowd controller: the nuclear "weapon".

Only controls arising from free individuals, acting justly, in self-interest and self-defence, have any inbuilt capacity to succeed.

In other words, the only social controls required are those of a free market including volunteer militias for the protection of human rights, competing protection agencies in form of free enterprises subject to free consumer choice.

See: Competing Governments, Democracy Freedom, Human Rights Individualism, Laissez Faire, Leadership Market, Militia, Myths, Panarchy, Prejudices, Secession, Self-help, Sovereignty, Statism.

Police, army, international inspectors, spies, and other government agents, cannot even satisfactorily disarm ordinary criminals terrorists of mere firearms. Far less can they and would they disarm themselves with regard to nuclear weapons. Governments are only likely to offer a number of unenforceable bans and promises and "agreements". But they are obviously not enough.

How could any government control e.g. the smuggling of nuclear weapons and their placement in targeted capital cities? They could not - not even with all their custom officers - stop the smuggling of ordinary goods or drugs. Governments cannot even ether all the taxes they are legally entitled to - and this in spite of ten-thousands of tax inspectors.

If one would rely on government disarmament inspectors alone, the old question

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47

would arise again: "Who controls the controllers?"

No control system is 100 % fail-safe. Certainly, no government system is going to be that. Only a disarmament by the people themselves is going to come very close to 100$ effectiveness in the long run. For this purpose every citizen should become an honorable nuclear disarmament controller.

Germany, between the world wars, was subjected to the largest disarmament effort ever undertaken by governments. We all know with what results.

Governments should no more be given the power to control disarmament than organized crime syndicates should be given the power to control crime. The Soviet Union, for instance, has never consented to thorough control measures. There is still no certainty that there are no nuclear missiles in Cuba now. The Soviet see in control an infringement of their sovereignty, It is indeed. And it is also a good argument in favour of doing away with territorial sovereignty or territorial "integrity".

The people themselves could and would carry out a nuclear disarmament control effectively, in their own interest, given the liberties and information required for doing this. Only the people are numerous and omnipresent enough and also forceful enough, in their public opinion pressure, to see to it that nuclear disarmament is sufficiently controlled and that lastly all hidden weapons stores are found or betrayed. But there would probably be only one way to effectively control the radioactive raw material output of hundreds of nuclear reactors: ensuring that there are no such reactors left in operation.

How could one control a government which has numerous secret areas under military guard? Nothing but an ideal volunteer militia could do this, a force which the governments at present would not allow and which may have to be established against their will.

No control attempt would be effective enough as long as most people still consider destructive and murderous nuclear devices as modern weapons. Controls cease to be a problem only when there is finally a popular demand for and a referendum-initiated and militia-supported attempt at unilateral nuclear disarmament This requires a large enlightenment effort first of all. Then the people could mobilize themselves to carry out and control this disarmament and they would invite soldiers and officers of enemy governments to send as many delegates as they like to help uncover secret nuclear arms caches and supervise the destruction of all such weapons. This would help to make them less aggressive, more inclined to rise against their governments, desert to our side or at least declare themselves neutral, or to conclude a separate peace treaty with us, on the basis of just war aims which we should have publicized well beforehand

See: Disarmament; Enlightenment, Freedom of Action, Fail-safe, Governments, Inspection, Militia, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Power, Prize Money, Publicity, Referendums, Secrecy, State, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Weapons.

Much of the present danger of nuclear war originates in the class warfare ideology which could be eliminated at its roots by a transformation of the organization of production from hierarchical structures to those with a large degree of individualistic, democratic or contractual self-management and also by a change of a largely concentrated financial ownership and control into one where ownership and control are largely dispersed among all those engaged in particular enterprises. The great variety of producers coops which has been suggested and experimented with would form one such approach. Extensive employee shareholding, labour coops and "open coops" are some of the others. The more free experimentation of this kind would take place and the more publicity these experiments would receive, the faster and more thoroughly would the currently most important ideological motivation for nuclear war be removed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48

One of the best ways for establishing productive coops would be the organization of the employees of present enterprises into coops which then would make take-over bids for their enterprises, using long-term industrial bonds, issued & guaranteed by themselves, as means of payment. In most instances they could afford to outbid other interested parties because from their side the greatest productivity improvements are likely to arise, once the cooperative transformation has taken place and has given everyone involved a businessman's interest in his work. Moreover, later on technological improvements will be multiplied and introduced much sooner, due also to the changed motivation of the former employees.

In reality, the cooperators would, in most cases, pay for their factories etc. not with part of their present wages or savings but with part of their income increases which would result from this transformation. Those involved would not have to "sacrifice" anything else than some of their prejudices.

See: Class Warfare Ideology, Employer-Employee Relationship, Hierarchical Production, Open Coops, Purchase of Enterprises, Socialism, War Aims.

Counter-terror is still terror:

"The political terrorist is the most evil person on the face of the earth" - said Alan Johnson in "perception", Sydney , 3/73. I would add: "Especially if he is "armed with ABC mass murder devices." "Then he fully deserves to be shot on sight, red-handed. Unless he has a dead-man switch! But, perhaps, those are worse whose coercive systems motivates terrorism? Namely, the ignorant, prejudiced but mostly well-intentioned "defenders" of national borders or "territorial integrity"?

The question is not one of courage and determination but one of common sense, one not of force and non-violence but of justice:

".., the question is not whether 'we would be willing to use force to prevent the rape of our sister' but whether to prevent that rape we are willing to kill innocent people and perhaps even the sister herself " - said Murray N. Rothbard in p. 3 of his "War Peace and the State."

See: Appeals, Collective Responsibility, Declarations, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Force, Justice, Mass Murder, Morality, Nuclear Strength, Retaliation, Scorched Earth Policy, Terrorism, Tyrannicide, Violence, War Aims, Weapons.

Men mostly believe only what they want to believe. Towards all other facts they show an almost endless incredulity. In our instance they do not want to believe in the possibility of nuclear war, or of the possibility of preventing it. Enlightenment and the demonstration value of freedom of action could get this obstacle largely removed.

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Apathy Decision, Deterrence, Enlightenment, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Ignorance, Myths, Prejudices, Publicity, Statism, Survival Instinct

Nuclear war is a crime against humanity. Those who prepare for it are criminals. Even without nuclear devices criminal madness or mad criminality was higher among rulers than among any other profession, according to Professor P. Sorokin. Now their tendency to commit crimes and mad acts, combined with criminal and mad mass murder devices, render rulership of the old style and kind completely unsuitable for the future - if mankind is to survive. Under the present system of territorial organization, the democratic forms included, the worst people tend to go to the top. Here too, the best way of getting rid of corruption in high offices is to get rid of the jobs.

Owning nuclear devices, producing them and keeping them in readiness, not only are capital crimes but ought to be treated as such, especially once referendums resolved

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49

on that. The popular fallacy that rulers are not criminals and that they cannot do wrong, must be refuted.

Nuclear war crimes are the worst war crimes, perhaps the worst crimes altogether. They are at least a conspiracy to commit mass murder. No government is prepared to prosecute these criminals because they are all men in government.

In future there will also exist the danger that ordinary criminals will get their hands on nuclear devices for extortion attempts. When engaged in these they might well set off nuclear war accidentally. This danger might help to wake up the public. Although the danger arising from criminal governments is objectively much greater, it is habitually ignored, being outside the concepts of most people immersed in the Statist religion.

See: Arms Race, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Madness, Militia, Outlawry, Power, Rulers, Statism, Tyrannicide.

Without a genuinely cultural revolution, one creating the institutions and practices which could enormously speed up the processes of enlightenment, the changes required in public opinion to prevent nuclear war cannot be achieved in the short time we may have left available for the required enlightenment efforts. Required are, for instance:

Several daily opened Speakers' Corners - within walking distance of every city inhabitant,

Archives of ideas, proposals and plans,

Competing postal, telephone and broadcasting services,

Registers of innovators and of people looking for innovations,

Speakers' pools and pools of potential listeners, listing people according to their interests,

Centres of second-hand bookshops,

Encyclopaedias of definitions,

Encyclopaedias of the best refutations of errors, myths and prejudices,

Encyclopaedic treatment of all controversial questions,

Information services,

Periodicals publishing only letters to the editor,

Periodicals publishing only reform proposals,

New forms of written, flow-chart type discussions,

Daily opened discussion centres,

Contacts between book-lovers through library catalogues,

Regular listings of coming-up events , meetings and lectures,

Directories of minority associations and magazines,

Surveys of libraries and their specialities, and last, not least,

Minority autonomy, on a voluntary and exterritorial basis.

The basic aim of a genuinely cultural revolution is: To make use of all knowledge and ideas available to draw out more and to apply them in the most effective way, i.e., to let no opportunity remain unused for self-education and educating others.

See: Broadcasting, Censorship, Contacts, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Ideas Archive, Myths, Open Air Speaking, Propaganda, Publicity, Sign Debates, Soldiers' Rights, Talent Registers, War Aims.

How many people are aware, every day and every hour, that we are all in a situation comparable to that of a man sentenced to death and waiting for his execution date to be fixed? We are all full of wishful thinking and daydreams to shield us from this harsh reality. Reality demands only one thing: Break out of this situation, don't console yourself, don't accustom yourself to it. To attempt to escape from this death cell is not only a right but a duty. Apart from your self-caused ignorance and immaturity in this sphere you are innocent!

See a Accidental War,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50

Acuteness of Danger, Bet, Deterrence, Human Rights, Myths, Powerlessness, Prejudices, Resignation, Resistance, Self-help.

There are suicidal tendencies in all who have lost sight of a purpose in their lives and who have experienced many disappointments while retaining sufficient intelligence to see the long-term emptiness of a mere sensual life. Only individual freedom would release their energies in a peace promoting way. Freedom in the arts, crafts, literature and on the sports field is not enough to make us mature, comprehend and appreciate the world, our lives and all liberties. All creative energies need to be released - to get the best out of man and to turn us into fully developed human beings. Those suffering, however unconsciously, under all too many visible or invisible fetters, do neither fully appreciate their own lives nor those of others.

You might also ask yourself whether those, who remain inactive towards the nuclear war threat, do really love their wives, husbands, children and grandchildren.

See: Apathy, Freedom, Human Rights, Reason, Resignation, Statism, Value-Free Society, Welfare State.

Decentralization has to be carried out to the utmost - up to the level of the individual. It must not be confined to geographical decentralization only, desirable as this might be on its own. All centrifugal forces in society should be used to get away from the nuclear terror situation. The new decentralization must transcend the political and national divisions, especially via personal laws and constitutions practised by autonomous and exterritorial bodies either in their local or worldwide voluntary communities and their desired spheres of desired free and tolerant activities. It must be based entirely on fully free individual consent.

Once this kind of individual liberty has become a common practice - and its full understanding creates a self-realizing force - then no rational being would have a motive left to arm himself with nuclear devices nor would anyone have an opportunity to do so easily, nor would anyone then be considered as a dangerous enemy by others. Nuclear weapons make no sense at all for use against people next door living under different personal laws.

See: Centralization, Consent Denationalization, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom Frontiers, Human Rights Individualism, Militia, Monopolies, Motives, Personal Law, Power, Secession, Secrecy, Targets, Voluntarism, War Aims.

DECISION-MAKING, DEMOCRATIC AND IM INDIVIDUAL VERSUS CENTRALIZED AND MONOPOLIZED DECISION-MAKING ON WAR AND PEACE, ARMAMENT AND DISARMAMENT

The power to declare war or peace should rest with those who have to pay the costs of war - with their lives, limbs, health, freedom and property. The people themselves and directly should decide on war and peace, armament and disarmament. That used to be a platform point of the Social Democrats, over a century ago in Germany. The modern SPD members and voters managed to forget about that idea.

The following stories somewhat demonstrate this right: A captain, in a pep talk to his men, shortly before an assault, addressed his men as follows: 'Men, in five minutes we will attack. It will be a fight at close quarters, man against man.' Whereupon one small private piped up: 'Sir, would you please point out my man to me? I am certain I could come to an arrangement with him!' - That was a story on trench warfare in WW I and the role of the private was given to a Jew, as if only a Jew could be as sensible and "unpatriotic" and non-violent.

From WW II and the Eastern Front comes the following story: A private asked his commanding officer in vain for leave, for urgent personal reasons, for which it was usually granted. "No chance, son," was the reply. "Due to the tense situation all leave is cancelled. Your only chance for a special leave would be the capture of an enemy machine gun." - "Very well, Sir!" the private replied - and, to the great surprise of the officer returned, within half an hour, with an enemy machine gun in his hands, The officer gave him his well earned leave certificate and then took him aside and asked him confidentially: "I won't give you up, but please tell me, how did you manage that? I did not hear any firing during the last 36 minutes." - "Quite simple, Sir", was the reply: "Someone on the other side wanted a machine gun, too."

All decisions affecting your life should be your own affairs - unless you personally and directly delegate them to another person or to a particular agency, for the time being. It demonstrates an almost unbelievable complacency to let a hand-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51

ful of people, certainly not the best ones, decide whether mankind is to survive or not. We have slid into a situation where even a junior officer may one day intentionally or unintentionally take steps initiating the eradication of mankind.

Atomic war concerns everyone and yet at present, only very few have any direct say on its preparation, execution or prevention. This basic wrong must be righted. Individual man, who would be wiped out in the nuclear holocaust, must have a say in the matter and this on its own would be one of the strongest factors preventing such a war. Only this kind and related types of individual decision-making could prevent nuclear war. Nuclear war is, in essence, the exact opposite of individual decision making - as every nuclear device, when exploded, at the command of a few, would wipe out the individual preferences of ten-thousands, if not millions of people. As in a Third World War all of us are likely to die, all of us, including our young children, should have a say on whether there is to be another war, whether we should be armed with ABC devices, and who, if anyone, is going to be treated as our enemy. You and I can no longer assure our survival by proxy - if it was ever assured in this way before.

Regarding nuclear war decisions we are all in the position of the supplicant arguing with Richelieu who had refused his petition: "But, Sir I have to live!" R. replied: "I do not see the necessity for this!" (Let us assume that this was a denial of self-help and not a case in which e.g. Ayn Rand would also have answered with a refusal.)

One of the worst features of the present situation is that the decisions are made not by the best but by the worst, who have risen, in democracies as well as in dictatorships, like scum, to the top. Hayek's most famous work contains a chapter on this. In any territorial and representative democratic system the dullest or least creative minds, smart only in gaining and retaining power within the status quo, are likely to strive for and gain the highest political offices and to retain them. As Ambrose Bierce said, in his "The Devil's Dictionary", under "brain": "in our civilization, and under our republican form of government, brain is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office."

Governments have always, sooner or later, abused their power to decide on war and peace. So, et us have some real and direct democracy again for a change. Let the people themselves and directly decide on this issue and let there be provisions for neutral minorities and conscientious objectors. There would certainly be less wars as a result. For who has to bear their costs and risks? The politicians? War is the health of the State, as Randolph Bourne said. Nuclear war will be avoided once the targeted people get their say. Dwight D. Eisenhower once made a relevant remark. (I feel certain that it was written by one of his ghost writers and for propaganda value only.): ''People want peace so much that governments had better get out of their way and let them have it."

It seems so self-evident that those most exposed to the dangers of nuclear war should also make all the decisions on it. The rulers are the most protected ones and for this fact alone are already the most unsuitable persons to make these decisions. This has often been recognized in the past but rarely were consistent conclusions drawn from this observation. I remember e.g. the contents of an SF story in which it was suggested that rulers be made to feel all the pains of their subjects through a special nerve surgery. Another, similarly devious solution was proposed by G. Chr. Lichtenberg (Selected Writings, Reclam, 1st. ed., p. 140.):"In a certain country there exists, supposedly, a custom prescribing that during a war the regent and his counselors must sleep above a gunpowder barren for as long as the war lasts. They do this in separate rooms of the palace which may be inspected by everyone to judge whether the night lantern is still burning The barren is not only sealed with the seal of the people's deputies but also belted to the floor with belts which are also properly sealed. Every evening and morning the seals are inspected. It is said that for a considerable time the wars in this area have altogether ceased."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52

One does not have to circumvent a basic flaw in the constitution in such an elaborate way. It is enough to deprive the rulers of their power and leave it in the hands of the people instead. The story also wrongly presumes that one could not concede e.g. courage or suicidal bravery or madness to at least some rulers. Unfortunately, one can. As power corrupts it should rather be abolished than somewhat tied down or "balanced".

Ulrich von Beckerath, in a letter to Mr. K., stated: "The decision whether the armed forces are to be armed with nuclear weapons, whether factories are to be established for their production and whether the help of allies should be accepted, who are armed with nuclear devices, this decision is not to be made either by a defence ministry, nor by the whole government, nor by the parliament - but by the whole people. This referendum is to be brought about as soon as possible."

Any government having declared a war, without asking the people first, is to be considered as being out of office and any obedience towards it is illegal. Until a new government is then democratically elected, the governments power should automatically be transferred to the president of the constitutional court. If he is not available, then the judges of the supreme federal courts should be the new temporary office bearers, the oldest ones first. Alternatively the supreme federal commander of the local militias for the protection of human rights could take over or the various leading persons in a variety of exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers.

In future, each of the exterritorial communities would decide for itself on questions of war and peace. Any such decisions would have to consider the difficulties of conducting military operations with members of exterritorial communities living amongst their "enemies" and their "enemies" living amongst them. In other words, it would rarely ever come to war. What rational beings would remain "enemies" to other "enemies" once all are free to do their things to and for themselves, all at the own risk and expense only? We might become amused observers of the follies of others, rather than their enemies.

Legend has it that Czar Peter the Great, to impress some foreigners with his power, commanded one of his serfs to jump out of the window of the room they were talking in, a room situated several stories above ground level. The serf obeyed without hesitation, jumped and fell to his death, We tend to look down on such slavish obedience and forget that leaving the power to decide on war and peace in the hands of a few rulers amounts to a similar slavish and suicidal obedience - but on a much larger scale.

You own your own life. No ruler does. Don't be a slave to men. Don't let your rights be trampled upon. Don't blame the slave masters you have set above you. Blame yourself for your position, You have so far sanctioned it with your consent.

When Rudolf Hess made his famous flight to offer a separate peace to the U.K., this offer was hushed up by Churchill. He was officially declared to be a madman, The idea of peace negotiations was not allowed to get around the British public. Naturally, there was no moral or rational case for separate peace negotiations with Nazis, But there was a very good case for separate peace negotiations with the oppressed German people. And this would have become apparent if the British government, in collusion with the Nazis, hadn't veiled the attempt of Hess in secrecy or lies and myths.

Complete freedom in decision making would also lead to nuclear disarmament by the people and it would make a sufficient control of this disarmament possible. The physicist Robert Oppenheimer once suggested, when asked for an instrument to discover hidden nuclear weapons, a very simple tool to carry out a complete nuclear disarmament:

A strong screwdriver - suitable to open every box and wardrobe looking for hidden and insulated nuclear bombs. It has only one drawback - but at the same time this would be its guaranty: such a tool would have to be in the hands of almost every citizen for this purpose. In other words, the question nuclear tests and disarmament ought to be discussed, decided and acted upon at the lowest not the highest level - or, rather, the lowest level has to become the highest level in this respect. Let me conclude this section with another quotation from Ulrich von Beckerath's writings: "Every State in which the citizens do not decide about war and peace is really a dictatorship." - B., a Kantian, only reworded what Kant already expressed in 1795, in his "Eternal Peace".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53

really a dictatorship."

This subject does deserve a large-scale monograph which cannot be offered in this context. I have collected much material on the subject and want still more. Does anyone want to collaborate as a collector writer or editor?

See: Appeals, Control, Declarations, Disarmament, Inspection, Negotiations, Anarchy, Peace Declarations, People, Referendum, Secession, Separate Peace, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Voting, War Aims.

The dangerous delusion still predominates that it is possible to achieve a worthwhile protection against an attack with nuclear devices, National defence of the old type does only temporarily preserve nations as nuclear targets and leads in the long run to their annihilation. Only the attractions of freedom could make any large-scale defence effort unnecessary, prevent aggression in most instances and avoid the risk of nuclear war.

The generals always tend to be behind developments in their thinking, As so far there was always a defensive means against any aggressive one - although that never helped to reduce the total losses - they still assume that against the new aggressive means there must also be technological defensive means. They cannot understand that something built as a weapon cannot really be used as such:

"It should also be pointed out that there is no defence against nuclear weapons (the only current 'defence' is the threat of mutual annihilation) and therefore that the State cannot fulfill any sort of defence function as long as these weapons exist." - said Murray N. Rothbard in his pamphlet "War, Peace and the State", pages 5 & 6.

Defence becomes nonsensical when, like nuclear defence, it risks destruction of the civilians to be defended, perhaps, even of civilization or mankind. We have to defend ourselves against nuclear defence and against the attacks by our defence bureaucracy, To prevent the use of nuclear devices by anyone is the only rational national defence policy when one is faced with nuclear holocaust, We have to defend ourselves not only against threatened nuclear attacks but also against threatened nuclear defence.

The best defence against other people consists in not attacking or threatening their rights in any way but, on the contrary, upholding them instead in every possible way. Such a just, defensive or liberating war could be fought largely with the strength of the enemy and financed largely out of his assets. (Compare the article on voluntary taxation in PEACE PLANS No. 14 and also the financial method advocated in PEACE PLANS No. 19 c.)

We need a defence against governments and as such it cannot be safely entrusted to any coercive government, not even ours. It has to be a defence without nuclear weapons against governments threatening to attack or defend us with nuclear devices. To be effective, it would require new political, military and economic organizations. See the references. As Sir Robert Watson Watt put it:

"The only defences are those which must be spun from the fragile and intangible fabric of man's humanity to man." The remaining aggressions would be so small that no more than small police actions, e.g. by by local and federated militia forces, would be required to defeat them,

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Aggression, Air Raids, Alliances, Amnesty, Appeals, Arms Race, Bombers , Broadcasting, Career Soldiers, Carpet Bombing, Censorship, China, Class Warfare, Collective Responsibility, Conquests, Conscription, Decision, Declarations, Desertion Deterrence, Dictatorships, Disarmament, Disobedience, Employer-Employee Relationship, Employment, Enemy, Espionage, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Migration, Free Trade, Governments-in-Exile, Hostages, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Liberation War, Loyalty, Mercenaries, Military Insurrections, Military Organization, Militia, Minority Autonomy, Monetary Despotism, Mone-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54

tarry Freedom, Nationalism, Nuclear Strength, Oaths, Obedience, Open Cities, Police Actions, Prisoners of War, Prize Money, Propaganda, Publicity, Refugees, Revolutionary Warfare, Scorched Earth Policy, Secession, Separate Peace, Soviet Union, Subordination, Surrender, Targets, Tax Strike, Terrorism, Tolerance, Torture, Treason, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims, Weapons, peace plans 34, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61.

The threat of nuclear war is largely due to wrong definitions and ideas. Nothing but an encyclopaedic approach can set them right.

See: Consent, Defence, Democracy, Encyclopaedia of Refutations Enemy, Enlightenment, Ideas, Law and Order, Myths, Nationalism, Nuclear Strength, Power, Prejudices Responsibility, Revolution, and Appx. 4.

Deflation becomes impossible once all are free to issue their own money, subject only to a free market rate and the right of others to refuse to accept it. But such private currencies would be acceptable only, at least as local currencies, provided they do have some acceptable backing, like e.g., acceptance by local consumer goods stores. Then enough exchange media could be issued to bring about all desired exchanges and thus avoid a currency shortage. The free market rate of these exchange media would be determined against e. g., a gold weight unit in which goods and services are priced out or in any other standard of value which is acceptable to contracting partners.

See: Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, PEACE PLANS Nos. 8-11 & many other issues in the PEACE PLANS series.

Certain powers should never be delegated. The threat of nuclear war arose only because they were delegated.

See: Authoritarianism, Broadcasting, Censorship, Cities, Consent, Decision, Declarations, Defence, Democracy, Diplomacy, Disarmament, Freedom of Action, Government, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Nationalism, Negotiations, Neutrality, Open Air Meetings, Power, Publicity, Referendums, Representation, Responsibility Rights, Secession, Self-defence, Self-help, Separate Peace, Sovereignty, Unity, Voluntary Taxation, Voting, Weapons.

To the extent that bureaucrats and politicians rule we do no longer have democracies. The most important decisions are taken out of the hands of the people. The powers of rulers were hardly ever greater, The time limits put on them hardly matter.

A democracy in which only a few decide about war and peace, armament and disarmament, international treaties, international recognition etc., is to that extent not a democracy but a dictatorship. A democracy in which a few are granted the authority and means to wipe out whole nations and risk the destruction of the own in the process, is in reality one of the worst kinds of dictatorship. A power which threatens the life of the own nation and of several others is hardly democratic but rather authoritarian. When it threatens all mankind it is not only dictatorial but something worse. A new word for this new and terrible condition may have to be found. How can anyone dare to call a State that threatens the life of all human beings a democracy, and a government which produces anti-people weapons and keeps them in readiness, like spare extermination camps, a democratic government?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55

It could not rightly be called a demonocracy, either, since even "demons", if they existed, must be presumed to have more sense than to wipe themselves out together with their toys.

In small countries as well, which themselves do not possess nuclear "weapons", appearances notwithstanding, democracy has largely come to an end. They have become, more or less, the subjects, pawns or hostages of the nuclear powers. But they are not innocents, either. Their small, centralized and monopolistic democratic governments do help to preserve the myths of the need for and morality of statist territorial organizations and suppress minority groups by depriving them of freedom for tolerant actions. Even Switzerland collaborated to some extent with the Nazis, e.g. in keeping refugees out, particularly Jews and in more recent times put deserters from the Russian Army in Afghanistan, the few who survived their capture, into Swiss prisons with the intention to forcefully return them, and Australia has established concentration camps for illegal immigrants and coercively forces refugee ships back into the high seas. (Note of 13.10.01.)

One of the better concepts of democracy was that of a system which protects the rights of minorities This rested on the assumption that the majority, if only it is free, will anyhow realize its will. By, now the territorial form of States can obviously protect neither the majority nor the minorities any longer.

Democracy has also been defined as participation of every adult and rational citizen in important decision-making. But the parliamentary process, growth of bureaucracy and the multiplication of acts of state intervention have prevented this. Moreover, the secrecy covering "national security" efforts, has kept even parliamentarians uninformed.

Do you have any influence on whether we are to be armed with nuclear weapons or not, whether we are to have nuclear bomb factories in form of nuclear reactors, whether we are to ;organize in form of nuclear targets or not? Has anyone of your friends, relatives or acquaintances such an influence? If not then you are no

longer living in a democracy and the sooner you are aware of this the better. Otherwise your resistance might come too late.

All this doesn't mean that democracy in its direct or indirect forms and in all its variations could not or should not be revived. It could and should be - by those who want it, on a completely just and non-contradictory foundation, fully based on individual consent, on exclusively voluntary membership. This would require exterritoriality and personal law.

Only a fully free market for all goods (including e.g. exchange media and value standards) and all services (including public services and democratic government services) would give people a chance to run their own ives,

would grant everyone an equal & sufficient vote or voice. Only it would amount to real self-government and self-determination.

Individual secessionism would be essential to bring about such new democracies. It alone could ensure that within each voluntarist grouping all decisions that affect all affairs common to the group, would be made almost exclusively with unanimity or individual consent.

See: Authoritarianism, Bill of Rights, Centralization, Consent, Decision, Declarations, Dictatorships, Disarmament, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Human Rights, People, Power, Referendum, Secession, Secrecy, Self-determination, Targets, Tolerance, Totalitarianism, Voting, War Aims, Weapons.

Demonstrations, ten-thousands of them, should by now have proven how ineffective they are when aiming to prevent nuclear war and ban the bomb. Demonstrating crowds are no more effective than bleating sheep, aimlessly running about and driven to the slaughterhouse, by barking dogs, on a prescribed route, commanded by their

"shepherds". The appeal of demonstrators to the leaders is comparable to one by sheep directed to butchers and their customers to become gardeners and vegetarians.

As Ulrich von Beckerath suggested, the unarmed voter, no matter how agitated he is, is usually just a comical figure clown in the eyes of rulers and his loyal armed forces,.

He is a tragicomic figure demonstrating ignorance in action. He appeals to "leaders" to think and act for him, "Leaders", who out of similar ignorance and prejudices, have created the problem and preserve it and do not

see the answer, either. Both,. the Leaders and the Led, believe that self-help in freedom is not the answer and so they are both blind to the real and only solutions.

See: Alternatives, Ban the Bomb, Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Declarations, Disarmament , Enlightenment, Ignorance, Leadership, Militia, Myths, Open Air Speaking, Power, Protests, Propaganda, Resistance, Self-help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56

All services taken over by the governments must be denationalized, liquidated, reprivatized, defence, courts and police services included, if we are to avoid nuclear war.

See: Capitalism, Decentralization Defence, Economic Freedom , Exterritorial Imperative, Free Enterprise Governments; Human Rights, Laissez Faire, Liquidation of Governments, Market, Monopolies, Nationalism, Reprivatization, Self-help, Social Security, Targets.

The existence of depressions, recessions, credit restrictions and deflations with widespread unemployment is behind much of the ideological motivation for nuclear war. It has caused much to most of the East/West conflict. They have greatly contributed to e.g. W.W. I & II. They caused unnecessary desperation and hatreds and mass followings for demagogues indifference to the sufferings of others & readiness to work in ammunition and even in nuclear arms factories and nuclear armed forces. They misdirected the energies of people into nationalistic & territorial clashes in which nuclear devices are welcomed for "final solutions".

Depressed countries, forcefully kept from markets on which their livelihood depends (e.g., Japan before WW II), and unaware of the monetary freedom and international clearing options, will always be inclined towards the conquest of exclusive markets for themselves.

Full employment - for nuclear reactor personnel and nuclear weapons crews in some other, productive and rewarding jobs, is essential to induce them to change their jobs. No one among the recognized experts knows how to organize and finance, within hours or days at most, productive labour for millions of refugees and deserters. Those having that knowledge, provided they are free to apply it, need not fear millions of conscripted cannon fodder "attackers", deserters or refugees or millions of dissatisfied unemployed, but could very soon turn them into self-supporting and employed people, even into allies or at least into neutrals.

Only an end to monetary despotism, by the introduction of full monetary freedom, together with the other procedures and contracts of a free market, e.g., free trade, free pricing, floating exchange rates, unrestricted investments etc., can end and prevent depressions and other economic crises.

See: Arabs, Communism, Development, Employment, Experimental Freedom, Free Trade, Monetary Freedom, Secession, Unemployment.

Most of an enemy regime's strength can become one's own or an allied one - if one fights rightly and for a rightful cause. When one can induce mass desertions among numerically superior but conscripted conventional military forces of an enemy regime, then one will no longer be convinced that only nuclear devices could create a balance or a chance for victory or a successful defence. Through induced mass desertions most of an enemy's military strength could be turned against him. The problem is only how to bring this about.

See: Appeals, Declarations Disarmament Disobedience Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, Governments in exile, Human Rights, Liberation Wars, Military Insurrections, Militia, Minority Autonomy, Prisoners of War, Prize Money, Refugees, Revolutionary Warfare, Separate Peace, Tolerance Trust, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims. Many of the peace plans published so far, dealt with this aspect. The subject deserves a book-length treatment. Collaborators are wanted.

DESTRUCTION, PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION OF ALL NUCLEAR DEVICES & INSTALLATIONS

There is only one final safety valve against nuclear war: no nuclear weapons. There will be no nuclear weapons once the people are freed to destroy them or to supervise their destruction, once radioactive bomb materials are no longer available to anyone,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------57

nor any motives, facilities, manpower or finance for making such devices nor targets to use them against. Let us destroy all these possibilities, from all angles.

We should not retain any nuclear devices nor allow anyone to retain any. No one can be safely entrusted with nuclear power, least of all the rulers and military men. Nor is the U.N. or any other committee or congress fit for such power. Such power is inevitably immoral, since it is always practised without the consent of the victims, most of whom are innocent civilians.

There will be attempts to hide some atomic devices in secret caches. But these will finally be found and also rendered harmless - once public opinion becomes strong against them and freedom to act against such monstrous war mongers is established. We would have a situation similar to that a against kidnapping. Sooner or later a member of the kidnapping gang or a member of the public will supply the required information, revulsion against the murder of children being what it is.

Admittedly, as long as a single nuclear device remains there is no 100 % security achievable anywhere.

The physical destruction of nuclear devices encounters not only sociological difficulties and requires not only a very different spread of powers and responsibilities but it constitutes also a major physical problem: The radioactive materials cannot be neutralized, Their radioactivity cannot be brought to a stop, it must, at least according to the present state of science, run its course. It is effective as destructive bomb material because of its high concentration (like political despotic power, because of its centralization).

(In the limited nuclear disarmament agreed upon between the major powers, mainly for outdated nuclear bombs and rockets, the radioactive cores were preserved and could be used again! - J.Z., 13.10.01. This material must therefore either be efficiently decentralized, under sufficient guard, or spread or thinned out and dispersed or deeply and relatively safely buried - or shot into space, either into the sun or to one of the otherwise useless moons, e.g. of Jupiter, etc. This would require a large-scale technological effort and relatively much time. For the intermediate & revolutionary period some decentralizing steps ought to be taken which would render an abuse of the remaining concentrated materials very difficult. For instance, each small unit of the liberating militia forces could e. g. be entrusted with. for instance, about 1/10th. of the radioactive material required for one nuclear warhead. It would have to keep this material guarded like its ammunition and heavy weapons. Safe enough lead containers could easily be made. This would serve until the preparations are made for a wide enough dispersal of these materials in air, water or land, preferably the latter, from which they were concentrated by a great effort in the first place. The dispersal should be done so widely, or so deeply, that extensive and noticeable recovery efforts would be needed if anybody wanted to abuse these materials again. Such efforts would not remain unobserved. Earthquake cracks, volcanoes, edges of floating continents, moon or sun rockets ought to be considered apart from a thin distribution in desert sands, oceans or air space or burial in deep mines, in which the material is melted into or chemically bound into some form of insoluble artificial rock. Some of the techniques for the disposal of radioactive garbage will be found helpful.

This dispersal will take place controlled by and under the eyes of an armed populace. The actual work would be done by the nuclear scientists so far trained for war or war-promoting activities. It would be their last chance to make some money out of their specialized knowledge. They will be no more pleased than the suppliers of torture racks and of firewood for stakes were when the prosecution of "witches" was finally brought to an end.

The steps to be taken are: Find out where the weapons are, find alternative work for those guarding or producing them, occupy or conquer these places, hire the experts watch them dismantle the weapons, distribute the material, guard it until the final dispersal, invite foreign military attachés and soldiers delegates, the press, television, etc. to watch the dispersal closely. No secrets, Fullest publicity. In short: Let us as much as possible & nonviolently dissolve nuclear weapons materials into their atoms and molecules and distribute these as widely as possible from each other.

See : Atomic Energy, Control, Disarmament, Employment, Inspection, People, Public Opinion, Publicity, Referendums, Secrecy, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58

Most people rather believe that nuclear war isn't going to happen anyhow than believe that it could be prevented. It is so convenient for them to believe that, through the "nuclear deterrent", nuclear war would be avoided. They do not have to strain themselves looking for real solutions.

The nuclear deterrent is a deterrent but it is NOT the best one and it is NOT accompanied by an acceptable risk.

Once can safely admit that whatever deterrent effects nuclear devices have, may have prevented nuclear war for the last few decades. But this amounts to no more than a postponement. A deterrent which only buys us some time, which does not offer us a 100 % guaranty, is not good enough. No deterrent has ever offered this. Compare e .g. the history of the death penalty.

When accidents can happen they will happen - and mankind cannot afford accidents and miscalculations on that scale.

Deterrence offers no more than a probability. And probability considerations should take into account that men, who in conventional wars, are able and willing to advance bodily against machine gun fire, are not easily deterred. Suicidal courage is an all too common feature and the suicide statistics should teach the deterrence gamesters at least something.

To be sufficient, the nuclear deterrence must be 100%. But if it were then it would deter the defender as much as the attacker and it would thus cease to be an effective deterrence against large scale conventional wars which, with their own logic, and compulsions could escalate into nuclear holocaust, or would, in "total" warfare, come in their effects too close to nuclear holocaust to accept this risk with any degree of complacency .

Nothing, objectively, is worth defending at the price of nuclear war. Realization of this could very well be used to force the other side into submission.

Those who ought to be deterred most, the decision makers, are best protected and are the most irrational, power-hungry, misinformed and criminal ones.

The same kind of politicians who, because of the assassination of a single person, a crown prince, started World War I, in which they murdered about 10 million people, are suddenly supposed to be rational enough not to use cobalt bombs or other forms of massive retaliation. Considerations for mankind do not deter such people nor does fear for their own lives, especially as they might survive, at least for a while, in the best shelters available.

As the deterrent effect of physical injury or death was insufficient to prevent all duels between angry men, it can far less be relied upon to totally prevent something like nuclear holocaust from occurring. Fear does not keep men

from dangerous actions. On the contrary: It has its own fascination - not only for duelists and mountain climbers. All the risks taken with the nuclear strength policy are taken on the assumption that they are small enough to be acceptable. The ineffectiveness of fear as a deterrent in ordinary life is overlooked. Criminals are not sufficiently frightened by the possibility that they might be caught. Even death penalties have never prevented all crimes and neither the most efficient statist police force nor even freely competing private police forces could deter all criminals all the time and everywhere.

The fear on which the deterrence policy rests does actually make matters worse all the time - by further spurring on the nuclear arms race.

Was there ever a war prevented or stopped out of fear of its horrors? Compare the horrors of the 30-year war, 1618-1648, which reduced Germany's population from 25 million to 5 million. Remember the Kamikaze pilots of the Japanese and the Vietcong volunteers, who loaded themselves with high explosives at Dien Bien Phu - just to destroy the barbed wire for those who followed them. Soldiers have often braved knowingly mi-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59

ne fields and barrages lid by artillery, even gas attacks. If great fear were an effective deterrent, then there would never be any volunteer soldiers and we would soon run out of heroes and perhaps even of car drivers.

The deterrence theory simply misjudges the human character and ignores that in our instance nothing less than a completely incapacitating fear, induced in all people, would suffice, a fear which cannot be observed in practice. Do people panic in the face of nuclear threats? Do you see all around you people frightened out of their wits because nuclear war might occur any moment? Not even the overkill statistics of the nuclear arms race frighten them sufficiently to spur them into action. No they are rather apathetic or indifferent and go on building still more such bombs or warheads or at least go on paying for still more and "better" ones.

Why are civil defence preparations continued? Because people cannot face the threat of nuclear war? No, they accept and face it, "bravely", in their usual way. Some famous men even assured them: "With enough shovels…."

Even when, as in former and present wars, heads of state, as scapegoats or war criminals, risked their own necks also, they were not deterred from engaging in wars. There was never a real shortage of courage, even suicidal courage, among men. At most, a considerable number of subjects are deterred; leaders almost never are or never for sure and in this instance certainly not enough. Most of them risk tyrannicide or assassination every day!

Admittedly, rational beings would not want to harm themselves and others in this way. But where are the persons who are never irrational? Who would like biting his tongue and who doesn't, nevertheless, now and then? Compare the irrational attitude of rulers on price control. For thousands of years they have repeated the same mistake over and over again - just like all their other coercive utopias. They don't lack courage - but something else!

Only those are deterred, who fully realize the danger. But numerous public remarks made by men in power and in the lime-lights do prove that at least some of them have not fully realized the danger Among them are high-ranking military men. One single fearless American or "Socialists" might be enough to start the holocaust.

Are any of the rulers fully aware of he dangers and thus fully deterred? If that were the case, then they would destroy their own nuclear devices, even unilaterally. If rulers were rational, moral, self-interested, and if we and they could rely on that then they would not have built and kept these devices in the first place.

Some people might argue that poison gas was not used during WW II, either. But, poison gases were used in Abyssinia, China, Vietnam and recently in Yemen. Some forms of it are used by police forces around the world. Whosoever considers atomic devices as weapons will sooner or later be tempted to used them as such. As usual, people are mastered by words.

The deterrence policy ignores irrational and emotional states of mind among the monopolistic decision makers, states which could be due to sheer ignorance and insensitivity, inability to reap grasp large dangers and act on them, sleeplessness, madness, nervous breakdowns, the beastly nature of leaders like Hitler, a habit of ignoring dangers and risks and merely hoping for the best, while doing something foolish, in rage or lust for revenge, in drunkenness or other drug addiction, during a love sickness, suicidal mood, habitual power madness, fighting madness, destructive urges, inclination to engage in "practical jokes", and, last not least: the relatively safe shelters for decision makers. They are habituated to letting other people do most of the dying for them, upon command.

Technically, the deterrence policy overlooks a) the danger of self-ignition, b) the danger of "fail-safe" systems breaking down, c) technical errors e.g. in radar observations, d) wireless ignition of already planted bombs, and the escalation tendency in every fight.

Peace cannot rest comfortably or for long on the tips of nuclear destructive devices any better than on the points of bayonets. What the nuclear deterrent should really deter us from is: any further trust in any territorial governments, East or West, as defenders, protectors and liberators.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60

The deterrence theory is just a weak apology for a situation full of terrors. It blinds its adherents to the real solutions.

It is also a bluff - which may be called any time.

Among the real and effective deterrents are the following:

Knowledge of how to finance and otherwise conduct, initiate, motivate and win a revolution and military insurrection,

knowledge of revolutionary warfare methods,

widely enough spread and quite rightful public appeals and declarations,

tyrannicide preparations,

just war aims, well publicized,

the establishment of a really free and just society or societal framework, like the panarchistic one,

unilateral nuclear disarmament,

even official surrenders, under sufficient non-nuclear preparations for later effective resistance and liberation efforts.

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Cities, Collective Responsibility, Decisions, Defence, Enemy, Fail-safe, Madmen, Nuclear Strength, People, Power, Referendums, Targets, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Weapons.

Only free market development, including monetary freedom, can maximize development and overcome poverty as fast as possible. The U.S., in its beginnings, came closest, so far, to that approach. It was originally nothing more than another utopian colony attempt - but it was the only one which succeeded in the long run and on a large scale - to a degree which surprised even the participants and most observers and this for reasons is still not fully understood today by most people. When a free and rapid development takes place, a development which releases the creative energies of all, then ideological and national hatreds are likely to be at a minimum.

By means of individual secession and re-association, every individual member of a so far underdeveloped country could become a member of a developed community. There would be no hindrance for him to increase his earnings capacity and income from much below the present minimum wages in developed countries to far above them, nothing but his inherent abilities, willingness to learn and work. He could trade freely with anyone in the world, at least with all free traders.

Here, as everywhere, individualizing a problem goes furthest towards solving it.

See: Capitalism, Economic Freedom Free Enterprise, Free Migration, Free Trade, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Investments, Market, Monetary Freedom, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Protectionism, Racism, Segregation, Voluntarism.

All dictatorships must be overthrown. They do not only now and in the future threaten others with nuclear weapons but, as long as they exist, others will have reasons to be afraid of them and will feel inclined to attempt to defend themselves against them with all, even nuclear devices. This in spite of the fact that nuclear devices are objectively not the best but, instead, probably the worst means for a defence against dictatorships.

Every country in which only a handful have the decision making power on war and peace is, at least to that extent, a dictatorship. Every man who keeps nuclear weapons at his disposal is, at least to that extent, a dictator. Every dictatorship is supported by suppression of freedom of expression and information, no matter where they take place. To fight and overthrow dictatorships with rightful means, wherever and whenever possible, is a duty for all rational beings. How to do this in a just and efficient way is subject of a new science of libertarian revolutions. Students of such revolutions could not learn much or enough from the revolutions advocated or practised by totalitarians.

See: Censorship, China, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Defence, Demo-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61

cracy, Desertion, Enemy, Human Rights, Liberation Wars, Military Insurrections, Militia, Outlawry, Resistance Revolution, Revolutionary Warfare, Secession, Socialism, Soviet Union, Totalitarianism, Tyrannicide, War Aims.

Diplomacy is unjustified to the extent that it helps to monopolize negotiations, treaties & decision-making. Secret diplomacy is worse because its agreements are secret conspiracies against the people, They cannot stand publicity and must therefore be wrong, They lead to miscalculations, e.g., regarding the allies an adversary has and thereby may invite aggression. Compare WW I and WW II.

Conventional diplomacy is just an offshoot of inherently immoral powers and it is similarly tainted and defective. Don't expect anything from the secret councils of criminals and from their syndicate agreements. Moreover, our freedoms are not for diplomats to dispose of or to risk.

Open negotiations with the likely victims of nuclear war on the other side - negotiations by freedom-loving people, over the heads of rulers and disregarding their rulers' interests and ambitions are one way out. By means of free broadcasting free people could convey acceptable rightful and attractive offers even to oppressive people living under dictatorships and could make them act on these, even if they have no immediate opportunities for replies and dialogues. Thus it would be all the more necessary to make that one's peace and freedom offers quite rightful, clear, most attractive and trustworthy. Only the people are trustworthy enough where the lives of all are at stake. And only when there is full publicity can sufficient trust develop, Without sufficient trust there will be no unilateral nuclear disarmament moves and without such moves there will be no nuclear disarmament.

Let targets and motives be dissolved by allowing all minorities full autonomy. No official diplomacy, no secrecy, can improve upon this offer. Only the fullest publicity can. A diplomatic offer of this kind would not be trusted. One given by the people themselves, e.g. in large and broadcasted public meetings, one practised and demonstrated in the area of a former "nation", can and would be trusted.

Let representatives of the targeted people, representatives of large cities and, most of all, representatives of minorities desiring autonomy and willing to grant it to others, either get together or communicate with each other - and they would not require the services of professional diplomats to come to a sensible agreement.

See: Appeals, Broadcasting, Declarations, Disarmament, Governments, Miscalculations, Monopolies, Negotiations, Open Air Meetings, People, Publicity, Referendum, Trust, War Aims.

Multilateral disarmament undertaken by governments is a utopia. Territorial governments cannot trust each other. They have reasons for not trusting each other. They will cheat. They have the power to do so. They have always abused it in this way and will go on doing this. They cannot control each other. Their kind of "control" is victory in war and disarmament of the defeated. All disarmament conferences so far have confirmed that one cannot rely on governments coming to a multilateral nuclear disarmament agreement. Most conferences come to a stop already at the beginning because the delegates cannot agree on what they consider to be preconditions, like the size and shape of the conference table. The survival of mankind should not be made dependent on the political miracle in which all nuclear powers would agree on all points of a disarmament agreement and faithfully carry it out.

See: Control, Disarmament, Governments, Madmen, Nuclear Strength, Rulers, Trust.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62

Nuclear devices are in breach of the moral law and also contradict the current international laws on warfare - as they cannot be used without hurting noncombatants. Therefore, it is the duty of all citizens to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, i.e., to destroy them as well as all production centres for more nuclear weapons.

Nuclear disarmament need not be part of a total disarmament. On the contrary , it should not be. Firearms may well be necessary for the people to take over and destroy the anti-people weapons which are now protected against them with conventional arms.

Governments believing in nuclear strength cannot be relied upon to undertake nuclear disarmament. They could not even control a disarmament agreement effectively. But they could be relied upon to attempt to prevent nuclear disarmament through their arms-, military organization - and political power monopolies, which amount also to a monopoly to undertake disarmament moves.

The people themselves should decide on the necessity for and extent of disarmament and should control it themselves.

While they might delegate some subordinate tasks to governmental agencies and tech disarmament jobs to specialists, none but the majority of citizens could effectively carry out and control nuclear disarmament.

The disarmament referendum would set a short period for the government to carry out the ban on nuclear devices and the destruction clause for all of them and their production and research facilities. After this period the people are to take matters into their own hands. But, at least from the moment on that the referendum has decided against nuclear weapons and, preferably, as from now, the veil of secrecy surrounding them is to be lifted and all citizens are to act as spotters to prevent attempts to hide some ABC devices away. The "Spies for Peace" did have a rightful idea.

Luckily, nuclear weapons cannot defend or destroy nuclear weapons - except in a suicidal way. This is the weakness of these extremely destructive devices, their Achilles heel.

Nuclear devices can be taken and destroyed on the ground, without using nuclear devices against them. It would be easiest with the full cooperation of those supposed to use them against us or against other people. This requires concessions to their thinking and rightful aspirations, concessions which neither our nor their rulers are likely to grant them, a trust which only a very popular movement on our side could inspire, a movement so motivated and organized that it could be trusted even by these indoctrinated to regard us as enemies.

Unless the people attempting to occupy and destroy nuclear weapons stores have made it quite clear that they are anti-totalitarians and favour e.g., anticommunist revolutions and are actively working to promote them, the guards of these stores might interpret their actions as an attack by communist saboteurs and might thus be motivated into a nuclear attack against Soviet Russia or Red China.

If the disarmament is undertaken only after a referendum has insisted upon the destruction of nuclear device, then this danger becomes very much reduced. Other enlightening steps ought to be taken.

Let us establish and train an ideal volunteer citizen army, in form of local militia forces, realizing individual rights even for their members and aiming at nothing but the protection of individual rights, as a force for the destruction; unilateral destruction, of all nuclear devices and installations, and let us initiate the establishment of such armies elsewhere.

See: Control, Decision, Democracy, Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, Governments, Inspection, Militia, Morality, Nuclear Strength, People, Referendum, Research, Safeguards, Space Weapons, Submarines, Targets, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63

Military discipline of the old type can make automatons out of soldiers and can make them obey any command, no matter how immoral, irrational and even self-destructive it may be. ALL military organizations based on such discipline must be dissolved. In the ideal military force, the local militias of volunteers for the protection of human rights, it must be replaced by a largely self-imposed moral and rational discipline, which would even include drills on how to effectively disobey and resist wrongful orders and prevent them from being carried out by others.

Cromwell's "Ironsides" offer the largest example of an army whose military efficiency was not decreased but increased by its men enjoying basic rights and following their consciences.

See: Thomas Babington Macauly, "The History of England from the Accession of James II," Vol., 1 quoted in peace plan 51.

See: Disobedience, Human Rights, Immorality, Militia, Morality, Obedience, Soldiers' Rights, Subordination.

The discrimination necessary for the conduct of a moral and effective defence cannot be achieved with mass murder and mass destruction devices or with collectivist war aims. As long as collectivist premises and institutions prevail, not even the need for discrimination will be recognized and non-discriminating means like atomic mass murder devices are considered as just right.

Every compulsory discrimination against liberty amounts to indiscriminate warfare against all.

See: Air Raids, Bombers, Collective Responsibility, Desertion, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Indiscriminate Warfare, Individual Responsibility, Personal Law, Police Actions, Prisoners of War, Scorched Earth Policy, Secession, Separate Peace, Segregation, Tolerance, War Aims, Weapons.

Disobedience towards men with nuclear powers is a virtue or moral duty. So is every lie, deception, ruse, conspiracy, espionage, resistance act, revolution, treason and insurrection against them. They are the common enemies of mankind.

Military disobedience towards orders to use mass murder weapons is among the highest military duties and should be accompanied by either arrest or immediate execution of the one giving the order. Otherwise, someone else might obey.

Government declarations, that they would not be the first to use nuclear mass murder devices, are unlikely to be trusted - because they are unlikely to be trustworthy. If. however, the people themselves would declare, in large public and well publicized meetings, that would not obey but rather resist their government - if it wanted to or did commit aggression against another people, then such a declaration could become effective. Such a declaration could be given without endangering those making it. They could always state that they assume that their own government would never commit aggression but that in case it would do so, or prepare to do so, e. g. after a putsch, then they would no longer obey it. If such declarations were also given by soldiers and armed citizens, well trained in effective resistance and liberation methods, then it would have weight.

Disobedience against every command to commit aggression is an important step towards the prevention of nuclear war.

A well defined concept of aggression would embrace all preparations for nuclear war as aggressive acts and would lead all peace loving people to a commitment to disobey all nuclear powers.

All large scale and violent suppressions of or threats against important human rights will in future also be considered as constituting "aggression" and justifying resistance.

See: Aggression, Appeals, Decision, Declarations, Defence, Desertion, Disarmament,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64

Enemy, Human Rights, Oath, Obedience, Outlawry, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Sovereignty, Subordination, Surrender, Trust, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

Unity is not worth fighting for - unless it is voluntary, i.e. a genuine unity.

Diversity is worth fighting for - because it implies voluntarism and individualism - unless it is interpreted & practised as compulsory segregation.

Divided we stand, united we fall, could be a slogan for ending the nuclear age.

If you want peace, you should make diversity instead of unity your aim.

See: Alternatives, Autonomy, Centralization, Competing Governments, Decentralization, Exterritorial Imperative Freedom, Laissez Faire, Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Secession, Segregation, Targets, Tolerance, Uniformity, Unity, War Aims.

No more than 30 Nitrogen bombs could wipe out mankind - was a 1954 estimate - and the former British Foreign Secretary Mr. Morrison ,as well as the Japanese Prof. Asada, declared that the Soviet Union was producing them. People mad enough to think of building doomsday bombs - or for that matter any nuclear device - or actually doing it, should not be entrusted with any powers or weapons and must be deprived of both.

See: Decision, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Disobedience, Indiscriminate Warfare, Nuclear Strength, Overkill, Power, Publicity, Resistance, Revolution, Soviet Union, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Weapons. Compare the film: "Dr. Strangelove".

Those, who are not senseless but rightly feel helpless in their present predicament, are often inclined to take narcotic drugs. Once they have taken them they are even less likely to understand how their helplessness could be ended. Drug users are not likely to be in the forefront of preventing nuclear war. Drugged minds are not innovative or especially intelligent minds. (Coffee and tea, in moderate doses, appear to be exceptions as they tend to stimulate brain activity in most people.) Most people are irrational enough without being under the influence and by now a single drugged or drunken OIC of a rocket battery or submarine might start off the nuclear holocaust. Thus abstention from all narcotic drugs, unless for medical purposes and under medical supervision, is one of the many steps help helping to prevent nuclear war. If you set a bad example in this respect, the commander of a nuclear rocket battery might just follow it. - See: Alcohol.

If there are any duties at all, the foremost would be to work towards peace and a free and just society. Such a society is impossible as long as there are nuclear devices and similar devices for mass extermination, as long as not even the survival of man is ensured. Thus I assert, it is every man's foremost duty to do his share to help destroy all these devices - to give himself and his children and mankind another chance.

See: Disarmament, Disobedience, Freedom, Human Rights, Resistance, Social Contract, Surrender, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65

Only when the two or more involved in trading are completely free can they contract for maximum mutual benefit and will no one be deprived of what is his, and disagreements will then not lead to clashes between powers. Economic freedom is thus a basic requirement for perpetual peace whilst every forceful redistribution of earnings constitutes a warlike act. Economic freedom alone could create and distribute wealth justly and sufficiently wide to reduce envy, robbery and domination motives to a tolerable level.

Collectivist, national, regulated, restricted and centrally planned economies do clash easily because they are based not directly on production and exchange but on monopolies and coercive exploitation, on mutual enslavement attempts instead of mutual convenience offers. Nevertheless, for a variety of motives and beliefs, economic freedom has not many supporters left and it isn't fully realized anywhere on earth so that no convincing example exists.

Economic freedom should therefore be introduced only subject to individual choice and its spread should have to rely on the success of its first undisturbed experiments and its gradual. voluntary acceptance by finally converted people.

For the time being, all advocates of individual liberty in the economic sphere should therefore merely insist upon tolerance for their kind of actions among themselves. It would grant them all they can rightly ask for and only in this way would they not block their own best chance for converting others to their convictions. It would have to be a tolerance in the sphere of actions, a tolerance for all tolerant economic, social and political experiments which differ from the present ones, exclusively undertaken by governments.

Individual secession, contractual freedom and minority autonomy - all on an exterritorial and voluntary basis, would provide a sound framework for such alternatives. They would also supply safety valves to prevent aggression by the followers of economic or rather anti-economic or neo-comic theories. Tolerance would allow all ideologies and utopias to be freely practised - but among volunteers only and at their expense and risk. It would not allow them to grow dangerously strong. They could grow only upon successes and not on the basis of continuous failures.

See: Communism, Contracts, Cooperative Production, Crises, Depressions, Employment, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Free Trade, Government, Human Rights, Individualism, Inflation, Investments, Laissez Faire, Libertarianism, Market, Minority Autonomy, Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, Motives Myths, Natural Resources, Poverty, Prejudices, Property, Rights, Socialism, Tax Strike, Tolerance, Voluntarism., Voluntary Taxation, War Aims.

Those genuinely concerned with ecology would be interested in preventing the wiping out of a rare species, a species which may be unique in the universe: homo sapiens. (The trouble with homo sapiens is that he isn't sapient enough!) Probably no threat to almost all life on earth is as great as that posed by the nuclear power maniacs. And if the ecologists are not interested in the preservation of their own species at all, by preventing a nuclear holocaust, then they should at least be interested in the preservation of butterflies and birds against such dangers. Alas. But lately they have at least become interested in the pollution and war promoting aspects of nuclear reactors and have in some instances successfully opposed this threat. There is only one political system which leaves every single human being in his rightful ecological niche: the one based on individual choice, on exterritorial autonomy for one and for all volunteers. It does not place anyone out of his natural environment and into a zoo or laboratory for observation, exploitation and manipulation by others.

See: Conservation, Exterritorial Imperative, Panarchy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66

Centralized, planned national, legal, collectivist, bureaucratic, welfare statist or outright state socialistic or communistic control of the economy, all of them deny the possibility of harmonious economic interrelationships, the existence of individual human rights to the economic sphere, of rights to do something for oneself instead of raising claims against others or being enslaved by the claims of others.

All coercive economic measures amount to political domination, to a dictatorship in particular but extensive and overlapping spheres, and they lead to the build-up of monster States which in the end will arm themselves with nuclear mass murder devices against each other.

All those who take from the able to give to he needy, who gain legal monopolies and privileges like exclusive licences, a central banking monopoly, or who merely authorize taxation by their votes, are thereby declaring a war of conquest, domination and exploitation against their fellow men. This kind of war underlies almost most all civil and national wars. On such a basis no lasting peace is possible.

See: Blockades, Boycott, Class Warfare, Communism, Cooperative Production, Employer-Employee-Relationship, Free Trade, Inflation, Investments, Market, Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies, Nationalism, Protectionism, Restrictions, Socialism, Social Security, Statism, Strikes, Taxation, Territorial Imperative, Union Violence, Voluntarism, Voluntary Taxation, Welfare State.

Man's mind is at present crippled and prejudiced by compulsory mass and miseducation. Alternative education approaches are a must if sufficient people are to be enabled to grasp what must be done. Those taught to see in the government the savior from all problems will not be able to see in it the creator of most remaining and man-made problems. What school does e. g. not instill territorial nationalistic prejudices - which are suicidal at this stage? What school does not teach e. g. wrong ideas on unity, a unity which creates and preserves nuclear targets?

State financed universities sometimes participate in nuclear research - just to improve their funding. Without government financing hardly any of the research and training which went into the building of nuclear mass murder devices would have taken place.

See: Alternatives, Cultural Revolution, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Government, Ideas Archive, Ignorance, Market, Prejudices, Research, Statism, Welfare State.

No officer who would lead them into an aggressive war is likely to be elected by soldiers possessing a minimum of rationality. Others solders should no longer be employed & armed in the future. Who would elect officers to lead him into a nuclear war? No officer favoring nuclear armament is likely to be elected by soldiers realizing that such arms would turn them into primary nuclear targets.

The election of officers, at least in stages, as happened during the French Revolution, in its National Guard, could go up to the highest military offices and could thus influence or be decisive in the choice of weapons.

Freedom's soldiers would not only have the right to vote on who is to be their commander and for how long and under what circumstances and conditions and within what limits, but they would also decide upon what weapons they are to keep in readiness. They are not likely to vote for ABC or other anti-people "weapons". Last, not least, the voluntary membership of an ideal militia force would prevent subjection to incapable cruel or dictatorial officers. Officers elected by military forces fighting consciously for rightful war aims would be different from those which would be elected by conscripts or career soldiers. Un-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67

popular wars could hardly be fought with elected officers. This is one more argument in favour of electing them, See: Decision, Democracy, Disarmament, Disobedience, Militia, Obedience, Recall, Soldiers' Rights, Subordination, Voting.

The members of the elite are as much statists or more so than those whom they are supposed to lead. The elite hasn't fully recognized the danger of nuclear war and its causes and far less has done anything against it. Obviously, in spite of there being more Doctors and Professors in existence now than there were ever before, no genuine elite exists any longer. Our present recognized "elite", in the shadow of the nuclear bomb, confines itself to word games, the discussion of art, literature, esoteric or second-rate scientific problems. They might even espouse still more statist "principles" and institution's which help to increase the nuclear threat.

Only those who recognize their duty to think about the problem until they have found the solution and who then start to realize it, belong to the new elite required.

See: Duty, Experts, Leadership, Reason, Self-help, Statism, Value-free Society.

Break down all walls and armed frontiers which prevent peaceful citizens from escaping their tormentors. Do not wait until they can prove to you that they were politically prosecuted. Few will survive such trials or retain a chance to flee afterwards. Their will to emigrate from a dictatorship or large degree of under-development should be enough. No other motive should be required than a will to improve one's personal freedom and economic condition. Our own ancestors usually had no better motive when they spread all over the world. Today's emigrants have the same right.

England made once a name for herself by breaking the slave trade, using its navy for this. A similar armed effort is now required to break down barriers set up by governments holding their own citizens in captivity or keeping immigrants out. The Berlin Walt is a concrete example of captivity, someone said.

Fortifications have rarely held against a determined and well prepared attack. The frontier obstacles of East Germany, for instance, could probably be destroyed without the toss of a single life, by using guided and armed drones.

One of the best ways to destroy border would be to induce mass desertions by those supposed to guard the borders, the frontier guards. East German policemen supposed to guard the frontier have already deserted by the thousands. Proper invitations and treatment for them might have attracted the majority of these guards.

See: Asylum, Boundaries, Captive Nations, Defence, Desertion, Dictatorships, Disobedience, Employment, Frontiers, Governments in Exile, Immigration, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Prize Money, Refugees, Revolutionary Warfare.

Emotions do not offer a way out of the nuclear war dilemma. Compare e.g. the CND movement a few years back. Emotions rather fan hatreds, misunderstandings, irrational reactions and revenge ideas and could thus promote nuclear retaliation or aggression.

See: Class Warfare Ideology, Collective Responsibility, Demonstrations, Deterrence, Enemy, Escapism, Exterritorial Imperative, Ignorance, Leadership, Nationalism, Prejudices, Protests, Reason, Revenge, Statism, Tolerance, War Aims.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------68

The employer-employee relationship is a remnant of the old feudalistic relationship. It applies the "rule or be ruled" mentality to production, an ideology which now, due to Marx's elaboration, threatens to lead us into nuclear war. Only individually or cooperatively self-employed people are immune to state socialist ideas

See: Class Warfare, Communism, Cooperative Production, Hierarchical Production, Ideological Warfare, Purchase of Enterprises, Socialism.

For all those rendered unemployed by nuclear disarmament and by the dissolution of the old armed forces, and for refugees and deserters as well, full employment is one of the most important objectives. It would be achieved by realizing the practices, principles and institutions of monetary freedom in combination with free pricing, free trading and unrestricted savings, investments and capital transfers. Such radical economic liberties could most easily be introduced on the bases of autonomous experiments among volunteers. From the successes of the first few such experiments they could rapidly spread via more and more volunteers for these rights and opportunities.

Employment offers should not only be made in the abstract but concretely, by declarations of employers that they have so and so many jobs waiting at such and such wages for people unemployed due to the revolution against nuclear armament.

Enterprises could contribute to full employment and utilize their full production potential up to the limit of their market and could widen this market to its optimum, by issuing their own notes, in standardized money denominations and using them in payment for all their expenses at free market rates. Their own obligation would consist merely in their readiness to accept all their own notes in payment, from anyone, for all their goods and services, at any time, at their nominal value. For details see e. g., Dr. Walter Zander's "Railway Money and Unemployment", reprinted in Peace Plans No. 9. These enterprises would pay their suppliers, dividends, profits, salaries and wages in their own notes, to the extent that these would be freely accepted. Through retailers, wholesalers and clearing these notes would come into the hands of those who could use the goods and services offered or have other debts to pay to the issuer - and the circle would be closed.

People who are free to put claims against their own labour or products into circulation, in so acceptable form that they could pay all their expenses with them, without having to force anyone to accept their notes, would never be unemployed or suffer sales difficulties. These claims would soon come back to them to be redeemed in their labour, services and products. That is why freedom to issue money promotes employment. It provides sufficient media of exchange to let all desired exchanges take place. It does not reduce the exchanges possible and easy to the quantity for which monopolized exchange media are made available. It provides the quantity and quality of exchange media the market desires and needs.

The most suitable issuers would be associations or retailers of consumer goods and services associations which could use the variety of goods and services of their members as their "redemption fund". These stores and providers or utilities, which constitute, in reality, the short-term backing, or shop-foundation, readiness to accept or debt foundation, for any currency, even gold coin currency, could supply at least the required local currencies. Free private issuers, on the basis of private contracts, could fully mobilize all the ready for sale stores and service potential and with this turn-over credit capital finance full employment.

See: Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, Unemployment, Peace Plans 8-11, especially No. 10.

Territorial statism, which promotes nuclear war, rests on numerous prejudices, errors and myths. They are so numerous and support each other so well that only an encyclopaedic approach has a chance to defeat them, effectively and lastingly, provided it would collect and make accessible the best refutations so far found for each of them.

See: Cultural Revolution, Education, Enlightenment, Ignorance, Myths, Prejudices.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69

"He has ceased to be, for me, that monstrous abstraction which he was for all of us during the war years." - said André Chamson, Readers Digest, 12/62.

In most wars people fight against imagined enemies. Almost never have military actions been directed against the real enemy and his voluntary supporters only, Thus one way to get rid of most of ones enemies consists in merely defining them properly. The "them" and "us" distinction is an emotional, not a rational one, and it leads to disasters on a national scale. There are no national enemies or enemy nations. There are only enemies of individuals and individual enemies. There are no communist nations for instance but merely more or less aware victims of communism, including the fanatic communists, who are themselves engaged in an endless and costly struggle against their ill defined enemy "capitalism".

Generalizations are deadly. The enemy concept of most people is no more than an unjustified generalization. Those who do not know their real enemy (particularly in international wars) consider almost everyone who is somewhat associated with him as a national enemy, and even if the "association" be it only by the colour of his skin or uniform or tax declaration or place of birth, language or custom. Then, unaware of their real enemy, they fight their secret friends or allies or neutrals, i.e., those people who the real enemy pretends to be loyal subjects or voluntary allies, although they are forced to pay, work, march and fight for him. In other words: The principle of collective responsibility dominates the world and the condition of the world is correspondingly bad. Those making such unjustified generalizations are among the real enemies of all innocent persons. But this enemy ought not to be killed but enlightened.

In the same way as frequently not the people on the other side are your enemies but, instead, their rulers, so often neither a foreign government nor a foreign people but your own rulers are your worst enemies and your public enemy is your private friend. Then applies what Marion Purzo said in: "The Dark Arena", pages 78:

"Our enemies are behind us and commit the crimes for which we die."

In reality, as Patrick Brookes said : "There is no such thing as a collective enemy."

Those wanting to use nuclear devices do also fail to define the enemy properly and thus act as if he would include e.g. women, children, old and sick people. Those so ignorant, that they cannot distinguish between an aggressive government and its conscripted subjects, should not be entrusted with any power, any firearms, far less with nuclear devices.

No enemy is so bad that he ought to be wiped out with his whole family, house, garden, pets, neighbourhood, everything, risking even one's own destruction.

Anyone who thinks it is justified to give the Sodom and Gomorra treatment to any city is mad - by fancying himself as an avenging God, and he certainly does not love but hate mankind.

Enemies declare themselves by their actions and beliefs. Anyone who believes in the principle of collective responsibility of innocent people for the actions of others or, if he is not fully intellectually aware of his belief, nevertheless acts in accordance with this principle, is not only an enemy of a particular nation, race, ideology but an enemy of mankind. These enemies of mankind have, through their leaders, access to nuclear mass murder devices, the ideal tools to impose something as abominable as collective responsibility.

To a large extent enemies to not exist at all but are made, either by the real enemy or by yourself or by some involuntary and inexplicit cooperation between you and your real enemy. Enemies are e.g. "made", or, better, marked as such, by the uniforms they are forced to wear and by the customs and international laws that regard anyone as an enemy who is uniformed and armed and may thus to be treated according to the old soldier's habit of "shoot first and ask questions later." They are made e.g. by self-defence being forced

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70

upon them:

"Nobody should expect friends in a village hit by napalm." (A remark by Dennis Warner, quoted from memory only.) Nobody should expect to be considered as a friend if he applies the scorched earth policy, shoots hostages, mistreats prisoners and deserters, dictatorially dominates an occupied territory, rapes its women, extorts goods and services, doesn't declare rightful war aims or doesn't stick to them, or, worst of all if he threatens with or uses mass extermination devices. In short: The best way to make enemies is to treat them as enemies. Even your friends will predictably react to this kind of treatment.

Once we learn to see and recognize the real enemy we soon learn how to defeat him easily: "...Russia was a nation occupied by an internal enemy", said Eugene Lyons in: "Our Secret Allies, the Peoples of Russia", Arco, London, 1954 p,121. One might, add : "and such enemies are enemies of all other people as well."

In the same work, on pages 51-53, Lyons wrote:

"German leaders, who survived the war, realize today that in Russia they could have saved hundreds of thousands of German lives, and possibly avoided defeat in the East, had Hitler not insisted that 'any Russian is the enemy' Hitler, we now know, disdained those who sought to make allies of the Russians as 'emotionally soft'. Yet Red troops deserted and surrendered en masse as long as they believed the Germans would distinguish between the communist minority and the rest of the country. The despised Russians, upon discovering that they were all 'the enemy', rallied around the Kremlin and licked the emotionally hard Nazis... "

"... Both, in averting war or in winning war, are we not better off with friends in the adversary's empire? The toughness that cuts off its strategic nose to spite its face, I dare suggest, is neither logical nor mature. Softness, as mankind's teachers have tried to convey, may have a strength of its own, even in terms of expediency. Thomas Paine wrote: 'He who would make his liberty secure must guard his enemy from oppression.'...

"To concede a solidarity in the Soviet camp that does not exist. to reject allies out of hand, amounts to giving the Kremlin a valuable victory by default. It repeats the Hitler mistake of turning millions of Russian allies into implacable enemies. Though our potential friends in the USSR were a handful, we would have no alternative in common sense but to enlist them on our side of the struggle...

"But do not all free-world journalists and statesmen make the same arbitrary assumption of Soviet unity every time they talk of 'the Russians', whether in praise or in blame, when they have reference to the Soviet regime? Are they not supinely conforming with the central myth manufactured by the pro-Kremlin crowd?

"The maintenance and strengthening of this myth is of life-and-death importance to the Soviets. By the same token its exposure and demolition is of life-and-death importance to the non-Soviet world. Already the Kremlin has won too many facile victories, at home and in the international arena, by using the prestige of presumptive inner strength and solidarity, by making us swallow the biggest of its Big Lies.

"The belief that Russia and oppression are inseparable Siamese twins has no validity in logic or in the historical experience of the rest of mankind. Millions of Russians have died to disprove this defeatist assumption. The fact that their struggle has not yet succeeded proves exactly nothing about the future."

We ought to prick the balloon of the popular enemy concept - in order to get the problem of war prevention down to manageable proportions. Once the enemy is properly defined, he will be found to be so small in numbers and power that a small and relatively cheap police action could cope with him.

What ought to be done against the real enemy?

Let the enemy be properly defined by individual choice and secession.

Make your own enemies - or friends. Do not let anyone, not even your government, tell you who your enemies or friends are supposed to be!

Follow as far as possible the old maxim: "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make a friend of him!"

From the viewpoint rightful war aims, the uniformed and conscripted enemy soldiers are our most important but so far still secret and in-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71

active allies, potential allies at least. It depends on us whether we turn them into real enemies or real allies:

Use every opportunity for rightful public appeals and declarations, negotiations and separate peace treaties. Conclude an alliance with governments-in-exile on the basis of rightful war aims.

Appeal to the soldiers on the other side to fight for their rightful government, a government of their own individual choice.

Act as a liberator not as a conqueror.

Remove all wrongful threats against them - like ABC mass murder devices and threats of domination.

Remove these threats even from communists. Allow even them minority autonomy based on individual sovereignty.

This would remove most war promoting or prolonging motives and prevent people being turned into scapegoats.

Fight with the utmost discrimination between conscripts and self-made enemies. Offer even the latter an attractive and peaceful way out.

Fight the remaining enemies only in a rightful way, with no atrocities, granting pardon and treating prisoners of war properly.

Then the old proverb will come true again which says that: "a wise enemy is worth more than a foolish friend."

See: Air Raids, Alien Acts, Amnesty, Appeals, Asylum, Blockades, Bombers, Borders, Boycotts, Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Conscription, Decision, Declarations, Definitions, Democracy, Desertion Deterrence, Disarmament, Discriminatory War, Dictatorship, Emigration, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Trade, Frontiers, Governments, Governments in Exile, Ideas, Immigration, Leadership, Nationalism, Negotiations, Noncombatants, Nuclear strength, Open Cities, Outlawry, Peace Declaration, Police Actions, Prejudices, Prisoners of War, Propaganda, Publicity, Red/Dead, Revolutionary Warfare, Rulers, Secession, Secret Allies, Separate Peace, Sovereignty, Strength, Targets, Territorial Organization, Treason, Tolerance, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Unity, War Aims, Weapons.

Those who ignore the function of free pricing and who exclude free enterprise from providing energy on a businesslike basis, do create thereby energy shortages and then want to overcome them with the establishment of nuclear reactors. They overtook the war promoting effects of nuclear reactors, the radiation hazards involved, the shortage of reactor materials (they are likely to run out before coal), the availability of numerous undeveloped other energy sources, the high costs of nuclear power, the high transmission costs and the existence of the biggest reactor of all, one whose energy is, directly, barely touched, although it is the only one which could be used safely and does not cost anything to establish. We need only to tap its energy effectively: the sun.

See: Atomic Reactors, Geothermal Energy, Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy, Sun Energy, Tidal Energy, Wind Energy.

The people to are not well enough informed on how great and acute the danger is. They are hoodwinked by misleading propaganda for the so-called peaceful use of nuclear energy and in favour of governments as the only defenders - when in reality they are the main aggressors. Ask your defence minister and a foreign ambassador how many nuclear devices their national governments have, what power these devices have, under what circumstances they would be used and what would be the likely losses - and how they are going to prevent this danger without more than mouthing pious hopes, wishes and generalities. Only unrestricted enlightenment on every aspect of the nuclear threat and on every rightful counter-measure can show us the way out.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Censorship, Cultural Revolution, Encyclopaedia of

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72

Refutations, Immorality, Myths, National Security, Peaceful Use, Prejudices, Propaganda, Publicity, Secrecy, Statism, War Aims.

"The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." - said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

"Remember that you need enthusiasm to accomplish great things."- remarked St. Simon.

"A burning purpose attracts others who are drawn along with it and help fulfil it." - stated Margaret Bourke-White, in "Portrait of Myself".

How can one build up enthusiasm for a practicable program to prevent nuclear war? One cannot appeal to the survival instinct. See: Survival Instinct. One cannot appeal to conventional nationalism or to religious fervor. See: Nationalism, Religion. Only appeals to rational thinking and the moral instinct are possible. Both are still underdeveloped in most. See: Immorality, Human Rights Justice, Morality, Reason.

Activists could be gained by the freedom of action part of the program. But enthusiasm is required to make people attempt to understand, spread and practice every part of the program. How?

Reason and the feeling of discovery or of having learned a lesson, do also fire enthusiasm - but all too rarely and in all too few. More common are the instances of ignorant enthusiasm which does not inspire reasoning, e.g. the common run of activist pacifism, full of enthusiasm for petitions, marches, demonstrations, leafleting and slogan chanting.

One you become aware that nuclear war really could be prevented and that you yourself could do something, no matter how little, to prevent it, furthermore, that the prevention of nuclear war would mean the introduction of an ideal, free, just and peaceful society, your enthusiasm should be large enough to influence your actions and be persuasive and infective towards others, knowledge being the mother of eloquence. For, the same reason, if you are still short of enthusiasm, you should become aware that you do not see the full-picture yet.

An Archive of Ideas (see there) and an Encyclopaedia of Refutations (see there ) are likely to be among the main tools to build up a healthy enthusiasm. Naturally, it is much easier to become enthusiastic for simple ideas.

Can people be induced at all to struggle as enthusiastically for the realization of human rights as they have so frequently fought against them? The struggle of the original Swiss communities, that of Cromwell's Ironsides, that of the American Revolution, some aspects of the French Revolution and the potential for an ideal militia force do make me "somewhat cautiously" optimistic. From this confession you may rightly conclude that I do not clearly see the full picture either as yet. It is perhaps, like the free market, too large a picture to become quite clearly envisioned, in all its interrelationships and complexities, and one person, in his lifetime, may only become able ton fully understand a few points and be somewhat effective only regarding them. No one has the ability and knowledge to become an effective monarch or dictator. The release of everyone's creative energy or a market-like approach to "social reform" or liberation is required.

To help build up enthusiasm authors are needed who could turn e.g. the main contents of this compilation into popular films, plays, novels, stories, songs and poems.

See: Apathy, Boredom, Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Freedom of Action, Ideas/ Large, Militia, Motives, Oaths, Powerlessness, Propaganda, Referendums, Self-help, Self-responsibility

Any use, no matter how small, of destructive nuclear devices does bear the inherent risk of limitless escalation until all nuclear stores have been used up. The more "effec-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73

five" these weapons appear to be in the short run, the stronger the pressure will be to achieve still better effects by using larger or more such devices. We engage here in something as senseless and bloody as blood revenge between governments.

Indeed, any political or military incident could nowadays escalate into full scale nuclear war. It came close to a nuclear war when Red China and Taiwan struggled for the off-shore island Quemoy and the Matsu Islands. Several times it came close to the holocaust through some fighting around Israel and there the incidents amount to hundreds every year. The only safe way to prevent the escalation risk is to destroy all nuclear devices, no matter how "small" and also all facilities for their production, including the "peaceful" nuclear reactors.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Collective Responsibility, Decision, Deterrence, Disarmament, Nuclear Strength, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

The search for amusements distractions, entertainment, games, conventional dropping out of hippies, the use of various narcotic drugs, they are all attempts of escapism, to some extent also from the threat of nuclear war. Yawning, boredom going to sleep in a discussion on nuclear war, walking away from it or starting to talk about something else, are all instances of such escapism and they are all too common.

The more hopeless a situation appears to be, the more will people grasp at diversions within their power. Not knowing how to act freely, directly, rightfully and rationally against certain dangers or being legally prevented from doing so, they will at least tend to please themselves by stimulating their senses within the narrow sphere of action and time they have left. The excess drinking of soldiers in wartime is a good instance. In such actions they see the only way to get at least some value out of the rest of their lives and to forget the threats hanging over them. "Aprés mois la deluge!" expresses their attitude well.

Naturally, this kind of behaviour makes the realization of the threat, which they are rightly afraid of, all the more likely. They are thus self-fulfilling prophets of doom by committing the sins of omission. If you live it up you are unlikely to live it out.

It must be admitted that they are quite right in feeling powerless - in their present situation and that their behaviour is understandable as they do not see the long but certain way out of their labyrinth. A feasible and clear program might help many of them to overcome this kind of apathy and resignation.

See: Alcohol, Apathy, Drugs, Emotional Way of Life, Freedom of Action, Myths, Prejudices.

Espionage could be rightful if , e.g., it were not used to hand nuclear devices, or information on them, to other criminals but if, instead, it were used to facilitate the destruction of these devices or of those who have their fingers on the nuclear buttons. Espionage to protect human rights is no crime. Espionage to attack them or keep them suppressed is.

Could there be anything more unethical than mass extermination devices, their building, stockpiling and use? They punish the innocent, cannot be used discriminately and do inevitably apply the "principle" of collective responsibility. They can be used only against a wrongly defined enemy. They are not really weapons at all. They can serve only immoral aims. They offend against every single human right by threatening the basic one to life and physical inviolability.

To possess such a power is in itself immoral. It amounts to absolute a power which cor-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74

rupts absolutely. The coercive State which developed, keeps, has motives to use and is likely to use nuclear devices, is in itself unethical because it is not founded on unanimous consent in its establishment, its aims and its actions. Those who would suffer most from a nuclear war have presently the least power to prevent it. Those most responsible for nuclear war can presently not be held responsible. Nuclear power is organized extreme irresponsibility Nevertheless, while those threatening others with genocide deserve to be executed at every opportunity which offers itself or can be arranged, as tyrants, they would have to be granted amnesty in case they surrendered a nuclear device, so that still further bloodshed and destruction will be avoided. While the God of our legends needed 6 days to create the world, our overlords need less than a day to destroy it. Should we continue to obey, pay and serve such demons? What rights and duties has a rational being against them?

See: Aggression, Air Raids, Amnesty, Collective Responsibility, Consent, Decision, Defence, Democracy, Discriminatory War, Desertion, Disobedience, Duty, Enemy, Government, Human Rights, Immorality, Individual Responsibility, Indiscriminate Warfare, International Law, Militia, Morality, Nuclear Strength, Outlawry, Power, Referendum, Resistance, Responsibility, Rights, Secession, Self-defence, Self-help, Social Contract, Sovereignty, State, Socialism, Subordination, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, Voluntary Taxation, Voting, War Aims.

Most people favour evil in form of what they suppose to be the lesser evil and completely ignore rightful and attractive alternatives.

There are some who really love the bomb. That love is not so strange compared with some of the other strange attitudes of modern man, e. g. , the one towards abortion. Evil is no longer generally despised but often considered to be necessary. Compare the personality and leadership cult. Compare statism. Even Satan cults are popular. Dictators and other "great leaders" are glorified or at least excused. Almost everybody strives for power. Mass murders, oppression, exploitation and imperialism by "socialistic" regimes were widely white-washed, excused or ignored for decades. More and more is coercion relied upon to deal with problems. It is still wrongful when it is legalized. The end is supposed to sanctify the means and even the ends are no longer objectively good.

ABC mass murder devices are the outcome of such attitudes.

There is no such thing as a necessary evil. Nuclear devices are not necessary for the defence of liberty. On the contrary, they are so evil that they are perhaps the greatest threat to it. There is hardly anything compared with which they could be regarded as the "lesser evil", and even the lesser evil is still an evil.

See: Death-wish, Enemy, Ethics, Immorality, Nuclear Strength, Red/'Dead, Statism, Totalitarianism, Value-free Society.

People not allowed to experiment with their own freedom will be inclined to "experiment" with the freedom of others. They will attempt to get their own way by suppressing others, by forcing their system on them. Nowadays, they will tend to do this even with nuclear devices - or they will attempt to "defend" with them their system against attempts by others to impose their system. They will do so as long as the only way that they can envision is the inherently intolerant one of territorial organization and exclusive jurisdiction.

Only when no ideologically motivated and other experiments of any kind are prohibited, be they economic, social political or religious experiments, and provided only that the experiments undertaken are tolerant, i.e., that they can be undertaken at the expense and risk of their voluntary participants only, can we be pretty certain that no terrorist groups will arise who would use even nuclear weapons against the majority in order to get a chance to practise their

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------75

ideals. Not until radical minority groups can live among us and yet, legally and voluntarily apart from us, can we be reasonably certain that they will not conspire against us with mass extermination devices or with nuclear armed allies beyond our borders. Then they would not have to depend for their success on establishing a whole country as an exclusive area for the practice of their beliefs.

Nuclear destructive devices are the offshoots of nationalistic intolerance, of the belief that in one area only one system at a time ought to be practised, namely that approved by the majority or that insisted upon by a minority in power. Regarding sports, entertainment, relaxation, religion, consumer goods and services, arts, crafts, hobbies etc. we have already learned to act tolerantly of each other's preferences, although we do live in the same territory. Now we have to become as tolerant in the political, economic and social spheres.

See: Alternative Institutions, Capitalism, Communism, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Majority, Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Revolution, Secession, Socialism, Sovereignty, Targets, Terrorism, Tolerance, War Aims.

Nuclear experiments are defended as inevitable and desirable aspects of scientific progress But progress of whom, in what direction and at whose expense and risk? It is not progressive to invent new methods of killing maiming, torturing, poisoning and controlling people! If it were then we should openly teach still a science of torture, of totalitarianism, of mutilation, of indiscriminate destruction.

See: Decision, Peaceful Use, Research, Scientists, Tests.

Presumed experts assure us that we can defend ourselves against nuclear mass murder devices. Who has ever done this?

They tell us that they are weapons, that they are rightful weapons, that the deterrence system can be relied upon, that the fail-safe system will not fail, that no other defence system is possible against someone attacking or threatening to attack with nuclear devices, that civil defence makes sense, that the radio-active fallout from tests is negligible, that nuclear reactors are necessary and harmless, that governments should have all the powers required to wage nuclear war against mankind, and so on.

Experts have been wrong before and they are wrong on every one of these counts. Those relying on the judgment of experts can always find at least some experts who do agree with their own prejudices, hopes and expectations. There is no absurdity which hasn't been, at some stage, upheld by some presumed "experts". When the survival of all of us is at stake we ought to become extremely careful in our choice of expert advice.

Experts have brought us into the present mess and it appears that can only continue it, as they already have, for decades. They are not innovators but men knowing only the status quo and interested only in preserving it, The recognized experts offer us no way out, They cannot even agree on a definition of aggression, cannot see the justification for tyrannicide, see no way to effectively control nuclear disarmament, wrongly presume that disarmament must be multilateral, and are still utopians enough to propose that the governments should do "something" about this threat.

Further reliance on such experts is suicidal, Only innovative thinking outside the ruts of their thinking can help us. We should no longer risk our lives and that of our families in an unspoken bet that the current crop of experts and government advisers is right. Far less should we ever be FORCED to risk our lives on the assumption that the opinions of the government's experts are valid Merely by working for the government they prove to be wrong about nuclear war.

The madness of our experts - all ethical infants, is proven also by the overkill rate. They are not satisfied to kill us just once. No, they had to prepare the equivalence of several tons of TNT for every living person.

See: Decision, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Government , Individual Responsibility, Leadership, Madness, Power, Responsibility, Rulers, Self-help, State, Territorial Organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76

What nuclear weapons amount to are: concentrated and portable concentration camps for the murder of hostages. Have we become so accustomed to the idea of mass murder that the threat of such genocide devices does not shake us any more? Have we come to believe that hey might be somewhat justified, after all? Unfortunately, they do not spare the single just man in a city and at least for his sake and that of his descendants mankind ought to continue. Moreover, even the Nazi's extermination camps were more selective in the choice of their victims. Can we be proud to be prepared for even more indiscriminate mass murders and on an even larger scale than the Nazis committed?

See: Collective Responsibility, Enemy, Hostages, Outlawry, Resistance, Tyrannicide, War Aims, Weapons.

If you want to survive, organize exterritorially! The subdivision of the Earth's surface among territorial states causes most wars and tends to deteriorate any fighting into total war. Atomic destructive devices make it now more imperative than ever before for man to leave the old territorial organizations and to reorganize himself in exterritorial ones in which he has, matter of fact, spent most of his development. Absolute territorial rule was in the main only an aberration of the last 300 years, an offshoot of the new religion of Statism. Exterritorial organization is required it mankind is to survive and be free.

In order to replace the Warfare State by inherently peaceful human organizations, no more is required than recognition of the right of individuals to secede and toleration for the autonomous and exterritorial minority groups of secessionists which would be built up by these secessionists. Also an awareness of the rightfulness and advantages of such freely chosen and experimental societies. We have already accepted experimental freedom and voluntary action in most other spheres, so much so that we take it for granted in our daily private actions. The condition of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities could be rightfully imposed as a peace condition on a defeated enemy regime and as a liberation option for all its victims, in order to make the introduction of this radical liberty much easier and use opportunities for this. Such a step might be undertaken only out of the nationalistic motive to destroy an enemy country's potential-aggressive capacity permanently. But the influence of such a measure would go far beyond that. The "defeated" "victim" would soon find that no burden has been imposed upon him but, instead, the very foundation for a free, peaceful and prosperous society. (See peace plan 234 in Peace Plans 14.)

"Nobody may rightly demand that the people, with a polite bow before the helpless governments of the world, prepare themselves for their end which may come any hour now.

"On the contrary, they must become authorized (they already have the right) to organize themselves in autonomous organizations to which the subjects of all governments are invited as members.

"The foremost purpose of these new powers would be to destroy or render harmless, in a suitable way, all weapons which are outlawed by international law, and referendums confirming it, especially nuclear devices." - Ulrich von Beckerath.

An exterritorial society would have neither the motive, the finance, the targets, the obedience the secrecy, the conscription and decision-making power, nor other powers required to prepare and carry out a nuclear war. Compare plan 221 in Peace Plans 12.

See: Alternatives, Centralization, Competing Governments, Conscription, Decentralization, Decision, Disobedience, Experimental Freedom, Finance, Governments, Market, Minority Autonomy, Monopolies, Motives, Nationalism, Obedience, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, People, Personal Law, Pluralism, Resistance, Secession, Secrecy, Security, Self-defence, Self-help, Sovereignty, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Uniformity, War Aims.

One of the weakest defences of the nuclear strength position is the assertion that, while we would not need it for a defence against humans, we might need it against invading aliens. This ignores that the real threat of nuclear holocaust comes from our

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77

own governments. We do not have to imagine any other threat beyond that one. They would really be "our own" only once we have become free to individually chose the one of our dreams for ourselves, or, alternatively, the non-governmental society of our dreams for ourselves.

Aliens, who have mastered space travel, may also be presumed to be more rational and peaceful than we are, or alternatively, more advanced in weaponry as well. Moreover, even against enemy aliens, they would not be suitable weapons because of the radiation backlash.

One should also take into consideration that among all the sightings of UFOs, going back perhaps hundreds of years, there is not even one reporting a warlike attack, Why, then, should they want to attack us, now, suddenly? Do we ever wage war against our animals in our zoos?

We have here nothing but a rather weak excuse for an inherently intolerable abuse and threat.

See: Deterrence, Nuclear Strength.

No matter how far technology advances, it is unlikely that it will ever construct anything that is 100 % foolproof and fail-safe. With nuclear devices nothing less than this will suffice. Consider the alternative. The mere existence of nuclear devices for mass murder and mass destruction proves that at least our political system is not constructed in a fail-safe way. We need such a fail-safe political system - to eliminate the motives and powers to build nuclear mass murder devices. Sociologically, the only fail-safe system is one in which technological gimmicks to protect nuclear devices against abuse (actually, every use of them is an abuse, also) become unnecessary because they are all destroyed and there are no longer any organizational assurances and ideological motives and financial opportunities and secret locations and official guards to produce and stockpile them again. Otherwise, no technological fail-safe system is completely fail-safe.

"No one has ever been able to devise measures which can permanently protect men from their folly." - said financier Bernard Baruch. At most one can achieve that the foolish ones suffer only themselves under their own follies and that the others are protected against them. But even the wisest men would not be wise enough to use a nuclear device wisely. And they could not keep all fools from getting access to them. All the manpower, expenses and sacrifices of the "war against drugs" have made the drug problem worse rather than reducing it.

For thousands of years men have tried to let only wise men have access to high offices - and what a failure rate they have had - in spite of all their fail-safe, checks and balancing attempts.

Nuclear weapons must all be destroyed to render this world again relatively safe.

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Automated Warfare, Brinkmanship, Decision, Disarmament, Doomsday Bomb, Madness, Overkill, People, Referendum, War Aims.

Deterrence leads inevitably to counter deterrence, to an arms race motivated by increasing fears and almost every arms race ends in disasters for both. Fear is an insufficient basis for peace. I offer here as sufficient proof the fact that most people have been and still are facing the threat of an all-out nuclear war with irrational fearlessness. No matter how real and frightening a threat is - in the eyes of rational people - most people remain unafraid of it. But the same people could often be frightened by a vicious or even a harmless dog.

To make use of whatever rational fears do already exist with regard to nuclear war, we should give all people a chance to express it in a positive way, e.g. in referendums on all powers and institutions making for nuclear war. Exclusive reliance on fear would make people turn into dead-end roads, to "solutions" like the Doomsday Bomb. See: Apathy, Appeals, Arms Race, Balance of Power, Brinkmanship, Conquests ,Counter- Terror, Decision Declarations, Deterrence ,Ideas/barge, Nuclear Strength, Powerlessness, Taxation, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims, Weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78

The free man is a peaceful man. The unfree man is a warmonger - even if he is nothing but a slave.

"Beware of a slave when he breaks his chains - but do not tremble before a free man! - said Friedrich Schiller, somewhere. ("Vor dem Sklaven, wenn er die Kette bricht, / Vor dem freien Menschen erzittere nicht!")

Nuclear power is useless in the defence of freedom. It means, creates and preserves its opposite. Without individual liberty in almost every respect, including the freedom not to be free, according to one's choice, nuclear war cannot be prevented in the long run. Freedom is the secret weapon against nuclear war, Total freedom for all - to the extend it is desired by each and everyone, for himself and like-minded people only, is the way out. Please, do check this assertion on every point.

See: Alternatives, Autonomy, Capitalism Competing Governments, Consent Democracy, Economic Freedom, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Independence, Individualism, Militia, Monopolies, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Publicity, Referendums, Rights, Secession, Self-help, Sovereignty, Tolerance, Voluntarism, War Aims, Weapons.

Nuclear destructive devices are means to deny freedom of action to millions at a time - by exterminating them. They are not means to defend liberty but the despotism of a few. Only full freedom of action for all can assure us that all nuclear devices will be destroyed and that none will be built again. It requires exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers for its full realization.

See: Action, Alternative institutions, Competing Governments, Decision, Disarmament, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Militia, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism Resistance, Revolution, Self-defence, Self-help, Self-reliance, Secession, Sovereignty, Tolerance, Voluntarism. (Also the ON PANARCHY sub-series of PEACE PLANS, of which so far 24 volumes have appeared, on 24 microfiche. - J.Z., 14.10.01.)

Let everyone associate in all spheres according to his own likes and dislikes - and friction between people will be reduced to a minimum and war will practically be eliminated. Why fight anyone when you are free to do your own thing? Why fight for a utopia when you are free to realize it here and now? Why fight against another utopia when

you do not have to join it?

Free consumer choice for government services would replace wars by a competition to make converts either by persuasion or by example.

Freedom for divorce from an unsatisfactory marriage partner does obviously reduce strife in marriages. So would freedom for individuals and dissenting groups to divorce themselves from a government and to set up or join another government or non-governmental society that is in accordance with their preferences.

See: Alternatives, Appeals, Autonomy, Competing Governments, Declarations, Enemy, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Human Rights, Minority Autonomy, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Power, Secession, Separate Peace, Tolerance, Unilateral Peace Declaration, Voting, World

Federations.

Under full freedom of contract you could contract all peace promoting conditions and thereby peace for yourself and like-minded people - and your successful example would be one likely to be followed by most others.

Freedom of contract, by its very definition, excludes aggression but puts all relationships on a contractual basis instead.

It would allow everyone to hire protection agencies and to contract with others regarding self-defence measures against the few remaining aggressors. These measures would largely become reduced to nothing more than limited but effective police actions against criminals.

Who would be stupid enough to contract with a government to "protect" him with nuclear devices?

See: Contract, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Trade, Minority Autonomy, Monetary Freedom, Personal Law, Protectionism, Secession, Separate Peace Treaties, Social Contract, Social Security, War Aims.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79

Economic freedom would prevent deflations and inflations and with these many a war. Without inflation not many unjust wars could be financed. Its full employment, based on monetary freedom, would allow the integration of millions of refugees and deserters into the process of production within a few days. It could thus help to dissolve the armies of aggressive governments. The wealth honestly attainable for almost all, under a genuine laissez faire capitalism, as an optional economic system, would also tend to make more people rather peaceful traders and exchangers than criminal aggressors, conquerors, plunderers and oppressors. Business is a peaceful activity and so are voluntary labour arrangements in their great possible and desirable variety.

See: Capitalism, Class Warfare Ideology, Competition, Cooperative Production, Desertion, Economic Freedom, Employer-Employee Relationship, Employment, Free Enterprise, Free Trade, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Land Monopoly, Market, Laissez Faire, Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, Natural Resources, Property, Protectionism, Refugees, Socialism, Tolerance, Unemployment, War Aims.

Men not free to express and inform themselves cannot conclude peace but will rather go on fighting. Without these freedoms they will all the more fall victims to myths, prejudices and hatreds - which induce them to fight each other. Only with these freedoms can they find the freedom road to peace.

See: Appeals, Archive, Broadcasting, Censorship, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Declarations, Dictatorships, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Human Rights, Ideas Archive, Militia, Negotiations, Open Air Meetings, Outlawry, Propaganda, Publicity, Rights, Secrecy, Separate Peace Treaties, Soldiers' Rights, Talent Registry, Trust, War Aims.

Freedom of movement, away from dictatorships and into free countries, weakens dictatorships and strengthens free countries, This is the reason why dictatorships like East Germany try to stop it and why freedom lovers ought to support it, People are in no way to be regarded as the property of their rulers. If people had been free to migrate, for the last few hundred years and had continued to grant each other exterritorial autonomy, if, in other words, the religion of territorial nationalism hadn't arisen - then we would now live as peacefully intermixed and yet separate from each other as e.g. the Catholics and the Protestants do now, in countries like Germany, Canada, Australia, England and the US. Moreover, then none of them would dream about attacking the others with nuclear devices - and even if some did, they would not find it practicable.

See: Asylum, Emigration, Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Human Rights, Immigration, Property Concept of Citizens, Unemployment, War Aims

"When goods do not cross frontiers armies will." - said F. Bastiat.

If the UK and Germany, before WW I, had clearly recognized that they were not only each other's greatest competitors but also each other's greatest trading partners, would they then have fought?

Would Japan have entered WW II, if it had had free access to the world market?

We cannot afford the same mistakes again. There is no need for anyone to "conquer" a market or terrorize it into submission when he has free access to it. Monetary freedom would be the largest door-opener in this respect.

The same nationalistic prejudices which consider whole "nations" as enemies and suitable targets for nuclear devices, do also create and close national markets or, rather, more or less confine the market to nationalized areas. Free Trade with all, even those who, according to our government's wrongly assertions, would be our inherited or collective enemies.

No trade with weapons etc. with those who are our real enemies: dictatorial governments.

But at the same time: No blockades with regard to food, clothing and medicines, not even towards members of the enemy regimes, even if they are armed and organized. Chocolate bombs are more persuasive than are high explosives. (Compare peace plan 183.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80

Repeal of all government barriers to trade: of customs duties, quotas, licences, exchange rate controls etc. To that extent the world should be unified, at least between voluntaristic groups of free traders. From them this liberty would soon expand.

Naturally, if some volunteer groups would impose protectionist restrictions unanimously upon their own no members and enforce them at their own expense, they should not be interfered with.

The best way to introduce Free Trade would consist in the secession and exterritorial re-association of those who favour it and would afterwards unilaterally apply it among themselves and with any other willing traders.

See: Blockades, Borders, Boycotts, Capitalism, Desertion Economic Freedom, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative Experimental Freedom, Investments, Market, Monetary Freedom, Nationalism, Protection, Secession, Separate Peace, Targets, Tolerance, Trust, War Aims. (The PEACE PLANS series contains by now many texts on Free Trade, all on microfiche. - J.Z., 13.10.01.)

The forceful preservation of frontiers provides the lines for battles, sets juridical limits, defines trade restrictions and indicates nuclear targets. They would disappear under exterritorial organization and personal law, free migration, free trade and free investments. The fight for territorial possessions and taxpayers and obedient citizens would be replaced by a competition to gain customers or converts for competing voluntaristic governments and exterritorial, and autonomous organizations.

See: Autonomy, Borders, Competing Governments, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Contract, Jurisdiction, Laws, Legislation, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Territorial Organization, Unity, War Aims.

If there is to be a future for humans on this planet then you and I will have to make and secure it. Are you ready for this task?, Do you know enough about it? If not, then let us discuss the problems involved - if there is a spark of rational survival inclination left in you.

If you entrust your future and that of your children furthermore to the tender mercies of governments, then you deserve to die and are likely to die. Unfortunately, you would take others with you. The future of mankind will be without nuclear devices, nuclear energy and nuclear science or there will be no future for mankind.

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Bet, Brinkmanship, Deterrence, Doomsday Bomb, Fail-safe, Nuclear Strength, War Aims.

Even municipal garbage removal contributes to nuclear war, ridiculous as this sounds at first. It re-enforces our reliance on bureaucrats in every sphere. If we ignore their inevitable failures in this small task, then we are likely to ignore them in e. g. their defence preparations also.

People who cannot even envision garbage removal without bureaucratic intervention are unable to envision defence or liberation without it. In a Statist religion the God, the State can do no wrong.

Private garbage removal would help to promote self-reliance and self-responsibility, which do offer the only way out.

Safe garbage removal for radioactive wastes has not yet been discovered and may never be - although the authorities assert or pretend that they have the problem in hand. This kind of garbage should be removed at its source by eliminating its production, by stopping all nuclear reactors, nuclear research laboratories, uranium mining, concentration plants etc.

See: Economic Freedom, Peaceful Use, Self-defence, Self-help Welfare State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81

Just because poison gasses were not used extensively during WW II (apart from their use in mass extermination camps) people have come to believe that neither poison gasses nor bacteriological nor nuclear "weapons" would be used in the next world war. They manage to overlook the extensive preparations of "their" governments for such warfare. This view does also overlooks that poison gasses were used in WW I and in the Abyssinian War, that milder forms were used in the Vietnam War and in many police actions and that, after WW II, lethal poison gasses were used in a civil war in Yemen and, probably, also in the Soviet War against Afghanistan.

Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the first two nuclear bombs on human targets are already dropped. History teaches that man is quite capable of committing genocide and suicide - particularly when ordered to do so by some powerful rulers. Thus, man's past behavior is far from re-assuring.

See: Accidental war, Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Brinkmanship, Bet, Deterrence, Fail-safe, Nuclear Strength, Precedents.

War has become too important to be left to the generals - who are always all too ready to engage in war games, using the latest toys and who habitually consider only "strengths", ignore rightful aims, demand immoral obedience, are ready to risk everything for another promotion, use men as mere pawns or tools and are always ready to sacrifice the lives of others rather than their own, with very few exceptions. Generals cannot be relied upon to prevent nuclear war. They have militarily prepared for if. They represent a totalitarian system which makes for war. They have excessive and monopolistic powers. They insist on absolute obedience, Objective psychologists might classify many of them as power-mad. They have made a career out of preserving the status quo, no matter how dangerous its continuance would be. They think almost exclusively in territorial terms. Their ignorance of economics and therefore, of the proper financing of defence, is usually abysmal, and perhaps only exceeded by their lack of interest in economics. They usually do not bother about just warfare methods. Hawks appear to predominate among them. I have not heard a single general ever making a responsible and sensible remark on the prevention of nuclear war. They often are unable to recognize old mistakes and thus repeat them, over and over again, e.g., indiscriminate air raids with conventional bombs and scorched earth policies. They are thus unlikely to omit them in the future. Nuclear "weapons" permit them to repeat the old mistakes on an even larger scale.

They are mostly either unwilling or unable to apply the system of military Jiu Jitsu against an enemy regime Wherever generals have taken over from civil governments, they have tended to repeat their mistakes or to worsen them. Most of Hitter's generals - surprisingly enough- didn't wand him to involve Germany in yet another world war. But, the decisive point is that they didn't prevent him. either, and they helped him conduct it in the old-fashioned nationalistic, collectivist and professional way.

See: Air Raids, Arms Races, Career Soldiers, Decision, Defence, Desertion, Deterrence, Disobedience, Election of Officers, Elite, Experts, Madness, Mercenaries, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Obedience, Overkill, Politicians, Power, Rulers, Scientists, Soldiers' Rights, Standing Armies, Subordination, Tyrannicide, War Aims, Weapons.

General Strike is general nonsense. Why should all workers go on strike when a strike of policemen and soldiers, guarding the nuclear destructive devices and keeping them in readiness, and a strike of the workers who produce further such devices, would already suffice? It would make much more sense to encourage only these people to go on a permanent strike and to offer them alternative attractive jobs, jobs which are productive and peace-promoting instead of extremely destructive and murderous - in their long-term effects.

Any strike against nuclear strength, going beyond such a strike, would be a senseless and harmful demonstration. People acing so irrationally should certainly never get their hands on nuclear devices, not even in the process of nuclear disarmament.

See: Defence, Demonstrations, Disarmament, Employment, Enlightenment, Military Insurrections, Militia, Non-Violence, Protests, Referendum, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Soldiers' Health, Soldier's Rights, Strikes, Tax Strike, Tests, Unions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82

Governments, territorial, exclusive, monopolistic and centralized governments, no matter under what pretences they operate and what their good intentions are, remain, essentially, organized force. Thus it should not be surprising that the biggest threat to civilization, culture and the survival of man, the nuclear war potential, is also government administered. The question: "How can we avoid nuclear war?" amounts thus largely to the question: "How can we avoid Government?"

See: Alternatives, Anarchism, Capitalism Coexistence Competing Governments, Consent, Decision, Desertion, Disobedience, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Monopolies, Nationalism, Opting Out, Panarchy, Personal Law, Pluralism, Power, Referendums, Resistance, Revolutions, Rulers, Secession, State, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, War Aims.

To defeat all totalitarian regimes and dissolve all nuclear powers, motives and means, targets, conscript armies etc., governments-in-exile should be recognized, provided they aspire only to exterritorial rule over voluntary followers. Through recognition of and alliances with such exterritorial governments-in-exile, the forces of an enemy regime could be turned against it and no defensive motive would remain to use nuclear devices. Even communists could make use of this offer of minority autonomy.

See: Alliances, Alternatives, Captive Nations, Coexistence, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Competing Governments, Decision, Defence, Desertion, Deterrence, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Jiu Jitsu, Military Insurrections, Military Program, Militia, Minority Autonomy, Negotiations Recognition, Referendums, Refugees, Revolution, Revolutionary Warfare, Secession, Secret Allies, Tolerance, War Aims, Weapons.

Let people become greedy for peace.

Greed and selfishness cannot be rightly blamed for nuclear war. For who would be sure to survive it?

Nuclear war doesn't offer profits, only losses.

It is too often overlooked that for every armament manufacturer making a large profit - and for every armament worker receiving a high wage - there are numerous taxpayers who lose much more than these receive. What about their greed? It should be mobilized instead of ignored or accused. If they became greedy enough to want to retain what is right theirs, then they would establish a system of voluntary taxation. What would happen then to the income of nuclear armament manufacturers and workers?

See: Aggression, Atomic Energy, Capitalism, Defence, Economic Freedom, Employment, International Corporations, Investments, Man, Market, Profit, Property, selfishness, Subsidies, Taxation, Tax Strike,, Uranium Mining, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims.

Hierarchically production, whether under "capitalism", communism, socialism or even in cooperative enterprises, has psychological and economic disadvantages and is contrary to the morality and aims of individualism. It does not appeal to whatever initiative and innovative talent exists at every level of the production process but allows only members of the hierarchical structure a limited creative activity. It creates antagonistic interests which are counter-productive and lead to class-warfare notions and practices and is a major factor producing the cold to hot war between East &Well and thus does significantly contribute to the threat of nuclear threat. Only the introduction of contractual, market, property and cooperative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83

relationships within enterprises could dissolve this danger and would fully realize the self-management and propertarian principles of capitalism and the non-statist, voluntary and cooperative forms of socialism.

See: Agoric Revolution, Capitalism, Communism, Contract, Cooperative Production, Employer-Employee Relationship, Market, Monetary Freedom, Open Cooperatives, Socialism.

Hiroshima's destruction is still accepted by many as a military "necessity". No wonder then that the danger of nuclear war exists still.

There was never a justification for mass murder, especially not for the mass murder of noncombatants, but there are always some people who believe that there it is possible. Consequently, nobody should have access to nuclear weapons. This means that there must be no such devices.

Curiously enough, the same people who considered the wiping out of Hiroshima to have been necessary, do often believe that nuclear devices form an effective deterrent which nobody would ever use. People who are prepared to kill millions of other nationals and to risk millions of their own in the process, are not easily deterred.

If they were easily frightened then they would not run for political office in the first place, offering themselves thus as targets for political assassination attempts.

One cannot rely on a sudden development of conscience in politicians either: Hiroshima's destruction was followed by a peace offer which was ignored until the second bomb was also tried out and had wiped out Nagasaki. Naturally, why should leaders feel concern who were unconcerned when they wiped out about 80,000 people in a planned and organized firestorm in Tokyo - "achieved" with the help of conventional bombs?

Moral and sensible actions by men in power are the exception, not the rule.

See: Air Raids, Bombers, Decision, Deterrence, Disarmament, Governments, Immorality, Madness, Nuclear Strength, Open Cities, Rulers, Scorched Earth, War Aims, Weapons.

"Rather dead than red" - is one of those "honorable" and deadly prestige ideas which do not allow individuals to opt out but would draw all collectively, into nuclear war. Another version, "Rather the Reds dead!" still embodies the wrong collectivist enemy and collective responsibility notions. Communist Party members were a minority in the Soviet Union, too and only a few party members actually ruled. The rest were largely opportunists.

Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between "Reds" and bitter opponents of a communist regime. They kill both, most likely more of the latter. As the war in Vietnam showed, unless they are found armed and attacking or in a distinct uniform, which they did not wear, the "Reds" are indistinguishable from the general population. And since they also used conscription, their forces embodied many who were not communists or even anti-communists. Up to 50,000 of them deserted every year. Carpet bombing and nuclear bombing of communist terrorists and guerillas resembles the bombing of city blocks to kill bank robbers after a back robbery - and also thousands of innocent bystanders.

A more rational resolution would be: Rather let the enemy's subjects and even the enemy himself survive than wipe out all mankind and all its chances - in a massive nuclear retaliation."

In the eyes of rational people honor cannot even justify a duel. Far less could it justify indiscriminate mass murder. See: Alternatives, Communism, Defence, Enemy, Nuclear Strength, Power, Prestige, Red/Dead, Retaliation, Revolution, Surrender, War Aims.

Nobody likes being a hostage and feels comfortable in that situation. But how many people realize that right now they themselves are hostages in the nuclear power game, hostages for the "good" behaviour of their own governments - in the eyes of foreign governments?

At least be no unconscious, apathetic or willing hostage!

See: Bet, Collective Responsibility Disobedience, Noncombatants, Property Concept of Citizens, Resistance, Revolution, Self-help.

HOW COULD NUCLEAR WAR BE PREVENTED?

All too many people expect an answer in a single sentence or a single idea which would be conveyable in a three minute talk. No one seems to realize that he himself contributes to the danger by certain ideas he believes in and upholds and also by his lack of sufficient interest in the problem and in workable proposals for its solution. We are in this situation because we left the necessary thinking and actions to organizations least suitable for both and also responsible for it in the first place, by their very existence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84

Those who are serious in their search for genuine solutions should at least have the patience to look up some of the parts of the answers through the index of this compilation. They should e.g. look under: Alternative Institutions; Decision, Defence, Desertion, Disarmament, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Referendum, Revolution, Secession, Self-help, Separate Peace, Surrender, Tryannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims. See also Appx. 1, 2, & 4-8.

Human nature is supposed to be greedy, aggressive etc. But only the institutions of power and coercion render certain human traits dangerous to the survival of the human race. Under the institutions of a fully free market, under laissez faire capitalism or anarcho-capitalism, the same traits are revealed not as contra-survival but as pro-survival.

The existence of at least some pacifistic primitive tribes proves that human nature is not involved but rather customary institutions, ways of thinking, fetishes and taboos are.

See: Aggression, Capitalism, Centralization, Decentralization, Decision, Exterritorial Imperative, Greed, Human Rights, Laissez Faire, Man, Market, Nationalism, Power, Profit, Publicity, Referendums; Secession, War Aims.

If all human rights were known, recognized and practised there would be no risk of nuclear war. See for instance: Negotiations, Decision, Disarmament, Resistance, Free Trade, Monetary Freedom.

A new bill of individual human rights (and of natural rights of rational beings) should therefore be introduced into every constitution.

Included should be new human rights like the right to -

opt out of any organization, including states, armies and unions,

organize in exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers,

trade freely, even in foreign currencies, even with subjects of enemy regimes,

unrestricted freedom of movement, settlement,

freely contracted employment,

supply oneself with work, without depriving anybody else of it, and to do so by suitable economic and

organizational steps,

freedom of exchange,

issue non-coercive money tokens,

free choice of value standards, i.e., to refuse acceptance of exchange media and standards one has not contracted

to accept,

vote in referendums on all public affairs,

to remain neutral,

conclude a separate peace treaty for oneself,

resist,

bear arms,

organize in military fashion for the protection of individual rights,

buy or refuse to buy any services, including public services, from anyone,

assemble in the open air, even armed,

freedom of expression and information, even through broadcasting,

freedom of contract,

self-help,

self-defence,

clean air and water.

Here these short hints, which make no claim to completeness, must suffice.

Any individual rights could be rightfully be renounced or restricted, but only by and for the voluntary members of particular communities.

"A peace which is not enforced by the pioneers of human rights is merely an armistice" - said U. v. Beckerath in 1955. See under Militia.

To assure that all human rights are protected and thereby peace becomes established, all coercive governments must be replaced by voluntaristic and competing ones, go-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85

vernments which, because of these characteristics, would at least externally not be aggressive and which would also have an inbuilt safety valve against any internal deterioration which goes too far.

See: Bill of Rights, Exterritorial Imperative, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Panarchy, Secession, peace plan 110 & especially the anthology of private human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589/590.

This declaration is so incomplete and imperfect - e.g. by including so much implied aggression & exploitation in its welfare statist clauses - that it cannot form the basis for a lasting peace. It is so imperfect that even dictatorships formally subscribed to it. It is being promoted by a congregation of representatives of the world's foremost aggressors. Anyone pinning any faith on it has lost contact with reality.

See: Decision, Freedom, Free Trade, Militias, Monetary Freedom, Monopolies Resistance, Rights, Secession, Sovereignty, Tyrannicide, United Nations, Welfare State.

A central archive, uniting the best ideas man has so far had to prevent nuclear war and to establish a just alternative society (or framework for free societies), would also be one of the most influential means to actually prevent nuclear war. It could lead to a chain reaction of enlightenment.

So far the most precious possessions of man, ideas, are neglected by collectors who collect almost anything else. If man ever lost everything else then he could quickly restore almost everything with the right ideas, if they are preserved and accessible.

Ideas are mightier than the bomb - if we make use of them.

This does require that demand and supply for ideas are finally brought together by a special market for ideas. An archive and information service would be the first step towards such a free market.

It would also gather the refutations of utopian ideas which were vainly tried over and over again.

The nuclear threat can be overcome with the right ideas - as this compilation tries to prove. This book is based on a small private archive of this type.

See: Cultural Revolution, Enlightenment, Ignorance, Myths, Prejudices.

"A five-pound note has no effect on a sixpenny slot machine" - said R. S. Jaffray.

Large ideas or ideas on large subjects are very hard to communicate whenever they run counter to the generally accepted ones or simply lack of interest, knowledge or comprehension.

Often they run contrary to people's world image or religion and these two have numerous ramifications and are supported by a host of prejudices and myths.

And yet, nothing less than a considerable number of "large" ideas, which are new to most people, could prevent World War III.

So, how could we spread them? See e. g. under Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Ideas Archive, Open Air Speaking, Propaganda.

What ideas am I talking about? Ideas relating e.g., to exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers and individual secession, monetary freedom Free Trade, Free Markets, Direct Democracy, Free Immigration, Self-defence and Self-help. For some samples and still all too limited details see this alphabetical compilation.

All of them have all their popular statist counterparts.

The cause of nuclear war lies largely in old-fashioned and outmoded national and statist ideas which form the basis of all of present territorial States. Wrong ideas lead to the most destructive devices, right ideas can overcome and prevent them in the future.

See: Anarchism, Broadcasting Capitalism, Class Warfare, Collective Responsibility,

Communism, Competition, Definitions, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enemy, Freedom of

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86

Action, Governments, Greed, Ignorance, Myths, Nationalism, Prejudices, Profits, Socialism, Society, Statism, Territorial Imperative, War Aims, Appx. 4.

The power of ideas must first be fully appreciated to prepare the way for their best use. The following quotations may help to strengthen this appreciation. Even Napoleon I had to recognize in the end: "An idea whose time has come is more powerful than all armies."

A remark in "Problems of Communism" (3/4,1966) put it thus: "Those who wield the guns are in fear of those whose only weapon is the pen."

But the old saying: "The pen is more powerful than the sword", needs the following qualification:

"Force without justice is tyranny and justice without force is futility."

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." - Plato.

"Bring ideas in and entertain them royally, for one of them may be the king." - Mark Van Doren.

Make better proposals: "Whatever may be the native vigor of the mind, she can never form many combinations from - few ideas, as many changes can never be rung upon a few bells". - Samuel Johnson.

"Free scholarship and criticism in our open system of ideas permit the best of every diverse theory to be tested in the marketplace of thought. Timidity and scholarship are incompatible." - Chief Justice Earl Warren, at the New School for Social Research, New York Times, 7. 6. 64. - Like so many, he wrongly presumed that a genuine and free market for ideas does already exist. All too many features, required for such a market, have still to be established, foremost of them an Ideas Archive.

"There's always some unknown unpractical person who has got most of the answers the men in the limelight are looking for." - Lawrence Meynel, "The Man No One Knew", Collins London, 195.

"We must treat ideas somewhat as though they were baby fish. Throw thousands out into the water. Only a handful will survive - but that is plenty." - Anne Heywood, Readers Digest, 8/69 or 59. - That would be a rather wasteful approach, resembling the present one, in which many of the best ideas go under, at least for all too long. What are needed, too, are nurseries for new ideas. We do not expose our babies to the wilderness, expecting all or the best to survive.

"Great ideas need landing gear as well as wings." - Quoted to Adolph A. Berle, Jr., New York Times Book Review, Read Dig. 3/55.

"There is no adequate defence, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea." - Percy W. Bridman, "The Intelligent Individual and Society", MacMillan.

"Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than in the one where they sprung up." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Ideas are like seed - useful only when they fall upon fertile ground.

"When people say they want something new, what they mean is that they want the same old thing only different. To something new, they are inevitably hostile until it has had the edge taken off it by being imitated at least twice." - David Stracton, Read. Dig. 5/64. - For this reason freedom of expression and information must be accompanied

by freedom of action., freedom to experiment.

"It is the beauty and the terror of a revolutionary age such as ours that theories and ideas are probably the most important facts, altogether." - Prof. Carl J. Friedrich, "The New Belief in the Common Man", p. 49. See under Ideas Archive, PEACE PLANS 20 & 183.

(Here I would like to add a personal note: When I met my later wife, then a 17 year old girl, at a new year party of Free Thinkers, 1957/1958, we came to talk about the nuclear war threat. At first she did not want to talk about it, because she saw no way out. If she did, it would drive her mad, she declared. My reply was, in essence, as far as I can remember it: It would drive me mad as well, if I did not see a way out. But I do see it and it gives me hope and an incentive to try to cope with this threat. But it took me still years before I had completed my first book on the subject, ca, 1962, in German, much later self-published, and only on microfiche, in PEACE PLANS No. 399-401 and, years later, I translated it into English and then self-published it in PEACE PLANS 61-63. The earlier numbers were due to the fact that they had become free through the re-filming of some other text. - After 3 kids, all boys, we split up in 1964. She went her way, to trying to make the best out of her life - accepting present conditions, while I went on struggling against these conditions with my limited abilities and means, fully aware that I could not cope with them single-handedly but that all creative energies against these conditions ought to become released. - largely with the aid of what I came to call a "genuinely cultural revolution" - J.Z., 14.10.01.)

Ignorance is bliss - appears to be the attitude of most people towards the nuclear war threat. And this ignorance is likely to let this war happen by doing nothing to stop it. Where knowledge is limited to seeing the danger but no way out, this attitude of ignoring and forgetting the danger is humanly understandable. Who likes to be continuously in a panic? Most people try to cover up their ignorance with comfortable myths beliefs, prejudices, definitions, opinions and religious - and bet their lives on them, no matter how

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87

shallow and contradictory these ideas are. They are all sentenced to death in this case - but still believe firmly that a reprieve is on the way and will arrive in time.

End your self-caused ignorance and immaturity. Sapere aude! Dare to think and act for yourself. The governments do not and cannot do your thinking for you. They brought you into this dilemma and do not know the way out because government is ignorance in action and coercive action at that - and because the solution requires that we discard the institution of territorial government.

See: Apathy, Collective Responsibility, Deterrence, Enemy, Enlightenment, Foolishness, Government, Ideas/wrong, Leadership, Madness, Myths, Prejudices, Rulers, Self-help, Statism.

To the extent that racism and nationalism as well as religious and cultural differences make the wiping-out of "foreigners" and "aliens" acceptable to some people, we are in danger from mass extermination devices - and this danger is perpetuated by immigration restrictions.

Every additional Chinese and Russian in Australia is an additional safeguard against Red Chinese and Soviet nuclear devices, particularly if these immigrants are communists and are allowed to live here as communists, practising their system among themselves, at the own expense and risk.

Otherwise, the nuclear strength mania becomes re-enforced by radial, ideological and religious hatreds.

Let there be peaceful and voluntary integration and peaceful and voluntary segregation rather than violent and involuntary integration, segregation and finally disintegration.

See: Alien Acts, Asylum, Autonomy, Collective Responsibility, Desertion, Employment, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Migration, Minority Autonomy, Refugees, Secession, Segregation, peace plan 232.

"Yours is the Morality of Death." - Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged",p. 950.

The present nuclear power system offends against all rational ethics. It threatens the most elementary human rights the rights to life, physical inviolability and property. It excludes punishment of culprits. It makes it impossible to hold them responsible in accordance with the enormity of their crimes. If driven to desperation, every nuclear armed tyrant (and this includes all too many presidents, precisely because of their nuclear powers) might use still more nuclear weapons so that one cannot, under all circumstances, threaten them with the death penalty they so richly deserve. (See a Outlawry and Amnesty.)

But one might say that it would perhaps be enough punishment for one of these power addicts to have lost all of his powers and to retain no chance at all to regain it again. Many of them would perhaps prefer death.

After sufficient enlightenment and the realization of all individual human rights, people would no more voluntarily remain members of nuclear armed organizations than they would now voluntarily belong to religious sects which slaughter children and offer them as religious sacrifices.

Actually, we are already offering ourselves and our children on the altars of national "unity" and "security".

See: Apathy, Bet, Collective Responsibility, Decision, Discipline, Enemy, Ethics Government Human Rights, Indiscriminate Warfare, Law and Order, Monopolies, Morality, Murder Obedience, Disobedience Power, Responsibility, Rights, Secession, Statism, Subordination, Tolerance, Uniformity.

The impeachment of Nixon was not enough. The impeachment of all men in power is required. Moreover, they should not be replaced in their present excessive powers. These powers must be destroyed.

Let every future authority among men grow from the grass roots only and let it depend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88

upon the grass roots - by recognizing the right to individual secession. Then we will never again find ourselves in a similar mess.

See: Amnesty, Authority, Autonomy, Consent Decision, Desertion, Exterritorial Imperative, Government, Leadership, Madness, Outlawry, Power, Recall, Rulers, Secession, Sovereignty, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, Voting.

Any nation or State depending on the voluntary consent of its subjects, subjects who are free to secede any time after their contractual period has expired, would be conceptually and qualitatively different from any old type nation or empire. It could not hold any other nation or people in subjugation when each of their individual members would remain free to secede.

There is no other and more anti-imperialistic principle and practice than individual secession and exterritorial and autonomous organization.

No matter how world-wide the new autonomous communities would be, no matter how many satisfied voluntary members they would have, they would no longer be empires in the old derogatory meaning.

An exterritorial association couldn't have and couldn't gain the power to build another empire - nor would it have a motive for attempting it.

No exterritorial community could secretly arm against another one.

None of them could make conquests as they would not have any territorial possessions and would not own their subjects like slaves.

If any of them attempted an aggressive war then most of its soldiers would desert or secede and join a government in exile.

It could not cope with a well organized international militia federation.

Free Trade would do away with national and empire "economies".

See: Centralization, Communism, Conquests, Exterritorial Imperative, Nationalism, Power, Secession, Secrecy, State, Territorial Organization, U.N., World Federation.

ABC devices are the ultimate in indiscriminate total warfare - which was never right and efficient. To defeat the enemy he must first be singled out. Otherwise our hostile and indiscriminate actions would create enemies for ourselves and allies for our enemies.

See: Amnesty, Air Raids, Appeals Collective Responsibility, Declarations, Desertion, Discriminate Warfare, Enemy, Governments in Exile, Hostages, Military Program, Militia, Peace Declarations, Prisoners of War, Revolutionary Warfare, Secret Allies, Separate Peace Treaties, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

There is probably no other more anti-individualistic technological device than a nuclear bomb or rocket. Nevertheless, and curiously enough, some individualists still advocate them because of a remaining addiction to territorial power concepts.

Nothing less than full individual liberty will do to ensure the survival of the human race. And full individual liberty means for some the opportunity to be voluntarily unfree. Give this chance to communists all over the world and they would, to a large extent, be ideologically disarmed.

You do not have to love your enemy. But you owe him justice - and not the "justice" of collective responsibility and blood revenge, either, but the justice of individualism. To individualize all war and peace decisions is the solution to the problem of war and peace. Once everyone gains a veto power on this question, a veto applying to himself only, wars will cease.

"Individualism does indeed recognize the need for cooperative association among men -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89

but it insists that the association be of a voluntary nature. Moreover, it is only upon the premise of individualism that genuine cooperation can be based, for it is only when men are free to act in their own self-interest that genuine cooperation can exist. If men are compelled by law to serve the interests of others it is no cooperation but servitude." - Richard Grant in: "The Incredible Breadmachine".

To be an individual means to want to be an emperor or sovereign over oneself and over nobody else, and to want one's empire, one's property, one's life and liberties undisturbed.

Individualists do not want national independence but personal independence, individual self-determination or individual sovereignty. Nothing less will satisfy them. They are also willing to grant the same freedom to anyone else who desires it - and are willing to cooperate with all others on this basis.

The right to vote on the affairs of others is of no interest to them. They rather want the exclusive right to vote on or, rather, to decide their own affairs, the right to mind their own business whilst leaving everyone free to mind his.

They want an end to all government usurpation of individual responsibilities and a chance to enjoy all their individual human rights, not just the ones the government concedes them.

They want an end to slavery in all forms be it through compulsory schooling, conscription or taxation or inflation or monopolies.

How far does individualism go? It claims

the right to secede from any organization, be it a union, an army, a school, a church or a State,

the right to issue one's own private and non-coercive currencies,

the right to choose one's court, police and penal services,

the right to live under personal laws, chosen or made by oneself and applied only to voluntary associates,

the right to bear arms, even concealable ones,

the right to refuse to pay taxes for unwanted and unordered goods and services, and, naturally for disservices, and the right to migrate freely anywhere and trade peacefully with anyone.

If you do not include these and related rights in your concept of individualism then you have not yet realized as yet what individualism means.

Realize with Arnold Glasgo that "Improvement begins with 'I' and that everyone is your enemy who hinders your self-improvement when it does not infringe the rights of any other individual.

See: Capitalism, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Decision, Discriminating Warfare, Economic Freedom Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Justice, Libertarianism, Liberty, Love, Market, Neutrality, Retaliation, Secession, Sovereignty, Tolerance, Unify, Voluntarism.

The use of nuclear destructive devices constitutes an extreme breach of the principle that everyone is to be held responsible only for his own actions and omissions and not for those of others. Nobody can be rightly held responsible for conditions and events which were outside of his intentions and authority.

At the same time, the removal of the threat of nuclear war by all concerned, by all its potential victims, i.e. by the citizens themselves, offers the only way out. THAT is a responsibility of everyone with a minimum of morality and rationality. Leaving this decision to a few individuals only, reduces all the rest to mere puppets or things.

Such responsibilities cannot be rightfully transferred to a few individuals. Attempts to do so risk the lives of millions, perhaps even of mankind. Some cynics might say: Who cares? They might deserve this self-made "fate". But do e.g. the butterflies deserve to die and all the babies?

See : Collective Responsibility, Decision, Declarations, Disarmament, Duty, Referendums, Responsibility, Secession, Self-help, War Aims.

Are individuals really powerless? As long as this belief persists, the nuclear war danger will persist - because with this belief individuals will not do anything - and governments, by their very nature, cannot do anything positive to prevent it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90

"I have always cherished the story of the executive whose secretary burst into his office on May 21 1927 and cried, 'Mr. Murphy, a man has just flown from New York to Paris all by himself!' When he continued to work calmly, she cried out, 'You don't understand! A man has just flown the Atlantic all by himself! Now Murphy looked up: 'ALL by himself a man can do anything,' he said quietly. 'When a committee flies the Atlantic, let me know."' William Manchester in LOOK, Readers Digest, 6/68. (Actually, by now, large aircraft and passenger ships ARE guided by committees. Is that one of the reasons for many accidents? - J.Z., 14.10.01.)

If you made up your mind to do so you could become a prime minister. But this is not a worthwhile aim for any rational individual. It would not stop but rather help to continue the danger of nuclear war. Power over others is not the answer. Power over self is.

"But what can I do?" - "Go only where called but do everything within your power to qualify to be called. Become so proficient in the philosophy of freedom that tutorship or counsel is sought. Rely on the law of attraction the force that makes the world go round. Difficult? Perhaps, but improving oneself is easy compared to reforming others, an impossibility. Too slow? There's nothing faster than going in the right direction. Futile? No, it's a rule that works, for it induces emulation." - said Leonard E. Read.

Everything that's done gets done by individuals:

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can seep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - R. F. Kennedy, or rather, his ghostwriter, in 1966.

"Let no man imagine", proclaimed Henry George, "that he has no influence. Whoever he may be, and wherever he may be placed, the man who thinks becomes a light and a power."

All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle - and a single candle can light a million others - says a Russian proverb.

The technique for arranging this is a very interesting subject. See under Cultural Revolution.

"I believe every individual human being has a potential which is well nigh infinite. I believe it is impossible to actualize any significant part of this potential unless you are committed to ideals, unless your reach exceeds your present grasp. I think of the process of 'growing up', of maturing, as the mastery of ever more difficult and exalted goals, resulting in ever increasing self-awareness and control..." - William Carlson in VES, Spring 68.

"Any man more right than his neighbour constitutes a majority of one." -Thoreau.

Make your vote count: Exact e. g., a promise from your parliamentary representative and swear at the same time that you would never vote for him again or for his party unless he keeps that promise.

Better still: Opt out and mind your own business and run your own experiments.

Individuals who are free to experiment - at their own expense and risk - and to communicate the results, at their own expense, can achieve anything.

Individuals are not necessarily powerless to prevent nuclear war - although at present, and under present conditions they are indeed rendered powerless to do something directly to prevent it. Thus, obviously, their first task is to gain sufficient freedom of action for themselves and for others.

"… it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brush fires in people's minds…" - Samuel Adams.

See : Anarchism, Autonomy, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Disarmament, Encyclopaedia of Refutations Enlightenment, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Freedom of Action, Human Rights, Ideas Archive, Parallel Institutions, Panarchy, Power, Powerlessness, Rulers, Self-defence, Self-determination, Self-help, Sovereignty, Tolerance, Voluntarism, Voting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------91

Once individual secession has replaced national sovereignty, the danger of nuclear war will have passed because this would imply the abolition of all life and death powers over non-aggressive others. Individual sovereignty would not grant any powers over others - but all powers over oneself. That topic alone could fill many books. At least start thinking along these lines.

See: Alternative Institutions, Autonomy Competing Governments, Conscription, Decision, Desertion, Freedom of Action, Human Rights, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Secession, Sovereignty, Territorial Organization, Voluntary Taxation, Voting.

Repeal legal tender laws and the monopoly of the central bank.

This is the only way to stop inflation.

Inflation must be stopped to prevent governments from continuing e.g., the nuclear arms race with its assistance. Inflation does allow governments to continue "spending" "money" on the nuclear arms race without obviously increasing taxes. In reality, inflation is a tax also, although a pretty well hidden one. After a successful tax strike governments shouldn't have any means left to pay the salaries of, for instance, those guarding their nuclear "weapons" or anti-people mass murder devices. This, on its own, would already be a sufficient reason for a tax strike and a monetary freedom revolution.

As supposed "guardians" of a national currency, the central and monopolistic banks of issue have failed everywhere. Just look at the development of prices, in all countries, which had to be expressed in their notes and in their nominal paper value standard, over the last century.

When government paper money is no longer an exclusive and enforced or "legal tender" currency, with a forced acceptance and a forced value, i.e., when private note issuers are no longer suppressed, then good private money issues will finally be free and able to drive out the bad government paper money. In other words, then the government could no longer force its currency into circulation, i.e., inflate its paper currency and thereby drive up all internal prices.

People would soon come to discount it (against preferred other value standards) and, finally, outright refuse to accept it all, or would accept it only at a loss to the government that is, by accepting it only at a discount and then paying their taxes with it at par, at its nominal value. Obviously, everyone has to accept the own I.O.U.'s at their face value.

All politicians talk about the need to "fight inflation but none of them wants to fight its cause: Legal tender and the issue monopoly - or is even aware of the cause.

Just imagine e.g., a large corporation, like BHP, being allowed to give its shares a forced circulation or "legal tender, i.e. a forced value and a forced acceptance, and that, like with all present government paper monies, all other share issues would be outlawed. You would have to accept all of is shares at face value, regardless of their market value, in all payments due to you.

Wouldn't it be rather likely then that these shares, too, would soon be over-issued and that all goods prices, wages, etc., expressed in these depreciated shares, would rise correspondingly? Keep this thought example in mind when trying to comprehend the complexity of money issues and of the value of currencies.

In their general results, inflations, when not properly understood and fought or prevented, tend to call forth a pro-statist mentality and lead to more and more power in the hands of governments - in the end even nuclear power.

A stable currency, on the other hand, tends to bring about at least a limited government only. It is one of the best limitations on governmental powers. Its introduction requires merely monetary freedom, which is based upon the following human rights:

The right to refuse acceptance of means of payment one has not issued oneself or contracted to accept.

The right to issue or accept alternative means of exchange.

The right to pay all one's debts through clearing and

the right to use any standard of value agreeable to one's trading partners in all of one's dealings.

See: Legal. Tender, Monetary Despotism, Monetary Freedom, Tax Strike

To make people fully aware of the danger of nuclear war and of the possibilities to prevent it, they must have freedom of information, To speed up the process of enlightenment a variety of new communication channels and information centres and publications must be established.

See: Acuteness of Danger, Broadcasting, Censorship, Cultural Revolution, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enlightenment, Espionage, Flow Chart Discussions, Freedom of Expression, Ideas Archive, Ignorance, Madness, Miscalculations, Open Air Meetings, Over-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92

estimation, Publicity, Registry of Talents, Secrecy, Secret Diplomacy, Sign Debates, Treason, Trust, War Aims.

Any disarmament agreement between governments would need more inspections and controls than governments could and would be willing to supply or suffer.

A disarmament agreement between the people themselves or a unilateral nuclear disarmament by the people would barely need any further controls. But just to make sure, all such disarmament actions should be fully publicized and all foreigners, who might be interested, should be invited to attend and observe the proceedings. E.g. delegates of the Red' Armies should be invited to observe and check the unilateral nuclear disarmament in the West.

Naturally, this opportunity should also be used to make them acquainted with a complete program for a liberating military insurrection and revolution - something they might be very much interested in, once they have no longer to be afraid of our nuclear power. We should also be able to inform them at this opportunity, and otherwise, that the people on our side would be well informed on how to effectively resist and overthrow an occupation force, should it come to that.

See: Control, Disarmament, Governments, Military Insurrections. Militia, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Publicity, Secrecy, Surrender, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

We are all still ethical infants and nuclear giants. (General Omar Bradley's expression, shortly after WW II.) We have the stone age man's defence and revenge instincts but are armed not with stones but with nuclear devices. Like the stone age savages, we tend not see any but immediate and obvious dangers. And most of the nuclear weapons are out of sight and thus largely out of mind. However, I remember a cycling tour, in West Germany, in the late fifties, in which I noticed some rocket batteries from a distance.

Some moral instincts are presently more or less repressed and thus cannot freely act in a peace promoting way. When we are forced to kill, we do so usually upon command and often from a great distance.

Some positive human instincts or moral senses are more clearly expressed in certain human rights, presently suppressed, like the right to rule oneself or to submit only to rulers of ones own choosing, the right to refuse to pay taxes, to arm oneself with rightful weapons, to express and inform oneself, to trade and migrate freely, to make friendships and contracts across borders, to obey self-given rules rather than imposed laws etc.

Without such and related liberties we are not becoming fully human and cannot always act or even think as mature human beings.

See: Aggression, Conscription, Enlightenment, Ethics, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Greed, Human Nature, Human' Rights, Ideas/Large, Information, Morality, Reason, Survival Instinct.

To prevent nuclear war, the immoral, superfluous and harmful institutions of the territorial State have to be legally dissolved or rendered powerless. In dictatorships they would have to be forcefully destroyed.

The moral and necessary functions, now wrongly and monopolistically carried out by coercive Statist institutions, should be taken over by institutions which are morally unobjectionable. This requires competitiveness and voluntarism which for States can only be achieved on an exterritorial basis.

All institutions which are coercive towards noninvasive persons, all institutions which initiate coercion, that is, all present day States and armies, must be dissolved and replaced by non-aggressive institutions made up of volunteers only, institutions which are autonomous, regardless of where their individual members live.

Only individual. secession could bring about this change-over to a peaceful condition in a peaceful way, without any bloody revolution or civil war.

Each individual member would then be free to undertake a complete but nonviolent revolution for himself.

Let people opt out of the nuclear threat establishment. Their example will infect the majority. Finally, most people would secede from the territorial States. The remaining mere subjects and their "leaders" could be overwhelmed and rendered powerless without causing a war.

See : Alternatives, Autonomy, Competing Governments, Decision, Experimental Freedom, Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Acton, Governments, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93

Pluralism, Secession, State, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, War Aims.

"Don't be afraid of your enemies. They can only kill you. Don't be afraid of your friends, They can only betray you. But be afraid of the disinterested ones. Only thanks to their tacit agreement do we have murder and betrayal in the world." - said Bruno Jasiewsky in a "The Conspiracy of the Disinterested,"

Serious interest in the question of nuclear war is very limited? Why? Saying one is not interested in nuclear war is like saying one is not interested in one's life. Is the Freudian death-wish as real with you?

Is it because most people do not see the way out? But then, why don't they search for it?

Is it because some of the threat, like radioactivity, is not visible to the naked eye?

Is it because of their statist or other religious conditioning?

Is it because of their present individual powerlessness? But then - why doesn't this turn them into individualists, favouring freedom of action in all spheres, so that they would no longer be helpless victims of war mongers, now armed with nuclear mass murder devices?

Is it because the threat is just too large to be perceived by most?

After almost 56 years of nuclear war threats, it's just about time that those capable of waking up do wake up to this danger. I do hope that the cultural revolution program suggested in this compilation will help to bring this about. See: Acuteness of Danger, Apathy, Cultural Revolution, Death Wish, Deterrence, Emotional Way of Life, Enlightenment, Enthusiasm, Escapism Freedom, Human Rights, Ignorance, Individualism , Individual Responsibility, Ideas/Large, Myths, Peaceful Use, Powerlessness, Prejudices, Self-help, Statism, Survival Instinct.

The Multinationals are among the few promising developments of the last decades and are already threatened by popular prejudices. They are basically not territorial but exterritorial organizations - harassed by territorial ones. If their development goes on, they might replace the territorial nation States. They could and should become fully autonomous. They are already voluntaristic and should become fully exterritorial , i.e., exempt from all territorial laws, interfering with their internal affairs and their dealings with each other and with other contractors and, naturally, from all imposed taxes. Thus they might become the strongest advocates of the panarchistic alternatives.

At most the national governments should have the power to interdict their own and voluntary national members' dealings with these organizations, as long as their subjects are prepared to put up with such a restriction.

At the same time, the international corporations should not be allowed any monopolies or privileges, i.e., the exclusive possession of natural resources like oil or government patents. There should be full freedom for all alternative forms of "possessive individualism" or "voluntary socialism" which people do agree upon among themselves, for their own affairs and properties, labours and services.

See: Competing Governments, Competition, Exterritorial Imperative, Free Trade, Investments, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Secession, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, World Federation.

Volunteer militia forces for the protection of human rights should publicly declare how they would conduct their defensive and liberating campaigns, that is, at least under full respect for the Hague Conventions. They would, e.g., realize the international conventions on the exemption of noncombatants and the inviolability of open cities. Beyond this, they would work towards the acceptance of a new code of international law, one based on a new declaration of individual rights, on the recognition of exterritorial minority autonomy based on individual secessionism. In this process and initially, and they would take e.g. Jerome Internoscia's monumental work: "New Code of International Law", N.Y., 1910, into consideration. For the period of transition, this work could serve well enough as the main reference work. If a court or jury wanted to deviate from its clauses then they should have to justify their decisions sufficiently as well as publicly.

See: Air Raids, Amnesty, Appeals, Asylum, Cities, Civilians, Collective Responsibility,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94

Decision, Declarations, Desertion, Disarmament, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Experimental Freedom Exterritorial Imperative, Governments, Hostages, Human Rights, Indiscriminate Warfare, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Negotiations, Noncombatants, Nuclear Strength, Open Cities, Peace Declarations, Police Actions, Power, Prisoners of War, Publicity, Referendum, Revolutionary Warfare, Scorched Earth Policy, Secession, Separate Peace, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

Territorial intolerance towards people who are somewhat different finds its most extreme expression in a war with ABC devices.

It is based on the unchecked premise that people cannot be otherwise and better organized than territorially. This is absurd, since most organizations and affairs are already exterritorially and individually decided and managed. Only in a few significant spheres have States, by coercion, laws, customs and prejudices, upheld their territorial monopoly, centralized decision-making, non-solutions and immoral and dangerous institutions.

Territorial intolerance leaves dissenters only one way open, to realize and protect the own and preferred system, namely the defeat of the other systems. It leaves only the choice between being anvil or hammer. Persuasion and propaganda offer little chances to realize unpopular alternatives or would require years to decades of costly efforts and, usually, end only in unsatisfactory compromises. Thus revolutionaries and terrorists are bred by territorial intolerance.

It could never lead to lasting peaceful coexistence. In between its inevitable factions fights, and wars for supremacy over certain territories, there are at best armistice periods.

Rulers, who treat "their own" country like a conquered province, should not be expected to be princes of peace towards others.

While under some restraints in their treatment of their own citizens, they have not sufficient inherent restraints against the use of conventional and ABC mass murder devices against "aliens" and "foreigners".

The territorial system is self-perpetuating through its inherent intolerance. It feeds on its own mistakes until it will finally be wiped out in the nuclear holocaust - unless it is abolished first.

The main step towards its abolition is freedom for individuals to secede from it. Territorial sovereignty and "integrity" should not extend beyond the limits of a man's castle, his own home and property.

See: Alien Acts, Autonomy, Coexistence Competing Governments, Democracy, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Freedom of Acton, Immigration, Jurisdiction, Majority, Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Power, Property Concept of Citizens, Subordination, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Unity, War Aims, Weapons.

When there is no longer an enemy territory which could be invaded, i.e., no enemy border which could be crossed, when there is no longer a geographical nation or a collective enemy to be attacked, nor any large enemy target to be destroyed, when there is no longer any logical motive for war, when decision-making power is no longer monopolized, when there are no longer suppressed minorities waiting to be liberated, when nobody can be forced to pay for an invasion, when nobody can be conscripted into it, then international invasions will cease. Only defensive police actions against criminals would remain, criminals who offended against human rights and personal laws.

See: Aggression, Annexation, Conquest, Conscription, Decision, Dictatorships, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontier, Minority Autonomy, Motives, Nationalism, Taxation, Territorial Organization, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims.

The more people have a capitalistic stake in the own country and or in other countries, the less they will be inclined towards means of mass destruction. The more we succeed in "selling" "our country" to foreigners, the less they will be inclined to destroy it. The more we cam buy up of theirs, the less we will be inclined to destroy their places of living and working. To sell out one's country and to buy up others, piece, piece, is indeed a very peace promoting activity and it should not be a surprise to those, who have studied characteristics of the warfare State, to find that

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95

it restricts such investments as much as possible.

The seller can't rightly complain, seeing he gets the price agreeable to him. Only for those, who have little or no property, apart from their own persons, is there often a pleasure in destruction. (Think of the riots in which cars and houses are torched.)

When investment opportunities are extended to all within a territorial nation and all barriers are removed for foreign investments and transfers of profits, especially tax and foreign exchange laws, then a large step towards peace will have been taken.

Freedom to issue and accept private exchange media, short, medium, and long-term securities, and to trade them freely, on freely established markets, under full publicity, would be among the basic requirements to maximize international investments. They must also be safe from nationalization threats and "fair participation" rules etc.

See: Alien Acts, Capitalism, Communism, Cooperative Production, Economic Freedom, Free Enterprise, Free Trade, International Corporations, Laissez Faire, Market, Monetary Freedom, Nationalism, Nationalization, Property, Purchase of Enterprises, Voluntary Taxation.

As long as there is any danger of any present or future military use of radioactive materials, none should be used any longer, not even for medical purposes. All stocks should be destroyed together with that of the disarmed nuclear devices, e.g. by extreme dispersal or by shooting them into the sun. Technology and Medicine can progress without these materials. Where there ever reliable statistics proving that e.g. Radium and Cobalt irradiation techniques did not, in balance, cause more cancer cases than they cured?

See: Atomic Energy, Disarmament, Peaceful Use, Radiation Hazard, Research.

If all Jews were now living in Israel then this would be, in the eyes of some fanatic antisemites, like an open invitation to murder them altogether, probably with ABC devices. Hitler, at least, would not have hesitated.

Israel's organization type, the territorial one (similar to the Nazi concept of a mythical connection between "blood and soil") is now obviously a survival risk for every religious, national, racial or ideological minority;

or even majority, seeing the use terrorists could make of nuclear weapons.

The Diaspora of the Jews, their dispersal and continuance all over the world, has so far assured their survival in spite of massive and repeated pogroms in some other countries. For many centuries they were never as much concentrated in one small spot, ready for what their genocidal enemies called the "Final Solution". The Diaspora, continued by most of the living Jews does prevents their enemies from ever resorting to nuclear war everywhere, directed especially against them. Their concentration in Israel is something else again: an "ideal" nuclear target, in the eyes of their murderously inclined enemies. Some of their enemies, like Nasser, declared openly, many

years ago, that the "solution" of the problem of Israel would lie in the Hydrogen Bomb.

The real solution for them would be to go into the Diaspora again, wherever they wanted to, even in the area of the present Israel, but without any territorial and nationalistic claim to an exclusive rule over this whole area. They should come to live again, and this time comprehensively and safely, under their personal law, be it the current democratically formulated one, voluntarily continued by some, or that of the Torah and Talmud etc.

Their voluntary segregation, in autonomous and exterritorial organizations, fully respecting the same autonomy for their present enemies, could assure their survival - as it had before, for about 800 years under Ottoman rule.

See: Arabs, Arms Race, Exterritorial Imperative, Middle East, Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Oil, Secession, Segregation, War Aims, Peace Plans 12.

The conventional military strength of nuclear bomb owners can be used against them - in close combat, i.e., when they will not or cannot dare to use these mass murder "weapons" since using them would, obviously, be suicidal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96

No tyrant would advocate throwing a large bomb at an assassin who threatens him with a pistol. Using a dictator's masses of conscripts - as volunteers against him, is another, rightful and sensible approach.

Re-directing tax funds against him is still another.

Giving free reign to communist aspirations among communist volunteers is also one such method, as long as they apply their system tolerantly, that is, at their own expense and risk only. This would turn their minds away from terrorism, conspiracy, subversion and revolutionary strength and also from the advocacy of nuclear strength against us. The more our real enemy conscripts people and confiscates property (e.g. by taxes and inflation) in his fight against us, the more potential friends and allies we would gain, if only we treated them as such.

See: Alliances, Conscription, Desertion, Disarmament, Enemy, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Motives, Prisoners of War, Revolutions, Revolutionary Warfare, Secret Allies, Separate Peace, War Aims, Weapons.

The juridical sphere of a king, president or dictator constitutes much of his of power. To destroy his power his "turf" is targeted, in which he has established exclusive constitutional, legal, juridical or arbitrary power. This is now done also with ABC mass murder devices, which seem eminently suitable to such targets. If a territory and all its people and all the territorial powers of a government are to be considered as "the enemy", then ABC "weapons" do make some sense.

If a government really brought justice to its subjects then it would not be a threat to them and to citizens in other countries and no rational person would consider ABC mass murder devices as "defensive" "weapons" against it. But, seeing that free competition between different constitutional, legal and juridical systems is suppressed by territorialism, a just jurisdiction is only very rarely, if ever, achieved!

If a government or non-governmental society, instead of being a territorial monopolist, ruled only over voluntary followers, then it could still happen, sometimes, that it would be attacked, however unlikely and difficult that might under such conditions. But it would not be attacked with nuclear mass murder devices, seeing that its subjects or citizens are living intermixed with those of other volunteer communities, side by side and yet independent from each other. That kind of tolerant coexistence would not prevent, always or sufficiently, the murder of individuals or of some members of a group. But this would be done rather by e.g. sticks and stones and firearms than by ABC mass murder devices. After living and working next to each other for many years, also under conditions of full employment and growing prosperity for all able and willing to work, the tendency to name and "punish" scapegoats would also be greatly diminished.

Uniformity of laws and juridical equality under an exclusive law are possible only on a territorial basis and they must disappear if mankind is to survive. They might, however, develop one day, - in the far future, The time is not ripe for that yet. The development of fully just ideas still requires competition. Otherwise, we would merely petrify diverse injustices and perpetuate struggles.

See: Arbitration Courts, Competing Governments, Exterritorial Imperative, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Power, Secession, Territorial Organization, War Aims.

Justice is a precondition of peace. Its realization requires the realization of all human rights everywhere, at least for all who appreciate them. It also requires that the various and sometimes contradictory notions of "social", "economic", "racial" and "political" justice be practised only among volunteers.

"Ask all people: 'Do you want peace?' Unanimously they will answer: 'I wish, desire want and love it.' Thus you must also love justice, for justice and peace are like two friends. If you do not like the friend of peace, then peace will neither like you nor come to you" - said Saint Augustine, 354-430.

See: Collective Responsibility Enemy, Ex Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, five, Human Rights, Individual Responsibility, Minority Autonomy, Secession, Uniformity, War Aims.

The proper translation of "Laissez faire, laissez passer!" is: "Let people produce, let them exchange!".

It is also the proper meaning of that phrase, contrary to the xyz myths, errors, prejudices and fables spread about it. Its realization would not enslave anybody but set everybody free as free as he wants to be and without restricting the same freedom of others. It does not grant

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97

any powers over others. It gives nobody a chance to oppress and destroy but everybody a chance for every rightful, constructive, reasonable, creative & profitable activity. It is not a licence for robbers, barons, pirates, tax gatherers and rulers - since they do not respect the laissez fare rule but, habitually, break it.

Nor does "laissez faire" mean: Let those owning nuclear devices do whatever they please with them. Instead, it amounts not only an appeal to these human beasts, to leave their potential victims alone, but also to an appeal to the potential victims to realize and make use of their latent liberties and right for their own liberation and security, their very survival.

All nuclear powers have at present aims which are opposite to the ideals of laissez faire. A society based on these ideals would not produce, keep or use nuclear devices. It would be a society of free producers and traders, i.e. a society which allows nobody any power over others and it would thus be a peaceful society

See: Capitalism, Competing Governments, Economic Freedom Exterritorial Imperative, Market, Militia, Monopolies, Resistance, Self-defence, Tolerance, War Aims.

"Land, n. A., part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that, if the whole area of Terra Firmis is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G. to be born, or born as trespassers, to exist.'' - said Ambrose Bierce in his "The Devil's Dictionary".

The land monopoly expressed in private or cooperative real estate property is at least mitigated by relatively free transferability of land titles and by their very large number. This transferability is wrongly restricted by monopolistic registration, zoning and building ordinances, tax burdens, credit restrictions, inflated prices due to government inflation etc.

The land monopoly at its worst is demonstrated by the national territorial governments. They have indeed divided the world up between them, as indicated above by A. Bierce. Only about 200 such monopolies exist in the whole world. Between them they cover all the inhabitable surface. Only those who submit to them, and pay "rent" or taxes to these official land lords and absolutist land holders, are allowed to live, but only under the burden of more laws and regulations than they would ever find even time to merely read. Between them, these national land monopolists, have effectively monopolized the world & have, more or less, but everywhere in "their" territories, or criminal turfs, suppressed individual liberty.

As a result they have turned every country into a potential or actual nuclear weapons producer and also into a nuclear target.

This inherent danger of the national land monopoly could and should be broken up by free individual and group secessions and by exterritorial and autonomous reorganization on a voluntary basis.

Alas, most land reformers do ignore this, the worst form of land monopoly.

The private land tenure monopoly is already very decentralized - by the existence of literally millions of land holders, engaged in a very extensive competition with each other. What remains of this monopoly, the main concern of most land reformers, could, probably, be best broken up by what has been called "open cooperatives", establishing freedom for individuals to join them in the exploitation of natural resources, which are presently closed to them, under the organizational and financial forms of "open cooperatives" for their exploitation of these resources, in free competition with all other land reform systems, each applied only by and to its believers and at their expense and risk. This option has been originated probably by P. Buchez, and then developed in several books by Theodor Hertzka and in several letters and drafts by Ulrich von Beckerath.

Open cooperatives would mean free access to land and minerals. Those freely joining them would either owe their share of capital to previous investors or would get a correspondingly lesser return. All members would be financially rewarded only according to their investment, knowledge, skill and labour input. This would make it impossible to derive a monopoly "profit" from a natural resource and would do away with the land hunger, the class warfare ideology and the civil and international laws they lead to.

This kind of "socialization" could be introduced completely peacefully and morally, through free market purchases of the natural resources.

See: Exterritorial Imperative, Free Migration, Free Trade, Frontiers, Governments, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Open Cooperatives, Secession, Targets, Territorial Organization. See also Peace No. 5.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98

The danger of nuclear war arises largely out of an abuse of the language which leads to myths, misconceptions, irrational hatreds etc. People who realty and fully understood each other would not fight each other.

See: Alien Acts, Anarchism Capitalism, Collective Responsibility, Definitions, Deterrence, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Enemy, Enlightenment, Freedom, Greed, Honour, Ideas, Ignorance, Laissez Faire, Law & Order, Laws, Myths, Nationalism, Nuclear Strength, Obedience, Power, Prejudices, Prestige, Profit, Racism, Targets, Tolerance, War Aims, Weapons, Welfare Sate.

The conventional concept of it preserves the status quo - which suppresses minorities and thus preserves nuclear targets. It upholds the notion that there could be only one kind of law and order in any territory, a concept which is one of the main factors making for nuclear war. It also ignores the importance of Human Rights. The present law and order is certainly not worth defending at the risk of the total chaos and destruction of nuclear war.

See: Autonomy, Democracy, Disobedience, Human Rights, Majority, Minority, Resistance, Revolution, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Uniformity.

Territorially applied laws authorize legalized aggression against basic but not yet generally recognized rights of all dissenters and nonconformists. They are morally as flawed as was the old maxim of "Cuius regio, eius religio!'' (The ruler's religion determines that of his subjects.)

They are laws of warfare and oppression which cannot be the basis for any lasting peace. They seemingly unite while in reality they antagonize and provoke. They are not even fully enforceable. They must be replaced by Personal Laws if there is to be lasting peace. Only then would nobody any longer consider mass extermination devices to be suitable weapons to hurt other "countries" or "nations", "governments" or "States" - although some might still want to arm their followers with e.g., daggers and rifles. But one can cope with such arms.

See: Aggression, Autonomy, Conquests, Consent, Democracy, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Governments, Human Rights, Militia, Minority Autonomy, Motives, Nationalism, Personal Law, Representation, Secession, Self-defence, Self-help, Sovereignty, Statism, Targets, Territorial Organization, Tolerance, Uniformity, War Aims.

Leadership of the conventional type leads now directly to nuclear disaster. No leader has the right to nuclear devices because no leader is authorized to commit genocide. Nor has any leader ever been granted a formal monopoly for measures to prevent nuclear war, no matter how strong the statist religion is in some countries. What a ridiculous belief this is, the trust that leaders, who led us to the brink of nuclear holocaust and keep us there, would suddenly lead us away from it. Like hell they will. This is the only road they know. This is the only way they have been trained to use. This is the only way they, as powerful territorial leaders can travel. It has only one end: nuclear disaster.

Only when no leader has any but voluntary followers and when the aggressive leaders have been executed as tyrants or otherwise rendered harmless, is there a chance to avoid nuclear war.

Leadership would be entirely different when there are only voluntary followers, when the leader has no exclusive legislative power over dissenters and when dissenters could easily have their own leaders in their own autonomous organizations,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99

doing their own things, for and to themselves, under their own personal laws. All coercive leadership. with aggressive and oppressive aims, is wrong and must be ended. If everybody's creative powers became unleashed, everybody could to some extent become a leader, pioneer or innovator in at least one specialized sphere.

What we need now is only a rational and advisory leadership, one leading away from all kinds of territorial political leadership and powers making for nuclear war.

Let everybody be his own leader away from nuclear war. Let everybody follow his own Leader. And let us wipe out or otherwise render harmless all criminal leaders who do not only aggress against their own voluntary slaves but against others.

One can very well oppose all leadership over conscripts, taxpayers and other subjected victims, whilst at the same time welcoming or at least tolerating leadership over non-aggressive volunteers. The former is the conventional and more or less despotic and intolerant leadership whilst the latter is innovative leadership at its best - giving every new idea a chance to be practised among volunteers.

See: Accidental War, Arms Race, Collective Responsibility, Competing Governments, Decision, Democracy, Desertion Deterrence, Dictatorships, Disarmament, Disobedience, Elite, Experts, Exterritorial Imperative,' Freedom of Action, Freedom to Experiment, Governments, Madness, Militia, Monopolies, Obedience, Outlawry, People, Referendum, Resistance, Responsibility, Revolution, Rulers, Secession, Self-defence Self-determination, Self-help, Sovereignty, Statism, Subordination, Tolerance, Trust, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, War Aims.

A liberation war cannot be conducted with nuclear devices - but could be conducted without them against those holding them, with the aim to destroy these devices and to deprive these madmen of their powers and to introduce the rule of individual human rights.

No other wars than defence and liberation wars are justified. No others than truly defensive and liberating means must be used. All aggressive wars which are not genuinely liberating must be resisted. (For an exception see under Surrender.) Truly liberating wars could never use totalitarian means without defeating their purpose.

See: Appeals, Declarations, Defence, Desertion, Disarmament, Enemy, Militia, Revolutionary Warfare Secession, Secret Allies, Separate Peace, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

How could libertarianism help against the nuclear war threat? Just go point for point through this collection and look at the summaries. As a special appeal to libertarians to consider the nuclear war threat and the libertarian solutions to it, Murray N. Rothbard's essay : "War, Peace and the State" is so far unsurpassed. In a few pages he clearly demonstrates:

" .. libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world's crucial problems" ( p. 2), including the nuclear one.

What is Libertarianism? I liked the collated explanation in the Libertarian Yearbook 1972:

"Libertarianism is freedom.

Libertarianism is a philosophy of rational human action.

Libertarianism is an ideology directed toward the maximum freedom of the individual within the laws of reality. Libertarianism is a concept of individual liberty.

Libertarianism is the realization by an individual of his self, and the rational needs for his own happiness. Libertarianism is a movement of individuals aware of the meaning of freedom and working to make that idea a

reality.

Libertarianism is an agreement with the principle hat an individual is solely responsible for his own life, and he

may pursue the interests of his life so long as he denies to no other man the same right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100

Libertarianism is the conceptual result of an individual's love for life.

Libertarianism is an understanding that free enterprise is the only economic system consistent with individual

liberty.

Libertarianism is the knowledge that the coercion of an individual has no rightful place in human society. Libertarianism is a revolution against those institutions by men which attempt to dictate to the individual by force. Libertarianism is the belief that no individual is equal to another.

Libertarianism is an appreciation of the beauty of the free and rational human being. … "

See: Anarchism, Capitalism, Economic Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Free Enterprise, Individualism, Laissez Faire, Morality, Rights, Secession.

Only Liberty can assure the survival of the human race. This is the only logical conclusion I can draw from a survey of all the programs against nuclear war that I have come across. Check it out for yourself.

"From Liberty flow all the blessings of peace, prosperity, and human happiness; from power flows war, impoverishment and despotism."- said Murray N. Rothbard in "Laissez Faire Review", May-June 74.

See: Autonomy, Dictatorships, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Human Rights, Individualism, Libertarianism, Secession, Self-defence, Self-help, Tolerance, Voluntarism, War Aims.

As an "ad hominem" argument let us consider imposing licensing for the possession of nuclear devices. Who is good enough to be entrusted with them? And who is to issue such licences, if anyone, and what for?

It has been tacitly assumed that a government is licensed to build and use nuclear destructive devices and to decide on war and peace, even on nuclear war, while the same government will not even concede air rifles and fireworks to the youngsters in some States. Who, when and where gave a government such an authority?

Is the submission under such government any better, morally, than the old assertions: "The King can do no wrong!" and: "My country, right or wrong!"?

Instead of "licensing" wrongdoers and wrongs, let us rather "license" exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers and the human rights which were so far everywhere more or less suppressed.

Let us usurp the authority to withdraw licences from bureaucrats, whom we had so far commissioned to either grant or refuse licences to us.

Let the people, in referendums, restore the freedoms so far withheld from them by compulsory licensing systems. Let them thus destroy all the unjust powers, and privileges and monopolies established by this compulsory and territorial licensing system.

Let us, for instance, repeal, by referendum, all licensing requirements for broadcasting, postal and transport services.

Let us, in the same way, repeal the dangerous privileges we have granted to diplomats, defence ministers, generals ministers for external affairs and prime ministers.

And let us repeal as well the licence granted to the Central Bank, a licence to issue, inflate and deflate at will a coercive and exclusive currency, thus to manipulate an exclusive standard of value and a forced currency and to restrict credit and clearing.

Let us repeal, moreover, the monopolistic licences we granted to the State's military, police, juridical and welfare services.

Last, not least, let us repeal the "licence" we gave "our representatives" to tax us without limits, sense, or equivalent service. Let individuals freely drop out of all imposed licensing systems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101

Let us repeal all universal and exclusive and territorial licensing laws, whether they be for weapons, exchanges, note-issuing banks, autonomous political organizations, secessions, protective companies, courts etc.

The only organizations which could rightfully keep or restore such restrictions would be autonomous and exterritorial organizations, freely experimenting among their voluntary members and with their unanimous consent.

Nobody has the licence to grant or refuse a licence to live (in any form or way) to any non-aggressive and non-consenting person.

See: Authority, Autonomy, Capitalism, Consent, Decision, Democracy, Diplomacy, Economic Freedom, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Free Migration, Free Trade, Human Rights, Laissez Faire, Militia, Monopolies, Panarchy, People, Recall, Referendum, Taxation, Tolerance, Voting, Weapons, Welfare State.

Sell the roads, sell the Post Office sell the railways, sell the governments laboratories, the government buildings, and the gold hoard. Sell the defence establishment, sell the gaols; sell every government asset, all government owned machines and stores. Limit all liabilities to the sales proceeds and cut out all subsidies.

Restore "reserve deposits" etc. to their rightful owners.

Let every citizen get his share in whatever assets the governments still possesses: in form of newly issued and freely transferable share certificates, - after all current & quite rightful claims against it are paid off. (These rightful claims do not include any investments in tax slaves, not even in form of pension claims for politicians and bureaucrats.

Do not grant any taxing power to any territorial government and withdraw all existing ones.

Let good private money drive out the bad government money.

Let people hire and fire bureaucrats individually.

Let individuals opt out of the subjugation to territorial governments.

Then no government would remain any more powerful than is any other and private association.

This would be one way to disable governments from continuing e.g., the nuclear arms race.

See: Bureaucracy, Competing Governments, De-nationalization, Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, International Corporations, Licensing Laws, Minority Autonomy, Military Insurrections Militia, Monetary Freedom, Pension Claims, Recall, Referendums, Re-privatization, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Tax-Strike, War Aims.

Are ABC weapons merely facts of life that we have to learn to live with? Are they part of an inevitable and irreversible as well as scientific "progress" we must put up with?

We might as well ask whether have to live with tuberculosis, cancer and the common cold, with slavery, torture and oppression - or whether we ought to fight them.

See: Coexistence, Ethics, Ignorance, Immorality, Modern, Morality, Prejudices, Progress, Science, Statism, War Aims.

"Make Love, not war!"- is not a very clear and practicable suggestion, neither for a virgin struggling against a rapist nor for a free country try trying to defend itself against a dictatorship. One should rather say: Make war with love, or better with justice, meaning, not war on love, but war, if unavoidable, with reverence for innocent human life and for the rights remaining even in such a situation.

Could any moral and rational being love those who threaten us with nuclear holocaust?

Could any moral and rational being love the Soviet and Red Chinese rulers?

Could any sensible person love a Western government which shows its "love" for the victims of its opponents by threatening them with nuclear devices?

Hate your true enemy and love your secret allies - would be a better suggestion.

Mass murderers who killed a few dozen people, individually, are harmless compared with

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102

the murderers using nuclear strength. Can one love any mass murderer?

Love others enough to grant them justice: full freedom to exercise all their rights! Otherwise you may freely hate their guts. Love your neighbour enough to grant him autonomy and personal law. Refrain from meddling with his affairs. The more he differs in his ways of life from yours, the more you will be safe from all those, all over the world, who do, likewise, prefer his kind of living. They will not attempt to wipe you out with nuclear devices - for fear of hitting your neighbour. (If you don't give him his freedom, then they might never realize that he is their ally - and wipe both of you out.) He is your life insurance, so to speak - if you leave him alone. And you are his.

You do not have to love your enemy or your neighbours - if only you do them justice. In practice, this often merely means that you ought to tolerate or avoid each other. And this might very well be enough to disarm him. It becomes enough when the enemy is properly defined and noncombatants, neutrals and friends and secret allies are no longer treated as enemies.

See: Air Raids, Appeals, Autonomy, Civilians, Collective Responsibility, Communism, Desertion, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Justice, Laissez Faire, Military Insurrections, Militia, Negotiations, Noncombatants, Peace Declarations, People, Prisoners of War, Secession, Secret Allies, Targets, Tolerance, Trust, War Aims.

Do you really love life or do you despise it? If you really loved life, then you would see the only rational attitude towards the threat of nuclear holocaust: to do your best to prevent it. And this requires that you do not rest and "enjoy life" at the edge of a volcano - until the last nuclear device has been destroyed and all steps necessary have been taken so that they will not be built again. But you do not love life as much or do you?

Those having children, and thus having given hostages to the future, are sometimes somewhat more responsible in their outlook - whenever ignorance or prejudice has not made them apathetic.

If people really loved life they would love liberty and would not licence, at their expense, to bureaucrats. But they do not love freedom enough and thus they do not love life sufficiently. Not knowing freedom sufficiently, they do not appreciate it and do not realize how closely it is interrelated with life, namely, that it is nothing but the possibility for a full life.

No wonder then that they are unaware of the greatest threat to life: oppression, consisting of, thousands of large and small repressive acts, mainly undertaken, under one or the other pretence, by territorial governments.

In many people the slave mentality or statism is so ingrained that they do not consider their subjugation as such but regard it instead as a deliverance, a service which frees them from the efforts of living of acting freely and responsibly. Actually, they do not love life but hate it. Otherwise, they would see to it that they remain no, longer powerless to protect it. Otherwise they would not love their chains.

See: Apathy, Death Wish, Ideas/Large, Statism, Survival Instinct.

Loyalty is misplaced when it threatens survival, e. g., when it is granted to nuclear powers. Be loyal to yourself, first of all and it follows as the night the day that you cannot then be loyal to nuclear powers. (With apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet.) Nuclear weapons are likely to be guarded by the most "loyal" soldiers against sabotage and disarmament attempts by the people. To whom are they loyal? Certainly not to mankind and objectively not to their countrymen, either. Loyalty to tyrants is a contradiction in terms, Any anyone with nuclear power is a tyrant, even if originally he was elected.

See: Disarmament, Disobedience, Oaths, Obedience, Resistance, Statism, Subordination, Tyrannicide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103

When a ruler ought to be certified as insane, not only because of his nuclear strength policy, is it very likely that he would be so certified or more likely that the facts about his mental condition would be hushed up?

What would be the likely fates of the physician and the psychologist who were to certify him? Would they dare doing it - in time? Could they do so without risk to themselves - in any present State? Could they do this safely in a dictatorship?

There is no fail-safe system to prevent madness of men in power. The mere fact that they strove for power indicates already that they are at least power-mad.

If a gunman holds some civilians hostage, in an escape bid or in a hold-up, then we consider him as at least half-demented. If politicians, with their nuclear devices, hold millions of citizens beyond their own borders, in practice, as hostage and do expose "their own" citizens to the same threat, then they are usually considered as sane and rational. How mad can one get?

In spite of an abundance of destructive nuclear devices being available, an abundance providing a multiple over-kill capacity, they go on producing and refining them.

In spite of all failures of interventionist legislation in economic affairs, our rulers go on passing more and more such legislation.

I spite of the accumulated evidence against the "war on drugs", they go on and on with their prohibitionist policies, which are obviously wrong, harmful and barely put a dent in the drug trade but rather boost it by driving its illegal prices and profits up and up.

Are these instances signs of rationality in our rulers?

The only at least temporarily and in partly rational rulers were the few ones who abdicated. The others are all irrational power addicts and victims of delusions. They are the people who should least of all be trusted with ABC "weapons" - and yet they are the ones granted a monopoly on them!

"The most disturbing fact about the Eichmann trial, says Merton, is that a psychiatrist examined him and pronounced him perfectly sane. As no doubt he was. He slept well and had a good appetite. He developed no anxiety neuroses or psychosomatic illnesses. He had a profound respect for his political leaders and for law and order. He was conscientious and devoted to duty He was sane, all right …

"We were mistaken: 'It is the well-adapted ones who can without qualms and without nausea aim the missiles and press the buttons that will initiate the great festival of destruction that they, the sane ones, have prepared.'

"It is sane, solid, sober, industrious citizens who have invented and developed the weapons and are even now planning strategy for the next war. They are the ones who are coolly estimating how many millions can be regarded as expendable in a nuclear conflict.

"If we are to avoid a holocaust, we need all the cranks and crackpots, dreamers and visionaries, radicals and ratbags we can get." - Gordon Hawkins, The Australian 2.2. 1973: "Ragbags: a vital part of the nuclear age", quoting from the essay of Father Thomas Merton, Trappist Monastery in Gethsemane, Kentucky, titled: "A Devout Meditation in Memory of Adolf Eichmann."

Keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of these sane madmen, and of all crackpots, too, one should add.

See: Abdication, Accidental War, Decision, Disarmament, Generals, Governments Leadership, Murder, Outlawry, Politicians, Power, Rulers, Secession, States, Talent Registry, Tyrannicide, War Aims, Weapons.

Obviously, an individual, or a minority, should not have the right or the opportunity to involve all in a nuclear war. But neither should the majority have the right to thus decide the fate of all mankind. Individual rights are individual rights - independent of majority opinions.

See: Autonomy, Consent, Decision, Democracy, Dictatorship, Exterritorial, Imperative, Freedom of Action, Human Rights, Individualism, Experimental Freedom, Minority Autonomy,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104

Neutrality, Secession. Sovereignty, Tolerance.

Is a man "armed" with nuclear devices still a man? Can he still claim human rights?

Is he to be obeyed or to be resisted? Is he to be a law maker, or minister or to be treated as an outlaw? Is he to be considered as a ruler based on consent or as a tyrant to be wiped out? Was anybody ever authorized by any election to decide by himself whether mankind is to go on living or not? Think it over by and for yourself!

See: Aggression, Decision, Disobedience, Governments, Greed, Human Nature, Leadership, Madmen, Nuclear Strength, Outlawry, Power, Resistance, Responsibility, Rights, Secession, Subordination, Tyrannicide.

MARKET, A FULLY FREED MARKET, AT LEAST FOR ALL WHO VOLUNTEER FOR IT!

The free market, introduced for every service, within the framework of human rights, would eliminate the threat of nuclear war by depriving governments of all war-making powers.

On a free market, those favoring despotism could even buy the despotism of their choice for themselves - with their money and their lives and liberties. They could do so without endangering others. Thus one could leave all political sadists and masochists to themselves. But one should never give them any chance of power over others.

See: Capitalism, Conscription, Contract, Decision, Defence, Economic Freedom, Employment, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom, Free Enterprise, Free Market, Free Migration, Free Trade, Governments, Human Rights, Investments, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Motives, Power, Protectionism, Secession, Tolerance, Unemployment, Voluntary Taxation, Welfare Sate.

The mass media appear to have somehow conditioned us to accept mass killings and mass murder as normal. Large-scale death has lost much of its horror by being a daily and often even visual experience through the mass media. What could be done about this?

Censorship is certainly not the answer.

As an excuse for not knowing what could be rationally done against the nuclear threat, the mass media often do pretend that the threat is not really very large - and that there is some worthwhile and fully harmless "peaceful' use of atomic energy.

In their information function they do not even attempt to list, as a rule, what proposals have been made so far to overcome any particular problem. Mostly only the official and territorial non-solution get full exposure.

What would happen if, e.g. by the information service of a comprehensive Ideas Archive, the mass media would be regularly supplied with material on individual resistance, self-management of one's life, tyrannicide information etc., and a consistent philosophy and programs to oppose the present trends?

Or if all such information were made readily available in alternative media or on the Internet but not yet on the mass media?

Then, I believe, their re-enforcement of the current trends would become weakened and would finally cease. They

respond to public opinion pressures and public opinion could and should be changed. Properly used, the mass

media, especially broadcasting, offer an ideal opportunity for the rapid spread of libertarian and peace promoting ideas.

A simple suggestion could be helpful to win over most papers, publishers and broadcasters, and their employees, even many teachers, to the cause of laissez faire: No taxes on any publisher, printer, journalist, editor, writer, paper supplier, bookshop, on anyone working in the educational sphere. This would not have to be a special privilege. Voluntary taxation simply has to begin somewhere.

See: Apathy, Appeals, Archive of Ideas, Atomic Energy, Broadcasting, Contacts, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Education, Enlightenment, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Ignorance, Open Air Speaking, Peaceful Use, Prejudices, Propaganda, Publicity, Referendums, Self-help, Trust, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105

Ordinary firearms are merely weapons for individual murders, one by one, in the hands of any murderer and they could also be used to prevent murders. Compare them with nuclear "weapons" devices. The latter are inevitably, and with the best of will, still murder weapons and mass murder weapons at that. They cannot be used to prevent crime without committing thereby a much greater one. Counter-terror is still terror.

See: Arms Race, Civilians, Deterrence Immorality, Indiscriminate Warfare, Quality, Noncombatants, Nuclear Strength, War Aims, Weapons.

Men willing to hire themselves out at a price, to fight for anything and anyone, should no longer be allowed arms but ought to be disarmed by a volunteer militias Otherwise, they might even establish a world dictatorship, resting on nuclear power. See: Career Soldiers, Conscription, Defence, Disarmament, Generals, Militia, Oath, Standing Army, Weapons.

The Middle East is one of the all too many flash point areas for the beginnings of a general nuclear war. Only restoration and expansion of its ancient exterritorial tradition, meaning autonomous self-government for all nations, religions, tribes and other groups, on an exterritorial basis, could defuse the situation.

See: Arabs, Arms Race, Canals, Exterritorial Imperative, Israel, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Oil, Panarchy, Personal Law, Pluralism, Peace Plans No. 12.

Free migration is no longer a good enough way out, a way away from the threat of nuclear war. Not even migration to the stars, since the nuclear devices and the ideas and institutions making for them, would go with these emigrants as well.

Only internal migration or secession or exterritorial re-organization or opting out whilst staying wherever one lives, could solve the problem.

Nevertheless, less, free migration would help to reduce the power of governments and to assure a better mixing of minority groups world-wide, so that all people, in all countries, would finally get interested in preserving the peace everywhere.

See: Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Movement, Free Migration, Immigration Restrictions, Motives, Targets, War Aims.

Even the strong strongest military dictatorship could be rendered powerless by a military insurrection. Those wanting peace must attempt to induce them against all dictatorships and against all nuclear powers. To induce such insurrections one's aim must be so obviously rightful, clear and attractive that even an enemy regime's soldiers

and officers would gladly rather fight for them than for their own rulers.

The following is a comment made by Ulrich von Beckerath in 1954:

" .. In the next war a military strike in the authoritarian States is not improbable. Required is 'a program how the strikers can finance their strike …'

"The military strike muss not be the equivalent to a subjection to the non-authoritarian States. We expect that whole armies of the authoritarian States will organize themselves as autonomous communities. These communities will negotiate as equals with the governments, especially to assure the support of the millions of members of these

communities through full employment, an employment which would have to be organized

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106

within a day or two.

"Autonomous communities in the form of independent armies are nothing new in the Eastern world. The Red Army was in its beginnings an autonomous community, even if in a very primitive form. The armies arising against the Soviets organized themselves likewise as autonomous communities, e.g. the armies of Denikin, Judenitsch Wrangle, Machnow and others

"Also the Czarist Army, which after WW I retreated into the Serbian Territory, still existed for a long time as an autonomous community. (Among the thousands of publications on details of WW I and its consequences, there is apparently not one supplying information on the autonomous communities arising from the fall of the Czar's empire."

This topic deserves a book length treatment. Here no more than hints can be given.

See: Amnesty, Appeals, Asylum, Autonomy, Declarations, Desertion, Disobedience, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Governments in Exile, Militia Minority Autonomy, Nationalism, Nuclear Strength, Peace Declarations Publicity, Revolutionary Warfare, Secession, Secret Allies, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons

All prohibitions of private military organizations should be repealed with regard to local volunteer militia forces for the protection of human rights and organized on the basis of soldiers' rights.

See: Career Soldiers, Decision, Disarmament, Declarations, Defence, Discipline, Disobedience, Election of Officers, Generals, Mercenaries, Militia, Monopolies, Oaths, Obedience, Soldiers' Rights, Standing Armies, War Aims, Weapons.

I will not even attempt to hint in a single paragraph or page at a comprehensive libertarian defence, liberation, military insurrection and revolution program. But hints for it are spread throughout this ABC compilation.

See: Air Raids, Amnesty, Appeals, Asylum, Blockade, Boycotts, Collective Responsibility, Decision, Declarations, Defence, Desertion, Disarmament, Discriminatory Warfare, Disobedience, Election of Officers, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Financing, Individual responsibility, International Law, Military insurrections, Military Organization, Militia, Nuclear Strength Obedience, Outlawry, Peace Declarations, Police Actions, Prisoners of War, Revolutionary Warfare, Separate Peace Treaties, Soldiers' Rights, Surrender, Targets, Tax Strike, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Voluntary Taxation, War Aims, Weapons, Introduction, Appx. 1,5,6,12, Index. Compare also the more systematic treatment of this subject in PEACE PLANS 61-63.

Even if the U.S. would stick to its recent (1974) promise to target predominantly only military installations, railway yards etc., the questions still arise: Is the resultant radioactivity acceptable? Would the government stick to these targets or resort to 'total' war sooner or later? Would not, even in the most favorable case, a large number of non-combatants be killed, at least indirectly?

There should be a concentration of military strike forces not only on all military targets but only on all essential military targets, as were e.g. furnaces and ball bearing industries in WW I and II. For their destruction conventional bombs and rockets and sabotage actions would be enough and would be more suitable.

See: Air Raids, Bombers, Escalation, Enemy, Indiscriminate Warfare, Nuclear Strength, Targets, Tyrannicide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107

Unarmed, unorganized and untrained men are, with regard to nuclear war prevention, like sheep led to the slaughter house. More than half the population of the world lives under dictatorships and is thus intentionally disarmed. (That situation has been somewhat improved in the meantime. But the newly liberated States are far from being libertarian ones or even very "democratic". - J.Z., 15.10.01.) The others are disarmed largely with their consent.

Without safeguarding of human rights peace cannot be achieved - and nothing but a volunteer militia, sworn and trained to defend nothing but human rights, and this only in rightful ways, could effectively protect or realize them against despotically inclined governments.

Those in power argue that firearms in the hands of their subjects are dangerous and that nuclear devices in their own hands are harmless.

To form or join a local militia and an international federation of militia forces for the protection of human rights is not only a right but a duty - for every ethical, rational and fit man and woman.

Once militias are anywhere well organized and trained, then they could, temporarily, take over all government powers - but only with the aim to dissemble them as fast as possible and to prevent the establishment of any new centralized and coercive power. In practice this would usually require no more than a defence by the militias of the right of individuals to secede from the State and to establish exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers:

"Required is a militia embracing all able-bodied men, unless they decline membership. It is also to be sworn in on the Human Rights. But every militiaman ought to swear not only not to offend against Human Rights but also to protect and realize them if and whenever they are attacked anywhere in his neighbourhood.

"How to protect them, how they could form action committees and volunteer units to tackle particular tasks, has still to be elaborated" - Ulrich v. Beckerath, n.d.

The most acute task of militias would be to occupy all nuclear weapon stores and places of their manufacture, including nuclear reactors, to disarm the bombs and rockets or supervise specialists doing this - and to distribute fractions of the radioactive material required for a single bomb to each local militia unit for safe keeping until it can be safely disposed of.

Secondly, they are to support revolutionary and insurrectionist efforts and initiate the establishment of militias and the destruction of nuclear devices in other countries by these new militias.

Thirdly, they are to be the main defence force against external aggression.

Fourthly, they are to be the ultimate sovereign institution.

Men who respect human rights have the right and the duty to resist suppression of human rights and this implies that they have the right to bear arms and to organize and train in military fashion.

Self-evident conditions for such organizations are:

They must be voluntary.

They may use only rightful arms.

They may pursue only rightful war aims.

They may use only rightful strategic and tactical methods.

Their military obedience is to be limited and accompanied by a ; right and duty to resist wrongful orders.

Their soldiers would still have to retain their individual rights.

They must be free to elect and recall their officers.

They must swear to uphold nothing but individual rights.

Preferably they should be organized locally, from part-time volunteers, mobilized according to the "on the minute man" system and internationally federated. The subject deserves a book-length treatment. See Appx, 12. Some details were proposed in PEACE PLANS 61-63.

No more uranium mining! It is comparable to atheists and church reformers building torture racks for the inquisition or to Jewish volunteers building gas ovens to be used by Nazis against them. Only the misleading propaganda for a "peaceful" use of

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108

atomic energy makes this kind of mining appear morally acceptable: In democratic countries a referendum could put an end to this misuse of "scarce resources", resources which should remain as scarce as possible.

Mining, considered as the extraction and concentration of ores, should rather use some of its techniques in reverse and put back and dilute concentrated uranium in an attempt at total nuclear disarmament.

See: Arms Race, Atomic Energy, Disarmament, Immorality, Peaceful Use, Radiation Hazard, Referendum, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

All minorities, even formerly terroristic ones, should be granted amnesty and autonomy - if only they agree and abide by autonomous self-rule and no longer attempt to impose their system upon others.

The conventional nations with exclusive territorial rule are guilty themselves, insofar as they left these true believers no other and a rightful approach to realize their ideals rapidly - among themselves.

This is not a demand for amnesty and full autonomy for those people determined to continue their attacks on others, even after the attackers had been granted full exterritorial autonomy on their own affairs.

Autonomy, like tolerance, is only for those willing to grant autonomy and offer tolerance to others.

"Freedom is the only thing you cannot have without willingness to give it to others."

But minority autonomy could well be granted to despotically inclined and totalitarian minorities - as long as they applied their system only to their own voluntary members and left each of them one way out, namely: individual secession. There- was e.g. nothing dangerously wrong with the most restrictive monastic life - as long as each monk or nun was free to give notice. Sometimes, during the French Revolution, the National Guard had to assure this right of individuals in certain monasteries which treated their inmates like prisoners.

See: Alternative Institutions, Autonomy, Communism, Competing Governments, Coexistence, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Nationalism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Secession, Territorial Organization, Totalitarianism, War Aims.

Practically all wars were started or continued based on a miscalculation of the other side's strength and will to resist. If the relative strengths, including morale, the real costs, the efforts involved, the blood sacrifices to be made, were known beforehand, few wars would be started by the aggressors and some would not be resisted. Miscalculations will sooner or later lead nuclear powers to clash, using these mass murder devices. The hotlines will somewhat reduce but not eliminate this risk. We must take precautions so that the fate of man does no longer depend on miscalculations. Only total nuclear disarmament could achieve this security.

See: Accidental War, Censorship, Decision, Disarmament, Experts, Generals, Information - Freedom of, Leadership, Overestimation, Power, Publicity, Secrecy, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

The torture instruments of the Inquisition were once also considered to be "modern" tools, in the eyes of the Inquisitors - not of their victims. The Nazis set up "modern" extermination camps, with all modern conveniences for fast cheap and efficient mass murder. Nuclear devices are only a still more indiscriminate and modern mass murder means than the Nazi extermination camps were.

See: Air Raids, Collective Responsibility, Concentration Camps, Defence, Deterrence, Fail-safe, Militia, Nuclear Strength, Prestige, Weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109

Under the forced currency of a centralized and monopolistic note issuing bank the economy will always fluctuate between inflations and deflations and frequently have both at the same time: stagflation. The resulting crises nourish totalitarian movements, ideologies, racism; nationalism and religious hatreds. They make despotism relatively strong, and weaken democracies. They condemn many revolutions to failure and prevent many people from fleeing from a dictatorship or deserting its armed forces, since countries they would prefer tend to keep them out - fearing even more unemployment. In these and similar ways it contributes to the danger of nuclear war. Together with taxes it allows governments to finance anti-people weapons, even against the will of the majority. By its monopoly for the issue of exchange media, needed for wage payments, governments could always direct people into employment at nuclear weapons and auxiliary military facilities, simply by starving other-employment opportunities of cash.

See : Deflation, Desertion, Dictatorships, Economic Freedom, Employment, Freedom of Migration, Free Trade Inflation, Market, Monetary Freedom, Nationalism, Refugees, Refusal to Accept, Totalitarianism, Unemployment, Peace Plans Nos. 9-11.

Without monetary freedom or free banking there will be unemployment and inflation and both make it easier for the war-hawks.

Monetary freedom could assure employment to workers who resigned from nuclear weapons factories, as well as for deserters and refugees from dictatorships.

Monetary freedom would do away with depressions, and after a while, when savings, due to full employment as well as self-management schemes, would build a rapidly, it could significantly contribute to the abolition of involuntary poverty. Thereby it would help to ideologically disarm the communist fanatics who believe that communism would deliver the goods. and that nothing else could.

It would be essential to finance any prolonged liberation or revolutionary war.

It would be helpful in paying some of the less idealistic deserters from the other side.

I t would be necessary for the integration of millions of soldiers and refugees into the production on process - in the shortest possible to time.

The best defences of the right to issue private money are to be found in the writings of Arthur Kitson and E. C. Riegel, especially in the latter's "The New Approach to Freedom". Alas, both didn't find the right techniques to make the best use of this freedom. The best suggestions can be found in the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath, Dr. Walter Zander and Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen. See especially: Peace Plans Nos. 9-11.

See : Desertion, Dictatorships Employment, Financing, Inflation, Monetary Despotism, Refusal to Accept, Unemployment.

The monopolization of all activities against nuclear strength and nuclear war must be ended. The survival of man. is too important to be left any longer to politicians and bureaucrats. Everyone must be free to participate in the destruction of all nuclear weapons and the replacement of every institution that makes for nuclear war.

See: Appeals, Capitalism, Competing Governments, Contract, Decision, Declarations, Democracy, Desertion, Disarmament, Economic Freedom, Experimental Freedoms, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Acton, Laissez Faire, Minority Autonomy, Militia, Nationalism, Natural, Resources, Negotiations, People, Referendum; Representation, Secession, Secret Diplomacy, Self-defence, Self-help, Separate Peace, Territorial Organization; War Aims, Weapons.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110

The moral instinct hasn't been fully developed yet. Particularly, like the survival instinct, it hasn't been sufficiently developed as yet towards the threat of mass extermination weapons. The remoteness of the enemy and the invisibility of the decisive buttons, for most citizens, are factors making for moral apathy on this question.

The moral instinct must become not only much more developed but also rationally underpinned. This does not, necessarily, require much time and effort but has not yet been systematically.

See: Collective Responsibility, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Enemy, Enlightenment, Ethics, Human Rights, Immorality, Morality, Self-help, Subordination, Disobedience, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, War Aims,

The old statist and territorial order is built upon a special morale, a morale which rests, from law abiding to absolute military obedience, upon the principle of subordination. The new order, required to achieve and maintain peace, would be characterized instead by: voluntarism, individualism, self-responsibility, individual sovereignty and self-help. Could any other morality help to abolish the nuclear threat?

We can no longer afford to remain "nuclear giants and ethical infants". (General Omar Bradley's formula.) We must come to realize that there is no justification for mass murder. Moreover, that mass murder preparations are not justified, either, even when undertaken in the belief that they might act as sufficient deterrents.

The principle of collective responsibility is also wrongly applied in nuclear confrontations.

There are rightful and wrongful weapons. Rightful weapons can be used with restraints, discriminatingly, again the major culprits, war-mongering decision-makers and their fanatic followers. Nuclear devices belong into the latter category. Quite inevitably, they do kill innocents, too.

There are rightful and wrongful war aims and with nuclear devices one cannot pursue any rightful ones, while wrongful ones lead to nuclear war.

There are certain rights which, when suppressed, lead to nuclear war.

The revulsion against nuclear weapons must become so strong that they would no longer be considered as suitable means. We should feel at least as strongly about them as about the suggestion by someone to a tender young baby for dinner.

Once the first serious moral doubts arises as to the morality of nuclear destructive devices, thinking people would soon discover that they cannot serve any moral and rational purpose.

See: Aggression, Autonomy, Collective Responsibility, Consent, Decision, Defence, Democracy, Deterrence, Ethics, Exterritorial Imperative, Human Rights, Immorality, Individualism, Individualism, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Monopolies, Obedience, Outlawry, Power, Referendums, Representation, Resistance, Responsibility, Rights, Secession, Self-defence, Self-help, Social Contract, Social Order, Sovereignty, Statism, Subordination, Taxation, Terrorism, Tyrannicide, Voluntarism, War Aims, Welfare State.

The exterritorial re-organization-of human beings, based on individual secession and association in voluntaristic and exterritorially autonomous communities, catering for every taste, prejudice, conviction, belief and ideal, that can be tolerantly practised, at the own risk and expense, would eliminate almost every motive for war except a remnant of the power motive. Moreover, it would offer the best organization to cope with the power motive or to direct it into constructive channels.

See: Communism, Conquest, Conscription, Decision, Defence, Desertion, Exterritorial Imperative, Frontiers, Free Migration, Free Trade, Invasion, Leadership, Minority Autonomy, Natural Resources, Power, Secession, Tolerance, Voluntarism, War Aims, Weapons.

The same society which outlaws murder usually protects mass murderers by outlawing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

111

tyrannicide. The same society which frequently outlaws fireworks and concealed firearms as being too dangerous, nevertheless entrusts mass extermination weapons to corrupt and prejudiced politicians who cannot be held responsible a wrong nuclear decision involving ABC mass murder devices.

To kill a single person, no matter how abominously he has behaved, is considered a crime. But to prepare for the mass murder of millions, with nuclear devices, no matter how innocent these millions are, is considered right and dutiful, a patriotic act.

Some governments which have nuclear allies, like Australia, prosecute even suicide attempts as criminal, not realizing, for instance, how much the suicide of most men in power would benefit mankind.

How inconsistent and unreasonable can people become once they do employ "political" "thinking"?

To prevent nuclear war no criminal must be safe, no matter how high his political office is. The best way to arrange for the destruction of their powers is to eliminate their offices.

See: Collective Responsibility Decision, Desertion Exterritorial Imperative; Immorality , Individual Responsibility, Madness, Morality, Nuclear Strength, Outlawry, Power, Resistance, Responsibility, Rulers, Self-defence, Tyrannicide, Weapons.

"Destruction is the only end that the mystics' creed has ever achieved as it is the only end that you see them achieving today..." - said Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged", page 971.

The origin of all beliefs, institutions and customs making for nuclear war ties in a great number of myths. Thus, and often, the survival requirement is: "Burn what you have adored and adore what you have burned!"

In this ancient suggestion, of an early French missionary, converting a French king, we ought to replace the instruction: "burn" with: "Leave alone". Intolerance is obligatory only towards the intolerant.

See: Balance of Power, Capitalism, Collective Responsibility, Competition, Control, Defence, Definitions, Desertion, Deterrence, Enemy, Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Fail-safe, Freedom, Governments, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Nationalism, Nuclear Strength, Overpopulation, Power, Prejudices, Prestige, Racism, Reason, Religion, Statism, Surrender, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Weapons, Appx. 2, 4.

Morally, the territorial type of nationalism was never justified. Historically it is a relatively modern development: "Among the Romans the censor was an inspector of public morals, but the public morals of modern nations will not bear inspection! - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

"The new creed is nationalism, the doctrine which expresses and contains the self-adulation of the power unit, the nation state, its sacred absolute authority." - Gregory Raines in: "Good Government", June 72.

There are totalitarian traits even in democracies: "… In effect, a government at war tells its people: 'Forget that you are workers fighting against fellow workers; that you are students fighting against fellow students; that you are Christians fighting against fellow Christians. Remember only that you are Britishers or Germans, or Japanese. That is your supreme allegiance.' " - W. Macmahon Ball in the anthology: "Paths to Peace", compiled by Victor Wallace.

"Nationalism means nothing anyhow. Take the British: In France a Briton is perfidious, in America he's a silly ass with a monocle, in Italy a gaunt, cold-blooded aristocrat, in Germany a bony pipe-sucking child starver." - Eric Knight, "This Above All", page 121, World Distributors, London.

The world will not see peace until we have abolished the collectivism and coercion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

112

inherent in all existing nationalist movements and institutions and have reduced the nationalists to voluntaristic communities which, as such, could have all the autonomy they desire.

Caroline Chisholm was right where she said:

"Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name of national". (I found these words quoted but not yet the text in which they occur. - J.Z., 16.10.01.)

One nationality becomes as voluntaristic and individualistic as church membership - it will become as harmless.

Geographically defined nations are by their very definition nuclear targets. Thus we can no longer afford to be organized in this way.

Voluntary and exterritorially autonomous nationalism, according to any person's free and individual choice, is the answer. This reorganization would do away with all the war-promoting tendencies of territorial nationalism.

If some nations would not want to accept certain members, then the newcomers would still have no cause to resort to war, for they would remain free to set up similar nations without this exclusiveness, anywhere but without any monopoly claims to the whole territory in which they come to live and work. It would all be a question of private contracts with private owners, who might belong to different panarchies.

See: Alliances, Appeals, Autonomy, Collective Responsibility, Competing Governments, Declarations, Defence Enemy, Espionage, Exterritorial Imperative, Individualism, Loyalty, Militia, Military Insurrections, Minority Autonomy, Natural Resources, Obedience, Panarchy, Peace Declarations, Personal Law, Pluralism, Property Concept of Citizens, Secession, Sovereignty, Surrender, Targets, Territorial Organization, Treason, Trust, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Voluntarism, War Aims, Weapons.

No national or private monopoly for natural resources! Instead: Free access even for individual, to all natural resources, even if this means free movement into existing enterprises.

The dissolution of geographic nations by individual secession, the replacement of territorial law by personal law, would mean, at least in the long run, free access fore all to all natural resources. This can be realized by means of the institution of "open coooperatives (as described in several works by Theodor Hertzka, i.e., associations which accept all comers, either as workers or investors, and do reward them according to their contributions.

No more wars for the exclusive possession of oil bearing areas. No more civil wars fomented by the land hungry. No more exclusive national land tenures which forcefully exclude some people from the better endowed areas of this planet. Invaders drove e.g. the Hopis and the Eskimos into the wilderness.

Free access to exploit the natural resources of the world would also turn all into proprietors, although not exclusive ones, and would thus make all people more reluctant to willfully destroy any part of the world.

It surprises me that the conservationists and ecologists or "greenies" have not yet rediscovered this organizational and management approach.

Free access for all people, as decision-makers, to deposits of radioactive materials, would mean that the majority of people could then effectively organize themselves and decide to make these minerals still less accessible for their use, i.e., under present conditions, under territorialism, their abuse, e.g. for nuclear weapons and reactors.

See: Freedom of Migration, Free Trade, Frontiers, Land Monopoly, Monopolies, Nationalism, Open Cooperatives, Panarchy, Peaceful Use, Property, Purchase of Enterprises, Targets, Peace Plans No. 5.

Nuclear mass murder devices are not necessary evils, either; they are absolutely evils. There is no such thing as a necessary evil.

See: Defence, Evil, Immorality, Indiscriminate Warfare, Morality, Nuclear Strength, Weapons.

Negotiations between rulers to eliminate war are as senseless as meetings between leading criminals to eliminate crime. Morally and rationally there is nothing to negotiate about nuclear strength. Only

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

113

nuclear disarmament of the unilateral kind makes sense. Why wait with getting rid of a liability until someone else does so too?

Negotiations between the peoples themselves, over the heads of their rulers, are required for this. Only they can inspire the necessary trust and would, lastly, and rather soon, lead to an all-round nuclear disarmament, unilaterally initiated and continued.

When and wherever prolonged peace negotiations between the peoples are rendered difficult to impossible by the regime on one side, e. g. by the restrictions imposed by a dictator, then the people on the other side must, one-sidedly, publicize as acceptable appeals and offers, and this in a quite trustworthy way, that they would convince, without arguments, the peoples on the other side.

Such appeals could be made on the basis of a unilateral nuclear disarmament, the declaration of rightful war aims, the recognition of rightful governments in exile, the welcoming of refugees and deserters, freedom for the establishment of all kinds of panarchies and by full publicity for the appeals, declarations and rightful war aims. In broadcasts almost all possible objections could be anticipated and answered.

See: Appeals, Broadcasting, Decision, Declarations, Democracy, Diplomacy, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Leadership, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Minority Autonomy, Open Air Speaking, People, Propaganda, Publicity, Referendum, Revolutions, Secrecy, Secret Allies, Secret Diplomacy, Separate Peace, Summit Conferences, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

Atomic destructive devices, by their very nature, ignore the right to remain neutral in arguments between governments.

But neutrality alone is not security enough against nuclear devices. It is helpful only to the extent that it is respected by one or both of the main contestants:

"A country can only remain neutral if it is allowed to be neutral," - said Prof. Jeffrey Blaines, in a radio interview, 28/1/74.

An armed neutrality, based on volunteer militias and revolutionary warfare training, would be the safest.

To adopt a neutral a stand in the face of nuclear devices would be a crime of omission - unless it goes beyond this to the advocacy of exterritorial autonomy for all dissenters, on all sides, who are now coercively embraced, oppressed, exploited, enslaved or sacrifice by the contending territorial governments.

"In the struggle against such horrors as these, how dare you be neutral?" asked Henry Schoenheimer in The Australian, 26/6/73, regarding nuclear holocaust.

Any neutral country could invite followers of all of the main beliefs or convictions, which are struggling through their statist territorial organizations, to establish themselves peacefully, tolerantly in the neutral country, in form of exterritorial and autonomous organizations, on a voluntary basis. This kind of peaceful coexistence could then soon become the declared war aim of all contestants.

Deserters from all sides could be offered asylum and protection, as well as political, economic, social and personal freedom, of the kind they like for themselves. An alternative and peaceful way of living would become visible to soldiers all both sides, particularly if full use is made of free broadcasting to spread the message.

See: Appeals, Asylum, Broadcasting, Coexistence, Communism, Competing Governments, Decision, Defence, Desertion, Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, Governments, Governments in Exile, Immigration Restrictions, Liberation Wars, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Peace Declarations, Publicity, Refugee Problem, Resistance, Revolutionary Warfare Secession, Sovereignty, States, Targets, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

The "no government" philosophy is the most radical philosophy against the threat of nuclear war.

"No government" is here used as meaning: no government that is not fully based on individual consent.

See: Action, Alternative Institutions, Anarchism, Autonomy, Competing Governments, Consent,. Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Government, Individualism, Libertarianism, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Personal Law, Pluralism, Secession, Sovereignty, Statism, Territorial Organization, Voluntarism, War Aims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

114

Non-aggression pacts between governments are unreliable, to say the least, All too often the governments concerned consider it as being in their interest to break them. Only few have never been broken.

Since they leave the powers making for war unchanged, they are usually no more than a temporary window-dressing. Instance: The non-aggression pact between the Nazis and Stalin's regime, which led to the aggression against and division of Poland and started off World War II.

See: Alliances, Decisions, Governments, Leadership, Madness, Peace Declarations, People, Politicians, Referendums, Rulers, Secret Diplomacy, States, Treaties, Trust, War Aims.

Don't make war against anyone but the aggressors. Spare the noncombatants, spare civilians, particularly women and children, and even conscripts, whenever this is possible. This is a basic rule of the international laws of warfare and it is the one most offended against by ABC weapons. Because with nuclear weapons one cannot fight combatants only. They are mass murder and mass destruction devices or anti-city, anti-country and anti-people "weapons". Thus they are not really weapons, which one can direct and use against a real enemy only, but merely senselessly destructive and murderous devices, devices which must be destroyed unilaterally, in full recognition of this fact.

See: Air Raids, Asylum, Civilians, Defence, Desertion, Enemy, Indiscriminate Warfare, Mass murder, Militia, Neutrality, Nuclear Strength, Open Cities, Refugees, Revolutionary Warfare, War Aims, Weapons.

This program does advocate many non-violent steps to prevent nuclear war - but it does not advocate them exclusively. It does not advocate non-violent submission or only non-violent "resistance" against dictatorships, totalitarians and terrorists but, rather, more rightful and rational resistance and liberation steps, methods and institutions.

See: Amnesty, Appeals, Asylum, Autonomy, Broadcasting, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Declarations, Desertion, Disobedience, Enlightenment, Exterritorial Autonomy, Free Trade, Geothermal Power, Immigration, Individual Responsibility, Militia, Negotiations, Open Air Speaking, Panarchy, Peace Declarations, Publicity, Questions, Referendums, Resistance, Revolutions, Secession, Separate Peace, Sun Power, Tidal Power, Tolerance, Voluntary Taxation, Wind Power.

Already one government possessing nuclear weapons is one too much. Now there are at least six known to have them: USA, USSR, UK, France, China and India - and dozens more could easily get them by using their nuclear reactors. A further spread must be prevented, at almost any cost, seeing how much this would increase the likelihood of nuclear war. Any kind of commando raid and sabotage effort would be morally justified in that cause. A nuclear attack would not be.

See: Accidental War, Arms Race, Atomic Energy, Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Espionage, Military Insurrections, Militia, Resistance, Research, Revolutions, Secrecy, Separate Peace, Treason, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Uranium Mining, War Aims.

The fear of such an attack is the main driving force behind the nuclear arms race and the deterrence policy. To overcome this fear, some effective alternative defensive methods must be convincingly described and put into operation. Some of these are mentioned under: Defence, Desertion, Disarmament, Free Migration, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Revolutionary Warfare, Sabotage, Secession, Tax Strike, Tyrannicide.

Once certain rightful war aims are believably proclaimed and certain appeals and public declarations made in a trustworthy way, by the people themselves, then every dictatorship (every government from which such an attack might

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

115

come), would be rendered so shaky that any new & large wrong that it would commit could topple it and its rulers would realize this. The threat of well organized and popular revolutions and military insurrections, as well as of liberation wars and tyrannicide, is probably the most effective deterrent for them.

See: Appeals, Declarations, Governments-in-Exile, Guaranties, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Militia, Peace Declarations, People, Revolution, Secession, Surrender, Trust, War Aims.

Nuclear-Free-Zones are a basically sound idea, but badly worded, since all dead and living matter is made up of atoms or nuclear matter. Only the scope of the suggestion is much to small, revealing parochial rather than world-wide thinking. In an age IBM's no area is absolutely safe, even when it is declared to be a "nuclear-free zone". Admittedly, if it has no nuclear installations, or installations subsidiary to nuclear warfare, like some communication bases for e.g. nuclear armed submarines, then it is correspondingly less likely to be attacked with nuclear devices.

The old idea of nuclear-free-zones has been especially outmoded by the development of nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons placed in space - i. e., in formerly nuclear-free zones.

To offer full safety there ought to be only one Nuclear-Free-Zone, one encompassing the whole Earth and space around it. They must all become free of nuclear weapons - and of installations for their production, including nuclear power plants.

Otherwise, it will be almost as ineffective as "gun control", a disarmament which disarms the honest citizens and leaves the criminals armed against them. It has thus been aptly called: "victim disarmament".

To initiate a world-wide Nuclear-Free-Zone and achieve at least a moderate degree of increased security, any democratic people could and should initiate a unilateral nuclear disarmament.

See: Decision, Declarations, Defence, Disarmament, Governments-in-Exile, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Nuclear Strength, People, Revolution, Surrender, Tax Strikes, Tyrannicide, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

Nuclear reactors produce plutonium and enriched uranium as raw material for still more nuclear destructive devices. The governments running or supervising them may also secretly stockpile these materials "to keep their options open". Thus referendums should initiate the destruction of all these camouflaged nuclear arms factories.

Due also to the pollution, accident and sabotage risk involved and through their being primary targets in a nuclear war, the people, those living up to 500 miles around them, should become free to veto, by referendum, the establishment and the continuance of any such power plant.

See: Atomic Energy, Peaceful Use, Referendum.

Nuclear science and research should be stopped for the same reasons that research into torture methods and "scientific" investigations of Nazi doctors in extermination camps, using involuntary human guinea pigs, were finally stopped.

See ; Peaceful Use, Research, Scientists.

Even most advocates of "limited governments" still favour unlimited nuclear strength and do not notice the contradiction.

Nuclear strength means absurd strength: It holds the victims rather than the culprits responsible. The culprits might survive, in the safest bunkers.

To defeat a dictator much less destructive weapons than nuclear devices are required. Otherwise his victims maybe completely wiped out instead and their oppressors may well be the only survivors.

Nuclear strength means: If anything goes wrong, all goes wrong and we have had it.

"A nuclear armed nation is like a mouse with detonator teeth and a nitroglycerine- soaked tongue" - suggested D.Z., 7. 12. 73, when he was ten.

All nuclear strength policies remind me of the words of a rowing boat captain to his crew: "It's not all brute strength and stupidity!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

116

Nuclear strength is an invitation to disaster: It makes us a primary nuclear target for others.

All in all it amounts not to an extreme strength but an extreme weakness in national and individual security. Security can only be achieved when nobody has any nuclear strength left. To possess only a suicidal strength does indicate an extreme military weakness, probably the most dangerous of all.

"1945 gave us a whole new situation. Up to then it was people who ran out of time. Now there's always the chance that time will run out of people first." - William Garner, "The Us or Them War", end of ch. 27. Don't let time run out of people! would be a shorter version.

Nuclear strength means wide-spread individual powerlessness, since nuclear power in the hands of a few renders all others impotent. (One might well ask whether most of those with nuclear potency want to make up for sexual impotence due to their age.)

Admittedly, nuclear strength in everyone's hands would make everybody even more insecure and probably would reduce our survival chances to hours or even minutes only.

Only the power to destroy all nuclear powers ought to be in everybody's hands. The only rightful and sensible conclusion is not a further monopolization of nuclear power but general decision that nobody ought to be allowed any ABC mass murder devices. That is the only gun control we really need. It would be impossible to effectively control anybody's nuclear strength with complete safety, if he is left in possession.

But all nuclear strength could be destroyed. This process of destruction can be controlled although not by governments, no matter how "strong" they are. It could be achieved by people properly armed, organized, trained and motivated for this, best in ideal militia forces.

No moral or rational aim: can be achieved with nuclear strength. What is usually called "nuclear strength" is nothing but a scientific preparation for mass murder. If you want to make friends with the innocents you have first of all to cease threatening them, indiscriminately, together with their oppressors.

A chain reaction induced among the enemy's conscripts, dissolving his military forces by desertion or turning them against him en bloc, is a much more effective approach to peace than any nuclear chain reaction and it is also a way to avoid nuclear war.

Secede from all nuclear powers and associate against them on an exterritorial basis, which does not offer them any nuclear targets.

Real strength instead of the fiction of nuclear "strength", would lie e.g. in the following measures and preparations:

Outlawry and tyrannicide of all who retain or build nuclear mass murder devices.

Induced mass desertions from the enemy's forces.

Alliances with governments in exile. Public declaration of quite just war aims.

Revolutionary warfare, Leading e. g. to military uprisings among the enemy's forces.

Separate peace treaties with the enemy's armies.

Establishment of militias for the protection of human rights - largely with deserters from the enemy regime's military forces.

Highly discriminating destructive warfare measures, like destruction of furnaces and ball-bearing industries only - but without nuclear weapons.

Respect fur the human rights even of the enemy's soldiers and civilians.

Proper clarification of who the real enemy is.

Appeals and declarations which could and would be trusted even by the enemy's soldiers.

See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Backfiring, Decision, Collective Responsibility, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Control, Doomsday Bomb, Enemy, Fail-safe, Exterritorial Imperative, Madness, Overkill, Politicians, Power, Responsibility, Sleeplessness, Strength, Surrender, Targets, Terrorism, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Tyrannicide, War Aims.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

117

We are all living in a fool's paradise, the nuclear "umbrella". Whosoever believes in the effectiveness of the nuclear umbrella has not yet realized what radioactive rain means and the hard and heat radiation from a nuclear explosion or the following fire storm - otherwise he would not use this analogy. Nuclear devices simply are no defensive means nor effective enough deterrents. There are no effective umbrellas against the nuclear war threat.

When attacked or threatened with nuclear devices - because one hasn't taken. the necessary preventive steps in time - it is far preferable to surrender immediately than undertake or let one's ally resort to a nuclear counterstrike. This way some more people are likely to survive and altogether less nuclear devices will be used.

See: Alliances, Communism, Counter-Terror, Defence, Deterrence, Nuclear Strength, Red / Dead, Retaliation, Surrender.

The military oath is morally not binding, at least not when used to force someone to engage in mass murder with nuclear "weapons". An oath of obedience and allegiance to a nuclear armed regime is not better but worse than one to an absolutist monarch or totalitarian dictator. All such oaths must be publicly declared as invalid, as binding no one. Whosoever would persist in obeying them and showed any readiness and opportunity to use nuclear devices against other should be outlawed. He should get a chance for amnesty only if he destroys or surrenders at least one such device.

All present oaths in armed forces ought to be replaced by oaths to defend nothing but human rights. One cannot defend then with nuclear devices. When all human rights are realized, no one will wield nuclear power over anyone any longer. Those unwilling to give this oath ought to be disarmed and kept disarmed.

All members of all armed forces, including policemen, are to swear this new oath.

Everyone will have to swear neither to give nor to obey any order whose execution would offend against individual human rights. Equal to such orders are general regulations and instructions. (Freely translated note by U. v. Beckerath, 23. 3. 55.)

See: Allegiance, Amnesty, Discriminating Warfare, Disobedience, Election of Officers, Indiscriminate Warfare, Human Rights, Loyalty, Military Insurrections , Militia, Obedience, Outlawry, Resistance, Subordination, Terrorism, Tyrannicide, War Aims, Weapons.

Rightful obedience ends where nuclear war would begin. Obedience towards men with nuclear weapons is a vice - unless a whole country is threatened with nuclear terror. Then a moral and rational man must be prepared to submit, outwardly, officially, and then wait and use his next chance, for which he should be very well prepared. A desperate stand would only lead to still more mass murder. "Live and fight another day is an old military motto, justifying tactical or strategic retreats before superior forces.

See: Appeals, Control, Decision, Declarations, Disarmament, Disobedience, Immorality, Military Insurrections, Militia, Oaths, People, Prizes, Red/Dead, Referendums, Resistance, Revolution, Secession, Separate Peace, Subordination Surrender, Tyrannicide.

Territorial ownership claims on natural resources tends to lead to military clashes, especially among monopolists and protectionists. They could ultimately lead to nuclear war. Equal access for all to such resources, e.g. through open cooperatives and free trading, would avoid these clashes. See: Exterritorial Imperative, Free Trade, Free Migration, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Open Cooperatives, Territorial Organization, War Aims.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

118

For public and well publicized appeals directly by people to the people on the other side of a frontier, for one-sided peace declarations, declarations of rightful war aims, separate peace treaty offers and for all kinds of external policies, declared and guaranteed, directly, by armed and organized people themselves, such places and opportunities are essential, in addition to all other opportunities and channels for freedom of expression and information for everybody.

Publicity for such appeals, declarations and offers should be maximized in order to reduce the risk of deceptions and misunderstandings and to maximize mutual trust, not between leaders but between their victimized subjects.

In this the old-fashioned open air meetings could still play an important role, as they did in many democratic former revolutions. Anyone from the other side, who is still full of distrust, could easily mix anonymously with such crowds and convince himself of the seriousness and reliability of their intentions and proposals. Such meetings could should thus be widely broadcast. As obviously democratic meetings they could be trusted.

If, moreover, the people were also free to assemble armed and then show their disobedience and resistance determination towards nuclear power and their readiness is shown to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament actions, then their promises are more likely to be trusted than those of diplomats or politicians, especially when it is known that they are also militarily organized and trained in militias for the protection of human rights.

Rarely would there be everywhere sufficient roofed space to shelter all those involved in such direct democracy meetings.

Preferably the whole adult population should participate.

Obviously, to bring about such popular meetings of sufficiently enlightened people, an enormous enlightenment effort would be required. We have now more and better alternative media to promote this than ever before. But open air meetings and special meeting places for such meetings could still play a significant role in achieving the required degree and spread of enlightenment.

Decisive is not the present condition and use of such free speech places and their present bureaucratic repression - but what could and should be made out of such places.

See: Appeals, Broadcasting, Decision, Declarations, Diplomacy, Enlightenment, Peace Declarations, People, Publicity, Referendum, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims.

International conventions outlawed attacks against open cities; i. e. most nuclear attacks. Just check for yourself how well are governments prepared for the breaking of these conventions, risking the lives of most of the world population in the process.

Nuclear war devices are primarily anti-city "weapons", even though some governments recently promised not. to use them exclusively against cities. In any large scale-scale war escalation would see to it that they would be so used.

Only nuclear disarmament could prevent this and it ought to begin unilaterally, in full recognition. of the weakness of nuclear strength and to make sure it begins at all.

See: Air Raids, Bombers Cities, Collective Responsibility, Deterrence, Disarmament, Discriminating Warfare, Enemy, Indiscriminate Warfare, International Laws, Liberation War, Overkill, Revolutionary Warfare, Secret Allies; Targets, War Airs, Weapons.

In order to prevent all further fighting about exclusive national ownership of natural resources, equal access to them should be established. Everybody should have a free market access to them, as an investor and employee. No "closed shops" or legal monopolies for them. This means much more than merely free migration, free trading and privatization.

It could be achieved, for every individual, by organizing the exploitation of natural resources through "open cooperatives", i.e., productive enterprises which everybody may freely join but which would reward their members only according to their contributions in capital, labour and skills.

Everybody would also be free to join them as a voter in their general meetings.

Under such conditions nobody could, to any considerable degree or for any length of time, abuse any natural monopoly monopolistically and thus obtain an advantage that others would be willing to fight him for. This idea has been elaborated in several books by Theodor Hertzka, especially in his recently reprinted social utopia; "Freeland", Gordon Press N. Y., 1972 and in the sequel: Travel to Freeland.

See: Class Warfare Ideology, Communism, Cooperatives, Investments, Monopolies, Natural Resources, Oil, Property, Purchase of Enterprises.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

119

The open seas or high seas convention was never meant to be an open invitation to pirates and other aggressors to hide in and attack from but grants freedom for all peaceful activities from interventions by territorial States.

While placing nuclear devices into oceans might, to some extent, deter from aggression, because it ensures some counterstrike capability, it also keeps counter-strikes away from those who might want start a nuclear war and does to that extent encourages aggression.

Moreover, by hiding the identity of an attacker, a nuclear armed submarine might induce third parties to make nuclear war against each other - by pretending to be one of them and hitting the other. For instance, the Red Chinese regime might attempt to set the USSR and the US against each other. Several novels and films have explained these possibilities.

Generally, an attack is considered to be all the more morally reprehensible the more it is undertaken from ambush or secret sanctuaries. We have here something like secret preparations for mass murder, for genocide, undertaken by the same people who outlawed the execution of a single tyrant, as if it were a murderous assassination, and sometimes even the execution of an ordinary criminal. Moreover, they have usually outlawed self-defence with fire-arms while being prepared to use nuclear devices to murder millions of innocents. They have good reasons to fear for their lives when their victims are armed and their powers and laws create victims by the millions.

Nuclear weapons are immoral and they are no weapons. They hit neither the real enemy nor the proper target. They are neither defensive means and nor rightful retaliatory devices. Nor are they reliable deterrents or sufficiently fail-safe. Thus they should not only be kept off all-land areas, out of the air and space, but also out of the open seas. The sea ought to be kept free of all nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships and submarines and thus free from nuclear counter strikes and the pollution caused by nuclear power plants.

All peacefully trading people, everywhere, are wronged, harmed or endangered by this abuse

All people on Earth, no matter how far they live away from the point of impact of any nuclear weapons delivered from the high seas, are exposed to the radioactive pollution hazard involved.

The high seas will be freed from these monstrous "military" "defence" preparations once this whole program has

been realized. These nuclear war ships and submarines, too, could be rendered harmless by induced mutinies or by taking over their bases on land. To wipe them out with nuclear weapons would be wrong and risky. It would still amount to an attack against the whole world population, by means of. radioactive pollution, and it could lead to a counter-strike from these nuclear armed ships and submarines.

The-principle of the open seas, namely that they remain open for all peaceful activities, but not for piracy, if applied to land, would mean the dissolution of nuclear targets, the realization of the exterritorial imperative and would thus lead to nuclear disarmament and peace.

At present the seas have become attractive to defence planners by their ownerless status and their relative emptiness. Thus everybody should get access to this natural resource: Let the seas be "owned" by open cooperatives. These cooperatives would lead to an extensive international use and lastly even to settlement of the seas. The technology for this "ocean freedom" has been achieved. Thus the high seas could become eliminate as an unclaimed and empty battleground. The cooperatives would stop this abuse of their property.

Individual sovereignty, thus applied to the high seas, would give every individual a veto against its abuse for nuclear power games.

See: Accidental War, Aggression, Bases, Collective Responsibility, Counterstrike, Decision, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Immorality, Individualism, Liberation Wars, Military Insurrections, Morality, Nationalism, Natural Resources, Open Cooperatives, Nuclear Strength, Radiation Hazard, Referendum, Secrecy, Secret Allies, Sovereignty, Sovereignty, Submarines, Targets, Territorial Organization, Terrorism, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

120

Don't be part of the nuclear war establishment Dissociate yourself completely from those engaged in it. Opt out of all beliefs and institutions making for nuclear war, including armies, national economies and territorial States.

See: Alternative Institutions, Authoritarianism, Autonomy, Conscription, Consent, Competing Governments, Decision, Desertion, Experimental Freedom, Exterritorial Imperative, Freedom of Action, Government, Minority Autonomy, Panarchy, Parallel Institutions, Pluralism, Revolution, Secession, Separate Peace, Sovereignty, State, Territorial Organization, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.

Peace requires the existence of peaceful options. They are denied e.g. by censorship, the practice of collective responsibility, compulsory State membership, conscription, monopolies for decision making, diplomatic monopolies, immigration or emigration barriers, majority despotism, military discipline, monetary despotism, legally established monopolies, territorial nationalism, protectionism, repression of individual and minority group secessions and exterritorial autonomy, secrecy, coercive subordination, taxation, uniform territorial legislation, legalized and mass murder "weapons" systems.

See also under: Alternatives, Exterritorial Imperative, Secession.

Anyone persisting in nuclear research, production of nuclear weapons material (nuclear reactor by-products ), nuclear weapons storing and stockpiling them, targeting, commanding them or ordering others to use them or retaining powers to do so, should be outlawed in the old meaning of the word, i.e., everyone should be free and under obligation to kill him, with impunity, when the opportunity arises. These criminals are even worse than most of the invading monsters from space, imagined by Science Fiction, and they should, after expiry of an amnesty period, be incapacitated or shot on sight.

During a well published amnesty period they should be given an opportunity to surrender, provided they surrender also their weapons or weapon materials or production or research facilities. This radical and "illegal" procedure should be legalized and constitutionalized by initiative and referendum. The amnesty period, thus determined, might run for, let us say, 10 days after the referendum. Then its outlawry clause would come into force.

From then onwards the only chance for one of the outlawed to escape his execution would consist in destroying or, surrendering a nuclear device.

Not only the officers, managers, administrators and scientists of nuclear weapons installations should be outlawed but everyone employed in such installations, down to the sweepers - provided they persisted in these employments beyond the amnesty period stated in the referendum.

On the other hand, alternative employment should be offered to those giving up their preoccupation with mass murder preparations and do so within the stipulated period.

In short: Outlawry for those who keep nuclear weapons in readiness and amnesty for those who help to render them harmless.

What a change in mentality would be required: one from blind obedience to those with nuclear powers to one leading to active resistance against them!

See: Amnesty, Cultural Revolution, Decision, Desertion, Disarmament, Disobedience, Education, Employment, Encyclopaedia of the Best Refutations, Enlightenment, Ideas Archive, Militia, Obedience, Open Air Speaking, Resistance, Revolution, Self-defence, Self-help, Statism, Subordination, Tyrannicide.

Habitual overestimation of the own strength and underestimation of that of the oppo-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

121

sition makes for war. This tendency applies also to nuclear war and is supported by the usual servile reports of the own followers and the secrecy of the preparations for war on all sides.

See: Accidental War, Aggression, Censorship, Decision, Experts, Generals, Miscalculations, Politicians, Publicity, Rulers, Referendums, Secrecy, War Aims, Weapons.

The overpopulation theory is wrong but popular and widely accepted. Thus it makes the vision of mass extermination appear as less horrible, at least to some people. Some might even consider it to be "desirable", for "humanitarian" reasons. We live in an age when "one child families" have been imposed by some governments and compulsory sterilizations and abortions. Refutations of this theory can be found e.g. in the works of Theodor Hertzka, in Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" and the pamphlet by R.A. Childs': "Laissez Faire in Population". I am still seeking William Godwin's very early pamphlet against these teachings by Malthus.

See: Encyclopaedia of Refutations, Ideas/Wrong, Myths, Prejudices

Panarchy means that there may be anywhere and at the same time as many different "governments" or non-governmental free societies, competing with each other, as can find voluntary supporters. They are then in the same position as churches are in countries with religious liberty, but, contrary to most present churches or sects, they would enjoy full exterritorial autonomy. "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" (K.H.Z. Solneman's formula, from his "Manifesto for Peace and Freedom", slightly reworded by myself.)

Only when all governments, nations, societies and communities can be

a) set up, maintained and expanded quite peacefully, everywhere, - by making individual converts - and

b) can be reduced, peacefully, to a harmless degree of power, or even to bankruptcy and disappearance

• all this by free individual secessions and voluntary membership,
• i.e., when only voluntarily and unanimously supported governments & societies remain,
• all coexisting in the same territory,
• all minding their own business or doing their own things to and for themselves,

only then will there be no longer a continuous and severe threat to peace.

Only then will governments neither be able to arm themselves with nuclear devices.

Only then will they non longer be motivated to use nuclear mass murder devices against each other and their subjects.

Only then will targets for mass murder devices disappear and conscripts to man them.

Panarchy provides this survival chance.

Please,