Some notes and highlights, by-page, and thoughts on relevance to today's situation.
People and governments will not sacrifice freedom or justice for the sake of peace;
Unfortunately since 9/11 especially, this has not proved to be the case.
World government is either unrealizable, or if achieved would itself be likely to produce a world civil war, become tyrannical, and be used to impose or perpetuate injustice.
The world has moved closer to world government, but people have just sleep-walked towards it with little dissent.
as long as people see no adequate substitute to take the place of war, there is no chance of war being renounced or abandoned
People and whole societies will not choose to be defenseless.
Unfortunately many governments around the world, in the EU nations especially, have successfully disarmed their citizens.
The power of all rulers and governments is vulnerable, impermanent, and dependent on sources in the society. Those sources can be identified: acceptance of the ruler's right to rule ("authority"), economic resources, man- power, military capacity, knowledge, skills, administration, police, prisons, courts, and the like.
This is very true, it is by submission, coercion and consent that people CHOOSE to surrender their personal sovereignty and remain complicit in the system.
Each of these sources is in turn closely related to, or directly dependent upon, the degree of cooperation, submission, obedience, and assistance that the ruler is able to obtain from his subjects.
Exactly. People need to stop being moral relativists, and see right and wrong for what they are, based on truth and objective standards, and non-comply with that which is wrong.
If the withdrawal of acceptance, submission, and help can be maintained in face of the ruler's punishments, then the end of the regime is in sight.
Exactly. All that is needed is a change in each and every person towards morality.
Thus, all rulers are dependent for their positions and political power upon the obedience, submission, and cooperation of their subjects.
The theory that power derives from violence, and that victory goes to the side with the greater capacity for violence, is false.
The Bolshevik Revolution?
Instead, the will to defy and resist becomes extremely important. Hitler admitted that the problem of "ruling the people in the conquered regions" was "psychological"
Exactly. People are conditioned and indoctrinated to be distracted permanently from anything which helps them move towards escaping their condition of slavery.
One cannot rule by force alone. True, force is decisive, but it is equally important to have this psychological
something which the animal trainer also needs to be master of his beast. They must be convinced that we are the victors.
That is exactly how 'elites' see the people, as animals, and how we are taught to see ourselves through indoctrination, just as animals.
The civilian population can refuse to be convinced.
This requires personal effort, to break-free from our indoctrination and programmed habits, which seems to be beyond the capability of most at this time, although there have been signs of 'awakening' in recent years, it's not enough.
A vast history exists of people who, refusing to be convinced that the apparent "powers that be" were omnipotent, defied and resisted powerful rulers, foreign conquerers, domestic tyrants, oppressive systems, internal usurpers, and economic masters.
That's exactly the situation now, with the UN Agenda 2030, increased concentration of power, control of communications technologies, fake grass-roots movements and so on, the change for freedom of humanity now is grim.
Contrary to usual perceptions, these means of struggle by protest, noncooperation, and disruptive intervention have played major historical roles in all parts of the world, even in cases in which attention is usually concentrated on parallel or later political violence.
People need to up their game. Only the yellow-vests movement in France has come close to having any kind of significant effect and even they have been savagely oppressed.
Dictatorships, contrary to the usual assumption, are not as strong and omnipotent as they would have us believe, but contain inherent weaknesses of various types which contribute to their inefficiency and reduce the thoroughness of their controls, and limit their longevity.
We would like to hope so, but democracy itself is a thinly-veiled dictatorship in reality.
Those weaknesses can be located and resist and can be concentrated at those cracks in the monolith. Nonviolent resistance is much more suited to that task than is violence.
An attack for ideological and indoctrination purposes, for example, would likely involve noncooperation and defiance by schools, newspapers, radio, television, churches, all levels of government, and the general population, to reject the indoctrination attempts, and reassertion of democratic principles.
This is the best way for regular people to "fight the power". Non-cooperation and participation.
An attack aimed at economic exploitation would be met with economic resistance - boycotts, strikes, noncooperation by experts, management, transport workers and officials-aimed at reducing, dissolving or reversing any economic gains to the attackers.
People need to be conscious of where they spend their money and how.
police would refuse to locate and arrest patriotic resisters against the attacker. Journalists and editors refusing to submit to censorship would publish newspapers illegally in large editions or many small editions
The police are mind-controlled order-followers, with little change of them changing - just look at France's yellow-vest protests for example.
Clergymen would preach the duty to refuse help to the invader
Most church officials are moral cowards in the face of authority and government.
Teachers would refuse to introduce propaganda into the schools -
Most teachers are order-followers, "just doing my job" and afraid to do what is morally right, for example the case in Birmingham, England where gay propaganda is being pushed onto young children.
Attempts to control schools could be met with refusal to change the school curriculum or to introduce the invader's propaganda, explanations to the pupils of the issues at stake, continuation of regular education as long as possible, and, if necessary, closing the schools and holding private classes in the children's homes.
The parents have shown more backbone in the above case and more need to do so.
This is a more total type of defense than the military system, since it involves the whole population and all its institutions in defense struggle. Because such participation must be voluntary in order to be reliable in crises, and because of reliance on nonviolent means, however, civilian-based defense is intrinsically democratic.
Under some conditions, significant international opposition to the attack and support for the civilian defenders may be aroused. Occasionally this would involve international economic and political sanctions against the invader or internal usurper. These sanctions may be significant at times-witness the Arab oil embargo although the defenders must primarily rely on their own actions.
civilian-based defense would be conducive to development of foreign and international policies to assist the resolution of outstanding world problems, meet human needs more adequately, and promote understanding and friendship for the country which had adopted this non-military policy.
This is why social-networks and media, free-speech and discussion is getting closed-down in this modern connected world. The powers-that-be are trying to close the open box.
The consideration of the possible merits of civilian-based defense, and the planning, preparations, and training for it, are likely to stimulate a reevaluation of the principles and institutions of the society deemed worthy of defense, social improvements to make the society and polity more just and free, and increased popular participation in the operation of the society in peacetime as well as during defense struggles.