Once upon a planet billions of years after its formation in one of the galaxies among the billions of galaxies in a universe so huge that the distance from that planet to the farthest known galaxy is several billion parsecs, or 40 billion trillion miles — there arose a species of bipedal primates that came to call itself homo sapiens sapiens and its people ‘humans.’ Also ‘hominids,’ after the Family in which the species is included, Hominidae, which also includes the great apes: orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees. In fact, human genes are 99% the same as those of chimpanzees. We will nevertheless continue the convenient old practice of calling only humans hominids, in order to emphasize their evolutionary origins and nature.

In the course of time, as simplicity fed on ambient elements under local heat, pressure, bombardment by cosmic radiation, and the workings of chemistry and probability over millions of years, there evolved higher complexities and a primordial ‘soup’ in which the first creatures grew. In the further course of millions of years there evolved the ape Ramapithicus, some ten million years later the small-brained, large-toothed bipedal hominid Australopithicus, and later on, some 1.5 to 2 million years ago, Homo habilis, an upright East African hominid having some advanced humanlike characteristics, comprising an early form of Homo, the genus of bipedal primates that includes humans, followed by Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderhalensis (Neanderthal Man), and finally, Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon Man) during the upper Paleolithic Epoch, the prototype of modern humans, with the first fully human version of hominids appearing about 50,000 years ago. The hominids came to call their planet Earth, and through their sciences learned that it is 4.3 billion years old.

As their sciences advanced they came to discover the instant of origin of their universe and the evolution of its space, matter and time, and to map its present structure, including their own galaxy and their solar system in that galaxy and their planet Earth in that system. They discovered the origin and evolution of their Cosmos by means of their extraordinary multi-science science of Physical Cosmology. An illuminating account is provided in Part V, The Ascent of Intellect, in this writer’s book Principia Ideologica: A Treatise on Combatting Human Malignance, which can be viewed  on amazon.com via direct link http://softpower.us/  The work benefits from the author having had the privilege of studying quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology under the late great George Gamow, main co-author of ’Big Bang’ cosmology. Actually, there was no bang at the origin: there was no space or air yet. It was just a name created by British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle to denigrate Gamow‘s theory, but Gamow whimsically adopted it.

“The most detailed and precise map yet produced of the universe just after its birth confirms the Big Bang theory in triumphant detail and opens new chapters in the early history of the cosmos, astronomers said yesterday [ 11 Feb 2003]…the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus one percent…The map, compiled by a satellite called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe…would serve as the basis for studying the universe for the rest of the decade…The results were announced at a news conference at NASA headquarters in Washington yesterday, and posted online at map.gsfc.nasa.gov/.” — New York Times, 12 Feb. 03, p.A1.

During the course of terrestrial evolution, the brain (encephalon) of animal species also evolved. For instance, the increase in size of the cerebellum in the course of evolution generally paralleled the enlargement of the cerebral cortex in higher mammals, a process called encephalization. The cerebellar hemispheres regulate higher cerebral processes that plan complex movements and participate in cognition and thinking. Humans enjoy unique neural capacities, but much of human neuroarchitecture is shared with ancient species; much of the basic systems are similar to those of the most basic vertebrates. For instance, human neuroarchitecture includes elements from aquatic vertebrates, including the shark. As evolutionary encephalization progressed, new higher structures and functions evolved on top of the previous lower and ferocious ones. Eventually the higher functions manifested what the hominids call Reason.

That recalls the words of Mephistopheles to the Lord in Goethe’s Faust: “Of suns and worlds I’ve nothing to be quoted, / How men torment themselves is all I’ve noted. / The little god o’ the world sticks to the same old way, / And is as whimsical as on Creation’s Day./ Life somewhat better might content him, / But for the gleam of heavenly light that thou hast lent him. / He calls it Reason — thence his powers increased / To be far beastlier than any beast.” By the combination of evolutionary animal neurophysiology and abuse of Reason, the hominids became the most vicious, deadly and destructive species on the planet.

The hominids engaged in so much warfare and their weapons became so deadly that starting early in their 20th century — counting from the birth of a Hebrew rabbi named Yeshua, which translated into the later English language as Jesus, whom everyone considered to be a prophet and many considered to be the messiah, from the Hebrew word mashiah, meaning anointed, or messiah, which translated into English as ‘Christ’ — many nations began to create and sign treaties to halt or at least control the arms races and wars.

Those peace, security, non-armament, arms reduction, and arms control instruments included: the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919), the League Commission on Armies Draft Treaty (1925), the Pact of Locarno (1925), the Washington Naval Conference (1927), the Geneva and London Conference Agreement (1927, 1930), the Geneva Protocol (1928), the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928), the Charter of the United Nations and its Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945), the Antarctic Treaty (1961), the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Outer Space Treaty (1967), the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970), the Treaty for the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (1971), the ‘Accidents Measures’ Agreement (1971), the Seabed Arms Control Treaty (1972), the Biological Weapons Convention (1972), the ABM Treaty (1972, the SALT I Interim Agreement (1972), the ABM Protocol (1973), the Threshold Test Ban and Protocol (1973), the Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement (1973), the ABM Protocol (1974), the Treaty and Protocol on Underground Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (1976), the Environmental Modification Ban (1977), and so on and on an on, arriving now at the Era of Catastrophic Terrorism by transnational groups using Weapons of Mass Death and Destruction, compounded by nations, especially North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan and the United States, still nuclear-bombs racing.

In the Conclusion of this writer’s Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its Hearings on the SALT II Treaty, he stated, “The need for introduction of Ideological Arms Control in arms control in general and the SALT [Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty] process in particular is clear and urgent…[by doing so] we will have begun to extend universally that Novus Ordo Seclorum [New Order of the Age] envisioned in our Great Seal, wherein Mankind will have learned to recognize and disdain the dogmatic fallacies of tyrannical malevolence, and to value more noble and glorious purposes.” Hearings Before The Committee On Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Sixth Congress, Part 4, September 1979, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, pp 504-509.

Despite the international instruments listed above and many more, the 20th century produced three World Wars (The Third a.k.a the incredible misnomer of ‘Cold War.’ Were the Korean, Vietnam, Angola, etc., wars ‘cold’?) — four holocausts — the Armenian, Ukrainian, European (Jewish and Other), and Rwandan. All were products of ideologies: Islamism, Christianism, Social-Darwinism, Fascism, Naziism, Shinto-Tanakaism [my term], and Marxism-Leninism and its variants. All of those except Shinto-Tanakaism were products of Abrahamic Civilization, which comprises the three religions that trace their roots back to the patriarch Abraham (considered by many scholars to have been only a mythical culture hero), namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In overview, Abrahamic Civilization in the 20th Century was an Ideologically Determined Catastrophe — the most savage century in history.

Consider its theological history: Judaism evolved during the Bronze Age out of pagan mythologies tracing back to ancient Sumer, resulting in an extremely bloody, savage literature we call the Old Testament. A little over two millennia ago a small sect within Judaism led by Yeshua and his eleven Jewish and one non-Jewish (Luke) disciples created a new religion out of the old one that came to be called Christianity, and wrote a sequel to the Old Testament we call the New Testament, fundamentally just as bloody as the Old. Of the four Gospel writers three were Jewish (only Luke was not). Some six hundred plus years later an illiterate merchant of the Arabic Koreish tribe named Muhammad, working with his Jewish friends and colleagues and scribes to whom he dictated, created a third, and what he declared to be the last and correct, testament, called the Qur’an, or Koran, in large part out of Judaism and some misunderstood Christianity. Result: another savagely bloody ‘holy’ book. These three works, rooted in the Bronze Age, comprise the foundations of Abrahamic Civilization today.

Some modern consequences: Islamic armies perpetrated the Armenian Holocaust; occultism ran like an open sewer through Austria and Germany, and the Nazi movement originated in the occult Thule Society Lodge, whose ideology was Theosophy and its symbol the swastika; Protestants in the tradition of Luther’s fierce authoritarianism and virulent anti-Jewishism voted Hitler into power; seven Islamic armies marched against Israel at the instant it was born in order to extinguish it; Eretz Yisroel Zionism perpetrated the brutal and illegal occupation of Palestinian land; Christians and Muslims perpetrated horrific slaughters against each other in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the biggest massacre committed by Serbian Christians against Muslims at Srebrenica; Belgian Roman Catholic rulers of Rwanda created false races of Hutus and Tutsis out of false ’Hamitic’ racism and drove the Rwandan Holocaust; Islamic terrorists kill infidels worldwide and seek to establish a new, global Caliphate; the Arab Muslim government of Sudan has for decades carried out ethnocide against the Black Christians of the South, culminating in the horrors of Darfur; American Christian fundamentalism is rising to turn a nation born in the Enlightenment backwards into an Endarkenment, causing vast suffering and death overseas as that translates into restrictive foreign policies and appropriations in the domains of health; American Evangelical Protestants have driven American foreign policy to support Israel’s Zionist-extremist attempts to acquire and rule all of Palestine, as required by Evangelical theology for the Second Coming of Christ, following which the Evangelicals will rise up to Heaven and the rest of mankind will be left behind as the Earth opens up for them to fall into the fires of Hell; Roman Catholic Cardinals elected to succeed the deceased Pope the Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was formerly the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.

Such has been, and is, Abrahamic Civilization’s ongoing Bronze Age in the 20th and 21st Centuries C.E.

In America much of the citizenry calls proceeding on such bases by a term it considers a virtue: ‘faith based.’ A curious virtue inasmuch as the formal definition of ‘faith’ is the willingness to accept as true propositions for which there is no evidence whatsoever. A dangerous practice, for on that basis every proposition is just as valid or  invalid as any other. And that is a prescription for aggression, oppression and war. This essay introduces the essential field for treating the problem of faith-based malignance, as well as the problem of malignant ideologies and practices supposedly based on Reason, ranging from serious to absurd.

In the chapter “The Wish For War” in his classic book Ends And Means (1937), British author Aldous Huxley wrote, “Christianity…was able to justify the bloodthirsty tendencies of its adherents by an appeal to the savage Bronze Age literature of the Old Testament.” In 1992, Maryland Public Television produced a series of global civilizations studies called LEGACY, written and narrated by British historian Michael Wood, in which he summarized the savagery in our “civilization” in cultural terms as follows:


It is fruitless to discuss War and Peace seriously without definitions of those two terms, which are standardly absent from all works about them. The best operative definition was given by Thomas Hobbes in his 17th Century classic Leviathan:

For W A R R E consisteth not in Battel only, or in the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battel is sufficiently known; and there the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre, as it is in the Nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeth not in a Showre or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: So the nature of Warre consisteth not in actual fighting; but in a known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is P E A CE

The “inclination” and “disposition” to war are crystallized and distributed in a war’s ideological foundations, which rationalize, legitimate, motivate and unify “the Will to contend by Battel.” Ideological armaments are as essential as physical armaments in preparation for and conduct of war. Without such understanding, international peace and security agreements have been doomed to repeated failure. Especially arms control, which, seeking to control preparations for war without essential understanding of the nature of War and Peace, is fundamentally flawed and has been an historically failed enterprise. It needs to be reconceived and redefined, and this is developed in PRINCIPIA IDEOLOGICA, pages 475 to 478.

With only the foregoing brief sketch it should be clear that international security instruments in general and arms control in particular cannot meaningfully contribute to generating Peace in Abrahamic Civilization during its continuing Bronze Age. Therefore, high priority must be assigned to Reforming the Bronze Age (if not actually ending it by de-sanctification of its mythologies) while concomitantly treating secular ideologies of war and oppression. That requires introducing Ideologics (EYE dee oh LOW jics) (ID) and the Ideologic Dimension (ID) into national and international affairs. ‘ID’ also denotes Ideologic Defense, Ideologic Determinism, and Ideololgic Disarmament.  These matters are developed further in the brief book ENDING THE BRONZE AGE — which the reader can view via the direct link http://bronze-age.us/ . Those compact 72 pages summarize the PRINCIPIA, apply it to the Israel/Palestine case, and all told provide the essential principles and methods for obtaining genuine PEACE — for the first time in hominid history. Essential reading in a state of Bronze Age Modernity during the Era of Catastrophic Terrorism.

The ‘logics’ of Ideologics comes from ‘Logos,’ as in John 1.1 of the New Testament, “In the beginning was the Word.” In the original Greek ‘Word’ was ‘Logos’ — meaning Idea and the manifestation of Idea.


Among its many provisions, Ideologics provides three pillars upon which to erect Ideologic Defense Systems:  Threats To The Peace,  Juridical Nullification, and Reductive Nullification. These pillars may also be used independently, ad hoc, as operational measures where needed.

Threats To The Peace is an old term that has been standardly misconstrued and misused, whereby it has meant actual or imminent breaches of the peace, and no action has been taken until such a state is evident by  armed force in action or massed for action. What is needed is to establish among nations and other entities the same everyday understanding of the concept of “threat” that exists among people in general and domestic law, and apply it in international law, including attention to any ideological License (to do as the aggressor pleases under his own ethos, or ethical system) that would seek to undermine such efforts.

When a person threatens you with violence you are not obliged to wait for him to act before you can resort to legal measures; you can deal with the threat itself via legal measures.  For instance, in the Iowa Code (of the state of Iowa in the United States) Chapter 76, Security to Keep the Peace, provides for the arrest of any person who has threatened to commit any public offense punishable by the law; Chapter 690.8, Advising or Inciting Murder, provides up to twenty years imprisonment for advising, counseling, encouraging, advocating or inciting murder, whether or not actually committed; and Chapter 694 provides imprisonment for assault, which is legally construed to mean the threat of injury by force under such circumstances as to create a well-founded fear of imminent peril coupled with apparent present ability to execute such attempt if not prevented.  “Battery” in the legal term “assault and battery” is the carrying out of the threat.

Application of such principles to international law, especially via the United Nations, is affirmed by history, by common sense, by the “defenses of peace” passage in the UNESCO Charter, by modern necessity due to weapons of mass destruction, and by a clause in the Statute of the International Court of Justice that will be presented under ‘Juridical Nullification,’ below.  In international affairs “assault” corresponds to a poised army and ultimatum or other explicit immediate threat, or by poised missiles and a demand or other explicit immediate threat, or by a highly armed nation with a national ideology that contains a Core IVL.  Such situations are already Warre in the Hobbesian sense.

Ideologics avers that it should now be recognized that a Core IVL (Ideology of Violence and License) coupled with modern weapons constitutes a continuing state of international assault, or Warre per Hobbes’ Principle, and thereby constitutes a clear and present threat to the peace.  Heretofore and presently, nations have been and are recognizing only imminent or actual “battery,” that is, imminent or actual breaches of the peace as threats to the peace, rather than recognizing and dealing with the assault, or threat.

These principles are embedded, although not yet recognized so, in the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter provides for dealing with the Violence components of Core IVLs as threats to the peace, and with their License components as violations of the “principles,” “obligations,” “purposes,” and “good faith” agreed upon by the community of nations comprising its membership.

For initiating action, Article 99 of the Charter empowers the Secretary-General to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” And Article 39 instructs that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” (Emphases supplied)  The deliberate distinction “threat,” “breach” and “act” is vital and powerful for ID purposes. In Ideologic terms, these Articles point clearly to examining any armed or arming national ideologies that may harbor Core IVLs, and if so found, to act upon such findings.

Hence, given the existence of a seriously-armed Core IVL threat to the peace, a primary objective of the international community must become to nullify that Core IVL.  For that the community has the other two pillars of Ideologic Defenses of Peace: Juridical Nullification and Reductive Nullification.

Juridical Nullification means to nullify a core ideology of violence and license (license that frees it from civilized ethics in order to freely perpetrate its violence) by means of juridical processes.  To nullify in this context means to deprive the ideology of value or effectiveness, render or declare legally void or inoperative, to declare it legally invalid, of no legal force or effect — and further, where so, criminal or even enabling crimes against humanity. This, in turn, means to activate international legal remedies against an armed or arming nation or movement as a threat to the peace due to the combination of its core ideology of violence and license and armaments.  There are provisions in the United Nations Charter to implement those principles, in particular: Charter Article 11 paragraphs 2 and 3, and Articles 34, 35, 39 and 99. There are also appropriate provisions in the Helsinki Accord and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).  What is needed is that “threats to the peace” be perceived in international law as specified in the preceding section, and as they are perceived and treated in “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” (Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).  Enforcements would revert to the United Nations and its agencies, and to individual and coalitions of nations acting under the aegis of the Court and United Nations dicta.  They would include sanctions, embargoes, blockades, denunciations, isolations, and, under extremely threatening circumstances, land, sea and air strikes.

Reductive Nullification means to apply reductive processes directly against a core ideology of violence and license so as to achieve its substantive reduction. “To reduce” in this context is a composite of the dictionary meanings: to lessen, to act destructively upon, to lower in rank, dignity or well-being, to treat analytically. The process, in effect, nullifies a threatening or malignant core ideology by negating the validity, the legitimacy, the authenticity, the truth value, of its content.  This is the deepest, most profound, most powerful, most Jeffersonian, and most enduringly effective ID principle and methodology.

Reductive Nullification may also be used against internally-directed Core IVLs, such as racism, ethnocide, and other internal violent oppressions that are unacceptable to the community of civilized nations.  This is newly enabled by the now generally-accepted legal principle that sovereignty cannot prevent international action to alleviate genocide or massive crimes against humanity — a principle that originated in Security Council action with respect to humanitarian disasters in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia.  Another example of advancing law beyond the Charter is the reality that one of the most prevalent activities of the UN has been peacekeeping, which has no Charter authority but has been firmly established in the Security Council and Secretariat practices.

There are extensive international institutional means for Reductive Nullification. For instance, in the United Nations, its agency UNESCO; the Helsinki Accord, especially its Basket Three; the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe); private agencies, NGOs and professional organizations, and national and nationally supported agencies such as the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) Worldwide, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.  Reductive Nullifications of the major basic components of most Core IVLs, namely Racism, Religionism, Mythopoeism, and Ethnicism, have already been carried out, and appear under Part VI, Malignitism, in Principia Ideologica.

In the event that even Ideologic Defenses of Peace have failed to prevent a war, and a shooting war has begun, it would be more humanely and effectively fought by means of the high-impact, low-casualty, low-cost softpower weapons of Military ID, which mode is depicted in Principia Ideologica, Chapter 8.  All told, as Sun Tzu averred almost twenty-four hundred years ago, it is better to win without fighting. The means are now available.


 The primary threat we face in this Era is from nuclear bombs — not just radiological, or ‘dirty bombs’ — but most especially the kind that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some designs are easily made, others easily stolen or bought, and smuggled into or dropped onto American cities and ports and critical telecommunications, industrial, financial, energy, and defense facilities and centers.

“Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could kill millions of people and destroy the infrastructure and social fabric of the United States. Even a simple fission weapon can…nuclear weapons were for decades considered the only weapons of mass destruction. However, in recent years there has been a tendency to include radiological weapons (“dirty bombs”), chemical weapons, and biological agents in this same category. Broadening the definition this way obscures the profound differences in lethality and destructiveness of these weapons, the timescales on which their effects are felt, and the possibility of protecting against them. It also distracts us from focusing on the most dangerous threat, the threat posed by nuclear weapons…If we do not make a more strenuous effort to halt and reverse nuclear proliferation and prevent nuclear terrorism, it is inevitable that a nuclear bomb will eventually explode in a US city.”   Frederick K Lamb, Director of the Center for Theoretical Astrophysics, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and former Co-Chair of the American Physical (APS) Society study group on boost-phase intercept systems for national missile defense. In APS News, Aug-Sep 2005.

Fission nuclear bombs (formerly ‘Atomic bombs’) and thermonuclear fusion bombs (formerly ‘H-bombs‘) have unfortunately been merged under the single term ‘nuclear bombs,’ thereby obscuring the huge differences between them.

Although I contemn advocacy that says such&such is “the only way,” in extremis, which this is, I must now commit that offense myself. The new field called Ideologics and its fundamental resource, PRINCIPIA IDEOLOGICA, comprise the central weapon, the blue-print, the keystone of a wholly new softpower concept and its extraordinary low-cost, high-impact, low-casualty defense system. ( http://softpower.us

In order to “prevent nuclear terrorism” we must at last combat terrorism not just terror — as is everywhere the case. “Ism” involves ideology. And here we must play very hard ball. Revolutionary. Via individuals, NGOs, and covert operations. 

We are fighting a war only against terror — not against terrorism — which involves ideology. Bin Laden made this clear in a taped speech broadcast on 3 November 2001 by the Al Jazeera Arab satellite channel based in Qatar: “This is a matter of religion and creed. It is not what Bush and Blair maintain, that it is a war against terrorism. There is no way to forget the hostility between us and the infidels. It is ideological.”

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair realized that full well. Speaking before a Labour Party policy forum in London on 6 July 2005 he declared, “What we are confronting here is an evil ideology…a religious ideology, a strain within the worldwide religion of Islam…It is a global struggle . And it is a battle of ideas and hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it. This is the battle we must win.”

The fundamental resource for fighting that battle, which provides the essential perspectives, principles and weapons, is the compact 81-page tract TERROR WAR AND PEACE: With De-Sanctification of Jihad. It waits in the wings unadvertised on amazon.com, waiting for the situation to get desperate enough for the infidel world to catch up with it. This is not Islamophobia; it is Islamorealism. It works directly from the Qur’an itself, and from classical and modern Koranic scholarship. It can be viewed on amazon.com via the direct link terror1.com: http://terror1.com/

It would be well to note further that that is not bigotry against people and their religion, but is, rather, a matter of defensive war-fighting, requiring in accordance with Ideologic Defense, attacking and nullifying an adversary’s ideology. One of this writer’s closest associates on major matters is by his choice, based on superior merit, a Pakistani Muslim.

We should now especially note, for present and all future cases: 

The Principle of Equal Ideologic Treatment

There should and must be equal treatment under national and international law for all ideologies that constitute threats to the peace, irrespective of whether the specific texts or statements being addressed are foundational or operational, and irrespective of whether they are secular, religio-secular or religious.

This is undertaken in considerable breadth and depth in Principia Ideologica for Religionism (Chapter 13), and concludes:  The Core IVL of Abrahamic Civilization is Null and Void.   

Clearly, the nature of the problem and its resolution’s principles and operations cannot be left to government. They must be implemented by the private sector: by NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and you. You can begin by passing the word — of this message — and the web address that got you here.

For, this is about far more than how to win World War IV. It is about how to prevent as well as fight wars in general, in the tradition of Sun Tzu’s 500 B.C. classic THE ART OF WAR: “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

We must go beyond merely putting out fires, at great cost in lives and treasure, to putting out the incendiary ideologies that light them

As called for by the famous phrase in the Charter of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): “Since Wars Begin In The Minds Of Men It Is In The Minds Of Men That The Defenses Of Peace Must Be Constructed.”

As called for by Hobbes’ definition of Warre. And by John 1.1’s focus on Logos.

This is also about combatting racism, religionism, ethnicism and all manner of malignant ideologies of oppression. And about building genuine Peace — for the first time in hominid history.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. — Proverbs 29.18










%d bloggers like this: