Philosophy

It’s an acronym that I made up in the autumn of 1970. It started out as Please End All Contamination, Corruption and Crime on Earth. While I was in the process of sewing it on the back of my Marine Corps field jacket I shortened it to Please End All Corruption on Earth. (I had blue letters on a red and white striped background.) I did this because I perceived the words crime and contamination could be interpreted in the word corruption.

I was honestly searching for and truly wanted to find a way to end all the crime in politics, in business and in the streets, all the contamination of our environment (destruction of the environment is a form of contamination), and all the corruption of the world.

Then one Sunday afternoon I found myself behind Audubon Park on the Mississippi River levee at an impromptu pop music festival that was held there every Sunday afternoon. I was with several anti-war friends and we were discussing what we could do to help establish peace on earth when suddenly it dawned on me that the Golden Rule was the source for world peace.

About this same time I had a dream of a beautiful young lady touching my shoulder and saying to me: “Peter, it’s time to wake up.” (I do not remember which came first, my search for the solution to the problems of the world and the discovery or the dream.)

From my Catholic education I already knew that Jesus Christ was the solution to the world’s problems. But logic told me that it had to be something more.

Telling someone to just let Jesus solve their problems is a little like telling an illiterate to go apply for a job if he’s hungry. First you have to teach him how to read and write. Next you have to teach him job skills. Then you have to help him find a suitable job.

So while singing Jesus Christ Superstar – one of the top songs back in the autumn of 1970 – I began to search for how I could teach everyone that the solution to the world’s problems was the Golden Rule.

I believe that a good place to start is in relationship that exists between the races.

If a group of white people were to begin a White Miss America contest many individuals of all races would loudly cry racism. But I don’t hear anyone saying anything against the Miss Black America contest or the Miss Hispanic America beauty pageant.

If a group of white people were to begin a television station (or a radio station) and call it White Entertainment Television (Radio) and then featured only white programming many individuals of all races would loudly cry racism. But I don’t hear anyone saying anything against Black Entertainment Television (radio) with programming that is only for blacks.

If a group of white people were to begin an organization that looked out for the rights of only white people, many individuals would call such an association a racist organization. But I don’t hear anyone calling the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) a racist organization.

Americans honor Martin Luther King with a national holiday. But what about Louis Armstrong, Jackie Robinson, George Washington Carver, Billie Holiday, (Eleanora Fagan) and Booker T. Washington? Don’t we want to honor them also? Some will say that we do honor them through Black History month.

But I don’t see a well publicized month where famous Hispanic Americans, famous Asian Americans, famous Native Americans, famous Italian Americans or other ethnic groups are honored. Don’t we want to honor Americans such as Cochise, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Sacajawea, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Amelia Earhart, Kalpana Chawla, Cesar Chavez, Huey P. Long, Samuel I. Hayakawa, and Robert F. Kennedy, to name just a few unsung heroes of American history?

Before I continue I want to point out that I do not believe that there is anything wrong with a Black Miss America beauty pageant or Hispanic pageant or black history month or anything else that honors individual classes of people or looks out for the rights of a particular class of people. Indeed, I believe that such social things are good.

However, instead of a Black History month, I believe that we should have an Ethnic History month, where we could honor all races, creeds and ethnicities, not just one race. I believe that we need to have an American Hero's Day, where we could honor all unsung American heroes, not just one black man.

Finally, I believe that we need a National Association for the Advancement of All Underprivileged People that looks out for the civil rights of all the poor of every race, creed or ethnicity, not just an association that looks out for the rights of one race, creed or ethnic group.

I have said that world peace is obtainable if everyone obeys the Golden Rule. The problem is, is that a reality check tells one that such just will not happen. Not everyone is going to obey God’s law.

Jesus said that the poor you will always have with you (Jn.12:8). That is, we will always have those who are destitute and poor financially. We will always have those who are disadvantaged and unfortunate. We will always have those who are unhealthy and handicapped in some way. We will always have those who have a negative outlook. We will always have those who will break the law. If this it true, then how is world peace obtainable?

I don’t know. But I believe there is a hint into how in the 1951 classic science fiction movie The Day the Earth Stood Still starring Michael Rennie.

In the movie Michael Rennie portrays an alien from another planet who has landed here in order to teach mankind how to live in peace. When asked how they keep peace on his world, he tells them that they have surrendered all military power to indestructible all powerful robots. Any nation that does something to upset the peace on their world must deal with these robots.

However, there are no indestructible all powerful robots here on earth to which mankind can surrender all military power. But I believe the solution to world peace can be found within that surrender.

Can the citizens of Louisiana confiscate crops or other goods produced in their neighboring state of Arkansas and use them as their own? Can the citizens of Louisiana rightfully seize real estate on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and make it part of their state? What would happen if Louisiana and Texas went to war?

In each of these cases one can rest assured that the United States Federal Government would intervene. It would make Louisiana give back the property and land. Nor would it allow Louisiana and Mississippi to go to war with each other.

The reason why the U.S. Government would do this is so that peace could be maintained throughout the entire United States. The U.S. Government gets the power to intervene in situations like this because all the states have surrendered military power to the Federal Government.

Comparing the power of the U.S. Federal Government to any individual state government is similar to comparing the power of an all powerful indestructible robot to that of a foot soldier with a pellet gun.

Further, it is against the law for any individual state (or even several states) to raise an army against any other state or against the United States. Any state that tried to raise its own army and upset the peace of the other states would have to deal with the U.S. Federal “robot.”

Finally, any foreign government that attacked any state or states would be like attacking the entire United States. Such a government would then have to deal with the entire United States Armed forces.

A classic example of this was in the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yes, it is true that the United States provoked the attack by supplying Japan’s enemy with weapons and supplies of war. Yes, it is true that the United States had broken Japan’s code and president Roosevelt and the military high command in Washington D.C. knew that the attack was imminent, even sending a telegram to Pearl Harbor informing them of such.

But this is beside the point. The point I’m trying to make is that a foreign power attacked the U.S. and the rest of the U.S. came to the defense of those attacked.

I do not know too much about international affairs, but it seems to me that if those nations of the world who wanted peace would adopt similar procedures to those outlined in the preceding paragraphs, then this would help establish peace on earth.

That is, if the nations of the world united and had only one world armed forces to which all member nations would commit personnel and supplies, then this would help establish peace on earth.

They would have to unite and make it was against the law for any member nation or nations to raise an armed force to attack another nation or nations. Further, if any non-member nation attacked a member nation, then that foreign nation would have to deal with all the member nations collectively; that if any member nation or nations attacked another member nation or nations, then the other member nations would all intervene.

Yes, I realize that there is a United Nations with troops and I perceive this as a start. But it seems to me that the U.N. does not have all the authority it needs to intervene when two nations are in dispute. It seems to me that it does not have any real political power or authority to exact any real sanctions against those nations that seek to do harm to other nations.

Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that if the U.N. had more military power to protect member nations and the member nations had less military power to oppose the U.N. then this might help establish world peace. Also, the military of the U.N. needs to be put under the authority of all member nations collectively.

I perceive the United Nations today in a similar situation to that of the fledging United States under the Articles of Confederation. The U.N. needs more authority and more military power while at the same time the member nations need to reduce their military power.

The question that necessarily arises is: How does one stop an evil military dictator (or anyone) from assuming world domination? The answer can be found in controlling the military.

First of all, no high ranking military officer should be allowed to hold any political office without an extended period of time between his or her retirement from the military and their holding a political office.

Secondly, the military should not be deployed except by a vote of all those nations that contribute to it. This should be more than a simple majority – possibly a two/thirds or three/fourths. But neither should any one nation hold an absolute veto power.

Third, if any military leader (or anyone) should attempt to use the military for their own advantage then such a person should be in violation of the law and subject to prosecution. Such prosecution (and all military prosecutions) should be in the hands of the civil authorities of those nations that contribute to the military. The military should never be allowed to conduct its own investigations or judicial procedings.

Finally, all high ranking military officers should be governed by the civil authorities.

If mankind can establish peace on earth there is virtually no limit to what can be done. The entire solar system is a playground that mankind can use to learn of the secrets of the universe. I have frequently imagined what it could be like a couple of hundred years from now if mankind can establish peace on Earth.

Earth itself would be off-limits to everyone except a few scientists and only a few strategically placed space ports and only a few recreation centers that people could visit for vacations. Everyone else would be living in space cities orbiting the sun and planets with each space city producing a different product for cooperative trade with other space cities. (This would leave earth for the animals.)

Mankind could get the raw material to construct these space cities from the asteroid belt and use the sun as a source of energy. All waste materials would be recycled. There would be no more contamination, political corruption, pollution or wars. Mankind would have a virtual utopian society. But first mankind has to learn to obey God’s law.

Peace on Earth