On July 9, 1955, Bertrand Russell, a well-known scientist of his day, called a press conference in London to read the last manifesto penned by his dear friend Albert Einstein who had passed away in April of that year.
The Russell Einstein Manifesto is a chilling prediction and urgent warning to the world about the dangers of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and an urgent plea to the governments of the world to find “peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”
The first nuclear bomb was detonated July 16, 1945 in Alamogordo, New Mexico. A mere three weeks later, the United States decided to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima and three days after that, Fat Man on Nagasaki. 100,000 people were obliterated.
Today, our world stands on the brink. Earth is indeed like a suicide bomber, rigged with so many weapons of mass destruction that one wrong move on the part of the rogue government, errant terrorist or power-hungry corporatists, and the entire human species could very well go missing.
Add to that, climate change is rapidly changing the entire face of existence.
Amidst the turbulence, it’s sometimes difficult to believe we can make a difference. What kind of impact can one human have against these terrorists, errant governments, and systems of culture that strive to keep citizens dull witted and unaware of the lies and nefarious dealings of subversive fundamentalists? And will not expect each citizen become the change themselves before blaming others?
After spending nearly 22 year researching, development, training, and practicing Conflict REVOLUTION, as a tribute to Einstein whose work has inspired the creation of this revolutionary process, I am creating an online Conflict REVOLUTION Training Course to make available, at no cost, to anyone in the world wishing to participate in this grandest of experiments: World Peace One Person at a Time Starting With You.
I issue an invitation to the participation of the willing: Calling all people around the world who want to become the change from the inside out, to resolve conflicts first and foremost within the field of your own domain, with the express intention to align to compassion. The byproduct will be a natural manifestation in the physical world of the new operating system of peace installed within.
The theory is if we can get as many people as possible worldwide to learn to approach conflict in this way individual, we can have a huge influence on the direction of our planetary transformation.
Every culture, every country, every city, burg, and municipality is embedded with a new army, that of compassionate warriors, sovereign individuals dedicating their lives to becoming centers for healing and regeneration, beginning with their own lives.
Are you one of these of new breed of nonviolent activists, ready to delve deeper into your own self-scrutiny? Then please consider joining me in this monumental experiment in the evolution of human consciousness.
Beginning September 19, I will begin to post step-by-step instructions, including downloadable curriculum and video instruction on how to adopt this worldview and get in touch the depth of your own power. I believe if we can solve these conflicts at a much different level than they are being created, we have a chance to create major miracles.
Thank you all for all that you do, every day, to bring love and stability to this planet in flux. I hope my gifts will inspire you to pick up your power, get up off the couch and see how much impact you can really have.
I believe we are birthing a new Earth. What will it take to get you to stand up?
Russell Einstein Manifesto
In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.
We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.
Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.
No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.
It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.
No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration. Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.
Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.
Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.