In 2005, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad spearheaded the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War. Now, on the 20th anniversary of the signing of that bold declaration, James Corbett joins an esteemed panel in Malaysia to discuss where the campaign to criminalize war stands today and where it is going in the future.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Perdana Global Peace Foundation
Tun Dr. Mahathir: The 2005 Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War
20 YEARS JOURNEY IN CRIMINALISING WAR: WHAT NEXT? (video of conference)
Transcript of James Corbett’s Speech at the “20 Years in Criminalising War” Conference in Malaysia, August 30, 2025
Good morning.
As mentioned, my name is James Corbett. I have a website called “The Corbett Report” at corbettreport.com. So, if you’re interested in more information, it will be there.
First of all, I’d like to thank the Perdana Global Peace Foundation and its trustees, and of course Tun Dr. Mahathir for the invitation to speak to you today.
As you know, we’re gathered here today to discuss the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War and its 20th anniversary. But if we’re going to reevaluate that document and its significance from our standpoint here in 2025, then it’s worth our time to remember the context in which that initial declaration was made.
Let’s cast our minds back to 2005 for a moment and ponder the fact that that 2005 declaration was forged in the crucible of war. Not the War on Terror as the spinmeisters and PR salesman of the Western warmongers put it, but in the war of terror.
A war on an abstract noun, which, we were told, was meant to bring “Freedom” and “Democracy” to the Middle East, but was really about reshaping the Middle East in the interest of the strategists in Washington and Brussels and Tel Aviv.
That 2005 declaration came in the wake of America’s invasion of Afghanistan—a war which, as my reporting on “The Secret Lie That Started the Afghan War” has conclusively demonstrated, was waged under false pretenses, and as my reporting on “False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda” conclusively demonstrated, was waged largely against a mythologized (and secretly supported) enemy.
That 2005 declaration came in the wake of the invasion of Iraq—a war perhaps even more egregious in its brazen illegality and wanton disregard for human life.
And that 2005 declaration came in the light of the specter of an invasion of Iran casting the shadow of World War III across the globe
And so perhaps in that context, in the wake of such madness, we can truly appreciate the moral clarity – the moral sanity – found in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative’s common sense declaration that “UNITED in the belief that peace is an essential condition for the survival and well being of the human race” we must affirm that “Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes” and that “This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorised or permitted by domestic law”?
Imagine that: Murder is wrong. Murder in uniform no less so. A consistent moral principle, consistently applied. Who could possibly argue against that?
But, as you may have noticed, as difficult as it is to believe, that incredibly important ethical framework has not been adopted in the past 20 years. In fact, if anything, the initiative’s simple ideas are probably even more needed today than they were when they were first formulated.
Since that time we’ve seen: the destruction of Libya; the fracturing of Syria; the attack on Yemen; the bombing of Iran; a foreign-sponsored coup in Ukraine and the subsequent invasion of that country; and, of course, the ongoing genocide in Palestine
But I have been asked here today to talk specifically about the role of the current American administration in promoting peace around the world.
Hmmm. That’s an interesting topic. “The role of the current administration in promoting peace around the world.”
If we’re going to talk about the Trump administration and its efforts to promote peace, perhaps we should start by remembering how it was that Trump was swept into office this year.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump claimed that he would be able to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on “day one” of his presidency.
He claimed, for example: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled.”
In fact, he didn’t claim this once or twice. He claimed it at least 53 times.
And throughout his campaign, he promised a quick end to the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
“Get it over with and let’s get back to peace and stop killing people,” he said in April 2024.
And candidate Trump even put himself up for the Nobel Peace Prize throughout the 2024 campaign.
“They gave Obama the Nobel Prize … He got elected and they announced he’s getting the Nobel Prize. I got elected in a much bigger, better, crazier election, but they gave him the Nobel Prize” he complained at one campaign event in Las Vegas.
And in November, shortly after winning the election, it was confirmed that at least one Ukrainian lawmaker had indeed voted for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
“It is my belief that Trump has made considerable contributions to world peace, and that he can make more in the future,” wrote Oleksandr Merezhko, a leading member of the Ukrainian parliament in his letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
So, since taking office, has Trump made good on these promises?
Well, he obviously has not ended the Ukraine-Russia conflict on “day one” as he promised at least 53 times as a presidential candidate.
He now claims that was said “in jest” and wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
And he hasn’t overseen an end to the Gaza genocide. As we know all too well, the slaughter of Palestinians continues and Netanyahu’s government is preparing its invasion of Gaza.
But, to be fair, we have witnessed some attempts at mediation and peace brokering since President Trump came into office in January.
We’ve seen Trump personally attempting to broker a deal in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, for example, and we’ve seen Trump coordinating a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And, as his supporters argue, he is turning US policy away from an expansion of wars and conflict and toward using deterrence as a method for preventing war.
For example, PolicyEast.com writes:
In his 2nd term as President, [Trump] is committed to ending the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war. The recent NATO summit 2025 signaled a shift in the US policy from escalation towards sustaining the deterrence. It reflects the realization under the Trump era that the continuous escalation is not a solution. Diplomatic off-ramp would be facilitated by the US in the Russia-Ukraine war as a last resort to end the war as it did in the recent Israeli-Iranian war.
The war lasted for twelve days and ended with the US intervention. Though the analysts were skeptical of the US role, as it might expand the conflict. However, in the aftermath of Iran’s retaliatory strikes on a US base in Qatar, President Trump announced the ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, lessening the severity of the escalation. In the post-conflict scenario, Pakistan’s premier Shahbaz Sharif lauded the decisive efforts put in by the US president in reaching a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel.
This is . . . something . . .
But, given the US participation in the bombing of Iran this year, given the US’ months-long bombardment of Yemen, given the US brokering of billions of dollars in fresh weapons contracts for the Ukrainian conflict, given the US’ continued support for Israel in its waging of genocide against the Palestinians, I think it’s safe to say that the current American government has not shown itself as a staunch supporter of peace or a reliable ally in the effort to criminalize war
But maybe that’s the point. The American government may not be an ally in the quest for peace, but the American people do not want war.
Indeed, in Feburary 2024, at the height of the then-Biden administration’s push to arm and equip Ukraine for its war with Russia, a poll found that the overwhelming majority—a full 70% of Americans—wanted their government to push for peace talks between the two countries, not to support more war.
The BDS movement continues to reflect the American public’s (and the people’s of the world’s) anger at the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. It has pressured Chevron into halting expansion of its Israeli-claimed “Leviathan” gas field in the Mediterranean. It has caused AXA insurers to completely divest from Israeli banks. It has prompted Puma to drop its sponsorship of the Israeli football association
And when Trump bombed Iran, even prominent members of the MAGA movement were quick to decry the move.
It’s important to consider that point a moment. Why would cap-wearing, flag-waving members of Trump’s political movement be so openly critical of the Trump administration’s warmongering? It’s precisely because they did not want MAGA to result in another warmongering administration like the neoliberal Biden or Obama administrations or the neocon Bush administration before them.
They thought they were voting for peace. But they got more war.
Trump has bombed Yemen.
Trump has bombed Iran.
Trump has been oddly unsuccessful at brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine, but he’s been remarkably successful at brokering weapons contracts for American military contractors to supply weapons to Europe so they can continue to arm Ukraine.
And of course Trump is still supporting his good friend Netanyahu in his quest to invade Gaza and dispel the Palestinians.
None of this is new, of course. We’ve seen this exact phenomenon play itself out before.
In 2008, just 3 years after the Kuala Lumpur Initiative was signed, the American people overwhelmingly voted Barack Obama into office in the hopes that he would not be George W. Bush. Obama even won the Nobel Peace Prize in the mere hope that he would not be George W. Bush.
But, immediately upon taking office, what happened? Not only did Obama dismiss the possibility of war crimes prosecutions for the war crimes that demonstrably occurred in the Bush-era War of Terror, he committed to an expansion of the war in Afghanistan; he expanded the war of terror into Pakistan with drone bombings, he spearheaded NATO’s illegal invasion of Libya; he oversaw the years-long insurgency that tore Syria apart; he presided over the rise of ISIS; and, in an egregious assault against that commonsense ethical framework embedded in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative, he created a so-called “disposition matrix,” i.e., a presidential kill list that presumed to grant authority to the president of the United States to kill anyone he wants anywhere on the planet, including even American citizens.
Murder is wrong . . . unless you’re the president, according to the President of the United States.
So, in short, in 2008, too, the people voted for peace. But they got war.
So, what is the disconnect? Why does a country that prides itself on its “democracy” continue to engage in wanton warmongering against the wishes of its own people? Why has a “Make America Great Again” movement that was supposedly interested in stopping America from acting as the policeman of the world and sending troops abroad for foreign wars of aggression turned into a “Make Israel Great Again” movement that is fostering wars abroad?
More to the point, why does seemingly EVERY American administration pursue a remarkably similar foreign policy no matter who is voted into office?
There can be only two possible answers to that question: either by some remarkable coincidence everyone who is voted in as president of the united states is a secret warmonger who never reveals their true nature until they’re sitting in the Oval Office, or it isn’t the president who is really calling the shots.
Assuming the latter possibility is the more likely answer, then if the president isn’t calling the shots, who is in charge?
Well, we’ve known since President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961 that the military-industrial complex has “unwarranted influence” over the politicians and that the rise of this sinister lobby will lead to the “disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
And beyond the direct corporate military-industrial interests, there are of course financial interests. There’s always plenty of money to be made by unscrupulous financiers in times of war.
So, that leaves us with the question: if we want an administration that conforms to the will of the people and pursues peace, how do we counter these entrenched interests?
It’s tempting to say that in order to retake the government of America (or any other country) back away from these special interests and deliver it to the people, we will need a supra-nataional body to steward over these nations.
After all, if a powerful, centralized control structure has been taken over and used contrary to the wishes of the people, then how else can that structure be put back into line than by the authority of an even greater, more powerful, more centralized control structure?
But if that is what we are advocating, we must ponder whether we have really learned the lessons of the last 20 years of bloodshed and war.
Have we learned the lesson that any institution with the power to enforce a regime of international law will be the very first institution that the warmongers will seek to subvert, subsume or eliminate?
Let’s never forget that the United States used the various United Nations resolutions against Iraq and against Saddam Hussein as pretext for its sanctions, bombing and eventual invasion of that country
Let us never forget that the path to NATO’s bombing of Libya was paved by the UN Human Rights Council in a special session in February 2011 where they invoked the “responsibility to protect” and adopted a resolution without a vote.
Let us not forget that the International Criminal Court has almost exclusively dealt in indicting African leaders, with the exception of its arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. And let us not forget that the ICC’s attempts to bring justice for the genocide of the Palestinians has been so far successfully thwarted and suppressed by Israel and its ally on the UN Security Council.
Perhaps, then, when we are looking for the fundamental shift in society that is going to have to take place if we ever want to criminalize war, we are looking in the wrong place if we’re looking to the ballot box—voting in Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whatever politician comes along promising peace. And perhaps we’re also looking in the wrong place if we’re looking to these supranational entities to bring about peace.
The real criminalization of war will almost certainly not take place as a top-down movement. It will not result from the conspiracy of high-level political leaders behind closed doors. It will not happen at a large scale institution.
It will happen when the bottom-up movement of people crying out “Enough!” becomes unstoppable. When the people realize that the power to direct humanity’s fate lies not in the hands of the bureaucrats, the warmongers, the politicians, the financiers and the military-industrial contractors but in our hands.
In a strange way, perhaps the Trump administration has actually contributed to the promotion of peace in the world by helping to remove the scales from the eyes of those voters who have up to this point still believed in the power of voting or in the power of international institutions to achieve peace.
By continuing the war agenda, he has demonstrated once again that the idea of waiting for a political savior to end the wars is a failed strategy.
It is now time to organize as citizens. To boycott. To protest. To refuse to fight. To make it impossible for the war machine to function.
Once we realize that the war machine runs on the fuel of our participation, we start to recognize that our withdrawal of support for that war machine will be the only thing to stop the machine from functioning.
Such a goal may seem far off from today, but until we start conceptualizing it, until we start cheerleading for it, until there is support for this idea from the grassroots, it will never happen
On the contrary, when this idea has been promoted and it has caught on with the public and there is a groundswell of support for it, nothing will be able to stop it.
Victor Hugo famously observed: “No army can stop an idea whose time has come.”
But when the initiative to criminalize war has prepared the way for global peace, there will be no army left to try to stop it.
Let us pray that that day comes sooner than later.
War = Profit….Huge profit. Only Jehovah will stop war.
You are right Muzzaman, war means profit and obviously, Trump’s administration intends to just do that, bomb and plunder with Israel’s help under flimsy excuses, but we can help Jehovah, be part of a massive refusal to go for more wars, and stop them.
Right now, Gates, Schwab, Rutte and others are on trial in Amsterdam because Covid was a military coup – unfortunately it is kept very secret by the Netherlands’ Government and the mainstream and social media (Substack Sasha Latypova is one of the main actors).
A bit further west, Kevin Annett is suing the Vatican and the UK Royal family for children trafficking and murder, but again, we can’t read or watch anything about it.
These events are kept secret but they are happening, people are moving and even if it is slow, we are progressing. We have to do everything we can to stop these parasites from destroying us, and although many people believe God / Jehovah will restore peace, we can’t just sit down and wait.
James has been writing and warning us for nearly 20 years about many things that are happening right now.
I’m pretty sure his actions have somehow slowed down some details of their agenda, and he is not alone. Thinking of James Delingpole, Miri AF, Alistair Williams… in fact, he has very good company. And they are all conscious of the role of God / Jehovah in this fight against evil.
On my side, unfortunately I only joined a couple of years ago. Now I’m trying to open people’s eyes around me by sharing podcasts and articles from these people. It is tough, but it does work sometimes and then you know it is worth it.
Thaly
“….. Right now, Gates, Schwab, Rutte and others are on trial in Amsterdam because Covid was a military coup – unfortunately it is kept very secret by the Netherlands’ Government and the mainstream and social medi……”
Really? The Q anon stuff still works on people????
That’s hilarious because unless whomever is “putting them on trial” has some kind of “police force” or “army” to go and catch Gates or or schwarb or anyone else then it means NOTHING.
Law means nothing unless it’s imposed by some kind of force.
Without force ti enforce it “law” is the mice voting to bell the cat, the sheep passing resolutions that the wolf must henceforth be vegan.
Let me give you an example of law without force
– “ I hearby declair that Bill Gates must report to my closet for imprisonment for his crimes”
…..I’ll go check in an hour but something tells me he won’t be there. 😉
Please check on https://substack.com/@sashalatypova, she is the one you need to talk to, you can also try Kevin Annett in Substack. I said things were happening, I didn’t imply that they would succeed, we just need to start somewhere. They managed to block her testimony by changing a law, but that will spread and as she is not shy about anything, she is still making excellent podcasts and writes brilliant articles.
What is obvious in the Amsterdam event is the the Netherland’s government is mightily p**sed off, so are the defendants. 😊
Thaly
As far as I can see from a (quick) search it’s a law suit….not a criminal case.
I can sue anyone for anything, but neither party is going to go to jail until a criminal court case happens.
“… I said things were happening, I didn’t imply that they would succeed, we just need to start somewhere.…..”
I (kinda) agree, which is why IMO we should vote….but realistically it’s not going to do anything great deal. On the OTHER hand, representation that “voting will fix this”, or that a minor law suit will fix it, can be counter productive IF they stop people doing other things….its not exactly the opium of the masses, but it can certainly be a bit soporific
Well said. Latypova has done tremendous research together with Catherine Watts and others. Qanon is just a psyop.
One can throw the towel in and look at everything as hopeless, so I applaud those that spread the word even if they can’t personally fight the behemoths.
Fupi
“….One can throw the towel in and look at everything as hopeless, so I applaud those that spread the word even if they can’t personally fight the behemoth…..”
Indeed…you make a good point BUT…. the danger of having a Hollywood mindset (which has been trained into almost everyone) is that people think that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” and that things will one day be resolved like the end of a movie.
Some people are animated by demons IMO but our enemies probably think THEY are the good guys. The conflict we are in has gone on since the fall and will never be resolved by people.
The danger of people doing things like posting AI slop of Denzeil Washington or thinking a court case is actually going to bring anyone to justice is IF IT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR WINNING you take a passive role- as we have been trained to by watching media.
You can almost ALWAYS “fight the behemoth” in some way by becoming more independent of their systems.
You can secure emergency water and food, live and work somewhere where your not SOL the second they fire you for wrong think, you can learn to do without stuff they make, and you can make IRL friends who will help you.
Sure it’s good news when scummy politicians do something we like or our enemies get sued or lose elections (hence you should vote) ir made ti look dumb on screen but at the end of the day no human idea is going to fix this- esp the silly idea that a lower court is gonna hold people who run government up to justice. It’s nice if they get embarrassed but their not going to jail unless some other set of elite players want them to go to jail
True words. Wars and oppression are fuelled by ordinary people joining the armed services, police, secret services, prison services, arms manufacturing jobs, torture weapons manufacturing jobs, chemical poison manufacturing jobs, service uniform tailoring jobs, military vehicle manufacturing jobs. Without ordinary people, State sponsored terrorism becomes impossible. The desire for defensive resources is itself an admission of aggressive intent which can be used to suppress a culture’s own people and often is.
Time for all our cultures to find such jobs completely unacceptable. The boycotting of cultures which continue down the paths of murder and oppression is vital. We have to move our leaders into a peaceful mindset with them or without them.
Old Val
“… Without ordinary people, State sponsored terrorism becomes impossible….”
Thats only true when your fighting a mass mobilized enemy also composed of “ordinary people” – for most of recent civilized history wars have been fought by small groups of people, a tiny fraction of the population that imposed force on the mass….in the case of the British Empire a small group of rather scummy people regular folks looked down on. (Kipling poem about “Tommy” was probably a pretty good representation of how normals felt about soldiers).
.Just recently the US managed to fight two long wars with an all volunteer force while 95% of the ordinary people might as well never have known there was such a place as Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you want to impose your will on your own, or other, peoples then you don’t WANT regular people to be wolves of war- you want them bleating or moo’ing softly on the farm
Killing is not always murder.
Fighting is not always wrong.
War is not always a crime.
If you break into my house to harm me it’s not murder if I kill you…..murder is if I break into your house. The difference is if the killing is legitimate or not.
As to war- just as I might band together with my neighbors to defend our houses ,nations band together to protect their stuff from people that want to take it. If war is a crime then who exactly is gonna enforce the laws about it??? By what means if not threat of violence?
The legitimacy, or the criminality, comes from the REASON violence is used.
Any “negotiations” also depend on on the STRENGTH OF THE PARTIES, the cost/benefit analysis of the how much the players can hurt each other…..does a dog need to “negotiate” with a rat it’s cornered? The same dog will certainly “negotiate” when faced with another dog that can hurt it.
One of our posters here recently mentioned that they carried a large hammer on their belt at one point, and carrying a weapon indicates a willingness to USE it….the fact that they carried it to PREVENT crime is why we don’t think they are a criminal psychopath….the negotiations (“dont steal my stuff”) were based on the hammer
“The legitimacy, or the criminality, comes from the REASON violence is used.”
Since you are getting all philosophical about this,
do you think Israel had a legitimate reason to attack Hamas in Qatar today?
Honestly I’ve not been paying attention to them much, I had a project, as far as I am concerned it’s two enemies of mine killing each other. It’s not like Hamas is good people either.
As to morals….from “their” POV (where all goy are semi human enemy combatants ) it’s moral. If they didn’t keep poking the damn Muslims they’d probably be doing better IMO. But Muslims are blood thirsty too and think anything Muslims di is “moral” no matter how sneaky or wicked, so meh. F them both I don’t own them
They are only my problem because of the Jewish lobby, other wise I don’t generally have much of a feeling about it if they wanna kill each other, TBH. They are both not worth one western life or one western dollar
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”
– James Madison
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”
– Adolf Hitler
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“We don’t learn from war; we repeat it. We don’t prevent war; we perfect it.”
– Heather Mallick
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“We must have a catalyst. Soon an incident like the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Reichstag fire”
Max (Muhammad) Shreck
…” (1992) by Daniel Waters and Wesley Strick
– Batman Returns, directed by Tim Burton
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
In the U.S. 40 major war corporations have annual sales of almost $600 billion.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-perpetual-war-six-questions/5822008
DEMONS AND REDEMPTION (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/KpjG7MeRUc9z/
I know I’m posting a lot, but I do want to add this comment.
Corbett gave a powerful speech at this conference.
Beautifully written and passionately delivered.
The truth in his words moved me, emotionally.
I’m looking forward to seeing the things he’s been working on, the last few months.
War? James your expansion to criticizing , on a world stage, USA politics and the unspeakable line between the Department of War and the civilian Commander en Chief is quite remarkable. You have entertained us for years with some outstanding stories about the realities we experience and the prospects of a future should those warnings be ignored. For a news man you could someday be in line for that Swedish prize. Maybe you would agree peace is the result of war becoming too-big-to-fail. Collapsing on itself the American Joe and Jane will break their long sleep and wake up from the nightmare they have been having ; For the last 50 years!
Wars peter out. Over extension of the fronts from the opposing side. The ‘proles’, the Joes and Janes do a unnatural thing while tiring of constant stress of war. They wake up. Presently I can report that when they wake they can become irrational and do things so unexpected the war department can keep up. Here’s an example of such awakening. I never knew this group existed. I thought they were done away with during or shortly after the false flag in OKC- Murrey Bldg. bombing. Not hard to figure the 1st amendment rights to free speech will be supported by this much longer but for today… A new front has opened which will weaken them going forward. The mob doesn’t always have to be out for blood and can focus just on the machinery of they, them, those and TPTSB. It’s a start.
‘Anti-government militia’ says it’s targeting Oklahoma weather radars
https://www.news9.com/story/686de418f023bda6c04ff4e5/-anti-government-militia-says-it-s-targeting-oklahoma-weather-radars
This weather man hasn’t heard of Bldg.7 either. Go figure.
Did you mean the Norwegian prize? This prize you don’t want to receive. They invented this prize like a stay out of jail card for themselves and their friends.
“War is a crime” is the antidote for the State in Government.
I’ve always found it remarkable for as long as we’ve been on the planet we still haven’t learned to get along. I love the way you think James.
Tun Dr. Mahathir stole my heart.
I suspect that most ordinary citizens, without exposure to the messaging of the world controllers’ minions, would be happy to live in peace. I’ve come to think that the whole point of war is to kill people (population reduction), cause suffering (to distract and control people), and cause destruction (in order to rebuild “better” and transfer wealth). Perhaps if people weren’t so easy to manipulate we could have peace. I don’t have an easy answer to solve that. Refusing to be manipulated into war would have to become part of the culture, for every generation.
Jo Ann
“….I’ve come to think that the whole point of war is to kill people (population reduction), cause suffering (to distract and control people), and cause destruction (in order to rebuild “better” and transfer wealth)…..”
Those are certainly side effects that are useful to some people but war existed long before those things were useful to anyone…..chimps make war, Stone Age people made war, and people today at the most primative levels of culture levels of culture make war.
Good luck finding a way to defeat people who have no qualms about murdering innocent peaceful people to keep their power.
.
Even if you work very hard and make enormous progress, then can just play the murder card again and put an end to it.
Indeed, War is a crime, yet much of what James has concluded was preached roughly 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ. In fact Jesus was put to death for promoting a philosophy of “Love your Neighbor as yourself” and “Do onto others as you would like to be done to you”.
I have a Catholic Bible here that shows by way of a chart of what was happening in the world from 5000 BC to 100 AD, that shows Jesus Christ was born in about 4 BC and was Crucified in about 30 AD. They claim that the Church hired 100’s of scholars who worked on this edition from 1945-1970 (25 years), and that they went back the original scribes which predate the Bible put together in about 350AD with the aid of the ruler Constantine who ruled what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire at that time.
It should be interesting to note that after Jesus Christ was crucified and put on display to show the masses what happens to people that refuse to be slaves or solders for the Roman Empire, followers of Jesus Christ grew in number to the point where the Roman Empire could not function. Even with the preachers of Christianity being hunted down and ruthlessly killed in the Roman Coliseum followers of Christ grew to the point where Rome could not defend itself and the western Roman Empire fell. This left the Eastern Empire under Constantine who decided to become Christian (which I believe was a, “if you can’t beat them join them move”). Anyway, Constantine has to gain the trust of many, if not most of the Christians so he calls together a counsel of leading Christians that create “The Good Book”. Yep, it was regarded as such a great thing that many Christians were happy to help retake Rome and build Vatican City under Roman “Supervision”.
Also in this Bible I have, which claims to be the most accurate ever printed in the English language, is a list of the Popes/leaders of Christianity. The list begins with the Apostle Peter who was appointed by Jesus to lead his followers after his parting from this world, and continues on to the Pope that was acting as leader of the formal Church when this addition was printed in 1980. What is noteworthy to me is that all of the Popes were Saints up until 352 AD. My take is that Liberius was put in place by Constantine with the excuse of over seeing the constuction of Vatican City.
300 plus years of good Popes is a good record and I believe that it lead to the fall of the most powerful Empire that the world had ever known, yet I also believe that the Church had been corrupted and used as a tool to control the masses from about 352 AD till Martin Luther and the invention of the Printing Press.
That said, what James Corbett is advocating has been said before and has been proven to work on bringing down the most powerful Empire on the planet. Indeed, the evil oligarchs need manipulated morons to do their dirty work for them, and exposing the Truth to people about how they are being used as pawns for evil manipulators is gd
Truth seeker
If you like that kind of thing you might want to check out Mike Duncan podcast, History Of Rome…it starts at the very beginning and goes thru to the end of the Empire and is mostly very good…..it’s the best overview pods I know. Very easy listening.
If your interested in the Bible you might want to check out Stone Choirs last few pods on the septuigent , and their take on why it’s the best version of the Bible- the Greek predates the Hebrew version most bibles are based on these days , since the Jews themselves used the Septuigent at the time of Christ. Stone Chior tend to be quite heavy though, and you may not like their take on other subjects, but the Septuigent Epps are very interesting and in depth
I’d say you’re wrong saying Jesus was “….crucified and put on display to show the masses what happens to people that refuse to be slaves or solders for the Roman Empir…..”. Since the Bible is pretty clear Jesus was killed for upsetting the Jews, NOT the Romans.
Pilate was not interested in killing Jesus until the Jews clamored for it.
I’d also say that your book is a bit off suggesting that Christianity was a cause for the Western Empires fall (though iirc Gibbon wrote the same thing) because the actual reasons appear to be more economic (unassimilated migrants, debased currency and low birth rate) and the Eastern Empire was just richer and more stable which is why it lasted until the 1400s (kinda….)
It was quite something listening to the following words pronounced on this stage at 27’23”:
“Why does seemingly every American administration pursue a remarkably similar foreign policy, no matter who is voted into office? There can be only two possible answers to that question: either by some remarkable coincidence, everyone who is voted in as president of the United States is a secret warmonger who never reveals their true nature until they’re sitting in the Oval Office. Or, it isn’t the President who’s really calling the shots… Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities, but assuming the latter possibility is the more likely answer, then the question is: if the President isn’t calling the shots, who is in charge??”
Well done James, something tells me this statement could likely make history in this noble cause – even if it may not seem obvious why at first to some. Congratulations to you too, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, for this campaign to criminalise war.
Then, on a personal level, because of that link I felt compelled to leave in the July Open Thread, it feels like magic can actually happen 😉
Great speech. It‘s important to express that it is every single human‘s choice and individual responsibility to refuse to participate in war and everything surrounding this criminal murderous backwards idea of conflict “solving“ and also to call it out as the heinous crime that it is.