It has been eerily quiet these days among those who, just a few short weeks ago, were screaming in protest against the war in Iraq. Mike Farrell, of the TV sitcom M*A*S*H fame and vocal anti-war leader in the United States, said recently that "It is no use being vocal when the other team has just scored a touchdown and is celebrating in the end zone." Farrell does insist that the fight is not yet over, as Bush's first-strike policy is sure to be used again. While you and I wait for the next big conflict to arise, possibly in Iran, Syria, North Korea or Columbia, it is important to understand why the policy of pre-emptive strikes against an enemy is poor policy at best, and just plain idiotic at worst.

It seems hard to believe that we are just a little over a decade removed from the 45 year conflict known as the Cold War. In that version of global manipulation by the wealthy elite, both the US and the USSR considered the possibility of winning the war through a quick first strike. The rapid build-up of nuclear weapons on both sides, however, rendered that option futile. A first strike by either of the two major superpowers would certainly ensure the destruction of the other. The aptly named MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy ironically saved the world from WWIII.

Yet now that the Cold War has been replaced by the current farce called the War on Terror, the first strike option seems to be rising from the dead like a Frankenstein monster newly juiced with electricity. The United States' and the United Kingdom's easy land-grab of the oil-rich Iraq was sold on the "suspicion" that the former Middle Eastern regime had a credible weapons of mass destruction program and the "will to use it".

Weeks later, both the US and the UK are still waiting for evidence of such a program to emerge. Perhaps the reason they are taking so long is that it is hard to fabricate such a ridiculous lie, especially when Iraq's military crumbled so easily. There certainly was no will to use any WMD if indeed Iraq did possess one. One would think that the invasion of one's country would certainly "justify" their use.

But do not expect any apologies from Bush or Blair. They got what they wanted. Most Americans will accept the reasoning of "better safe than sorry." In the meantime, both countries have lost whatever ethical high ground they may have once enjoyed. Using September 11th as a rallying cry to impose the will of energy corporations on hapless countries can only work for so much longer.

Regardless of whether any weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq or not, the pre-emptive strike policy is an example of extremely poor leadership. Governments, in their highest capacity, are meant to model appropriate behavior to its citizens. Perhaps this is too much to expect from our governments in these latter days, but the human who is willing to unlearn must hold such a standard.

Imagine a world where your fellow neighbor adopted a "first strike" policy.

"I'm sorry, your honor, you see, I had to assault him because I THOUGHT he was going to sleep with my wife."

"I had no choice, officer, I KNEW he was a gun owner, so I had to break into his house and steal it before he shot anybody."

"Yes, boss, I did sabotage our competitor's computer network. They MAY HAVE had the ability to hack our network, and I didn't want to sit around waiting for that to happen."

And the game can go on and on. The United States and other countries that pay lip service to freedom and democracy are supposed to operate under the principle of innocent until PROVEN guilty. No matter what harm had been done to a victim; the legal system was created to seek out the justice of a case while also respecting the rights of the accused. Apparently the days of such a system have run out.

In fact, what is occurring before your eyes on a daily basis is the unfolding of what has been covertly disguised for some time now. Slowly but surely, a police state is emerging in the places of the world that are said to cherish democracy. In the US, this means the principles of ADMIRALTY LAW, already in effect in all of America's courtrooms, is now becoming overt. Two key principles of admiralty law are that a person is guilty until proven innocent and no trial by a jury of one's peers.

The use of courts of admiralty was one of the chief grievances that the Founding Fathers of the US repeatedly documented in their justifications for revolution against England. A few hundred years later, many souls in America have become ignorant of the appeals to human liberty that motivated their history.

To the unlearner who has not been sedated by the consciousness numbing effects of popular culture, it is recommended that you continue to see the game of life for what it is; a massive rape of the human population by a powerful but infinitely small wealthy elite, who will use any and every lie necessary to get you to freely consent to your own abuse.

The Institute of Unlearning knows that a new game is possible. For this game to start, however, a sufficient number of you must be willing to walk away from (not fight) the twisted version currently engrossing our collective consciousness. The steps to human freedom occur one mind at a time.