The foolishness of the Ukraine crisis in Europe, with a possible solution

“There is no honourable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except it’s ending.” – Abraham Lincoln.

Ordinary citizens in both Europe, Ukraine and Russia don’t want war. It’s rarely that people want war. Propaganda, however, can accelerate sentiments in different and sometimes sinister ways, as often shown in history.

But not rarely, there was a hefty price to pay. The combination of propaganda and ignorance is a dangerous one, because propaganda rarely covers the truth.

There is gross injustice by sending people to war for “a lie”. But the lie can be wrapped and presented in convincing ways through the falsehood of savvy propaganda. Super powers are well able to convince their citizens that they are standing on the right side of history, but rarely they tell the full truth.

The pretext for war in Iraq and Afghanistan through 9/11, was smartly crafted and many secrets in this area will never enter the  public domain. Likewise the assassination of an American President as part of various complexities in history an earlier time,  has been carefully hidden from the public eye, and still is. 

But Russia and the previous Soviet Union has it’s history as well. Likewise various other countries.

The reality which counts is that wars are made through decisions of government leaders and their military commanders. Propaganda and lobbying are often tools to get people in line. War has obviously still a place in history but the risks are higher and leaders need to surf the waves of wisdom to keep on top and prevent drowning or burning themselves. There is little which ordinary people can do to defy this reality we have to live with, still hoping that leaders may change their perceptions, their agenda for the better, rather than losing their mind for the worst in a less than savvy war. It’s a matter of mercy, more than justice. The so-called justice for one perspective is not the justice of combined perspectives.

Mercy is the power of people to decide on the common good in people and groups and nations and to create the best possible solution in a controversial scenario. However, it often does not work that way, and sometimes even people get killed because they tried to end war. 

When you can’t pay e.g. the rent for 3 months because you got a broken leg and can’t work, by law you can be evicted from your house and your family can find themselves homeless. After all you signed a lease contact. Mercy is when the landlord allows you to stay in the house until you are recovered and make up for his lost income when you find a new job. In the meantime, however. your kids can play with fire by night and find the house and everyone dead by day. They screwed up the 2nd lease, being allowed. 

Like this are some leaders in Europe and NATO in this generation. They play with fire by night and may lose the second lease on peace, provided after the Second World War and after the fall of the Soviet Empire. This is what happens at the moment in and around Ukraine.

Neither the people of Ukraine, nor the people of Russia, Europe and the US are bad at large,-  though their governments have the instruments and the power of decision making, to carry out propaganda guided misery, implemented by people who are trained to follow orders and do terrible things. Once war breaks out there is a domino effect on evil because the veil of civilisation is thin and can only be protected by abiding to international law, however with mercy in particular scenarios. 

People are not made for war. When they are sent to fight wars they often come back with PTSD because of the gruesome manifestations of war. People are by nature not often evil, but war can make them both numb and evil through the limits of human compassion on the battle field. The battle field knows neither mercy nor justice. The battle field has its own rules. 

There are still scholars who are intelligently ( and religiously) defending and framing either the Russian system – or the system being used by the US or China. And they can be very convincing for either country. Those countries are very powerful, in different ways. And the propaganda tool to create “the enemy picture” is easily and smartly crafted. Clever but not always wise. No system is that bad that it includes the people of a country as a whole. But propaganda resonates with not always the better instincts of people. When passion meets aggression there is no mercy anymore. When passion meets mercy, wisdom will prevail.   Hence mercy being better than the proclaimed justice of war and the announced wisdom to prepare for this by countries who don’t see the implications of their actions and gamble with the lives of others. 

Regarding Ukraine, what does Russia want?

It is actually more about what Russia doesn’t want. Russia does not want Ukraine in the NATO, and they don’t want any NATO exercises near Russia’s border.

Is that a bad thing? 

No,  I don’t think so. 

It’s a legitimate request based on their own history perhaps and at least their sense of security being compromised. 

If Ukraine would potentially become a NATO State, there could be nuclear missile systems just on the border with Russia. This is a red line for Russia and Russia did not get any reassurances from the West.

Russia did prepare an army to stand ready for a potential invasion of Ukraine. That might well have been the intention, but it did not happen. Meanwhile the US and NATO are preparing a build-up of an army in Eastern Europe close to the borders of Russia.

What is or might be required?

Relaxation of international tensions in Europe on the Ukraine conflict…obviously, through de-escalation and a reasonable agreement.

What could this be?

Let’s rethink for a moment the potential NATO status for Ukraine in favour of a “strict neutrality status” for Ukraine.

This could indeed prevent the prospect of a scenario which could potentially become the “killing fields of Ukraine”, with -perhaps – parts of Europe being involved. The sentiments run very deep in Ukraine. And a regional war in Europe is possible with unknown implications and destruction.

Think of Ukraine as “a neutral State” ( like e.g. Switzerland), keeping as such its independence , – however at the same time Ukraine neither being a NATO State at the disadvantage of Russia, – nor being a “Russian dictated buffer State” at the disadvantage of Ukraine itself. Ukraine will keep this way its independence and can be a prosperous nation, when it changes a deep-rooted culture of internal corruption. The alternative could be destruction of the Ukraine as a country, whilst other countries are busy to try to keep out and fixing “the blame game”.

NATO’s purpose is to defend the freedom and security of its members. By increasingly encroaching on Russian borders by making former Soviet members NATO States, – Europe and the US have been ongoing and moderately provoking Russia, – and this is the cause for Ukraine being a disputed zone in Europe at present. Russia is as such responding to an issue more or less created by NATO and the US. For Russia potential NATO membership for Ukraine is a no-go zone and a red line and they are prepared to prevent this happening at considerable cost. China meanwhile supports Russia to stop expansion of NATO in Europe.

If America seriously addresses Russia’s security concerns (genuinely), and stops NATO to consider and implement membership for Ukraine within the NATO alliance, – a peaceful resolution is “entirely possible,” says former US State Department adviser James Carden. This is the only real requirement. Actually, NATO till so far never seriously contemplated to take Ukraine on as a member on board.

Strict “Neutrality status” for Ukraine under supervision of the UN would be the way out of a bizarre conflict with neither justice nor mercy. But this concept is based on both mercy and justice for all parties who are not willing to risk of a merciless war without justice.

What happens if Russia invades Ukraine?

Western nations are supporting Ukraine, but some responses have been tougher than others. The US and UK have supplied weapons, while Germany plans to send medical support next month but will not supply military equipment.

China supports Russia in stopping NATO extending more to Russian borders and we have to wait and see how this works out.

There has been much talk about sanctions aimed at punishing Moscow. Publicly, the US and European allies are aiming to hit Russia financially like never before if Putin does invade Ukraine. There are calls to cut Russia out of the SWIFT financial system, which moves money from bank to bank around the world. This would be one of the most damaging financial steps they could take, to destruct Russia’s economy immediately and long term. This could isolate Russia from most international financial transactions, including international profits from oil and gas production, which counts for about 40 percent of its revenue. The US considers as well blocking Russia from access to the US dollar, if Russia invades Ukraine.

In the meantime, two superpowers are facing each other fully military equipped over the borders of Ukraine with the US accelerating the risk of a major and potentially escalating conflict, rather than offering a peaceful resolution – and a way out – based on what Russia does not want. And this is simply no NATO membership for Ukraine, that’s all.

The US may think there is justice to punish Russia for meddling in US elections and this is what President Biden promised. But the way he shows power in Europe, without “a way out”, might not be that merciful for the whole of Europe whilst a neutrality status for Ukraine is based on both reason and mercy at a critical time. Mercy for the people of Ukraine, Russia and Europe -and others perhaps – who don’t want a major war, not again.

Group bias for the European partners with the US might be an issue, like group bias is an issue for the Republican Party in the US at the moment, who formally declared the insurrection last year on the 6th of January as “a legitimate political discourse”. Group bias can be a dangerous when people stop thinking for themselves.

Former President Trump once proclaimed the US is “a deeply stupid country”. That’s not true for the majority of the Americans, but if the US is unable to create an enduring peace between European nations and Russia, and escalates tension rather than de-escalate tension in Europe, we may add to the existing list that World War 2 was a victory for both the US and it’s allies, including Russia, but: that both the 3rd European war, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the Vietnam war were deliberate and avoidable and failed wars, at the cost of many.

People who nowadays want war or take the risk on an international escalating conflict, don’t know what war will be.

Hence better to get back to the negotiating table and sign up for Ukraine being a neutral independent state, with neither NATO nor Russian involvement to extend each their territories. Aiming for extending territories is fruitless and mindless business.

The power of choice, with wisdom, based on mercy, lies in grace under pressure. In other words – regarding war: prevention is simply better than cure. And in the crisis of Ukraine it could be that simple…

Thank you.

Paul  Wolf

WE SHALL OVERCOME

“A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labours of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.” – Albert Einstein

–

“Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which can’t be overcome when they are together, yield themselves up when taken little by little.”
– Plutarch

–

“Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos to order, confusion to clarity. It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend.”
– Melody Beattie

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
 You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise. –  Maya Angelou

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We shall overcome one day in ourselves, with gratitude to our past, our present and our future. Gratitude to those who made our life and circumstances possible. Gratitude to our friends and opponents who made us what we are now or what we have been, – who shaped our response, – those who were “our teachers” in both the right and the wrong things.

We may overcome ourselves within the things we cherish, within the positives amidst negatives, – the last being different for all of us. Different for us as individuals, different for us as a class or group as well, whether we are part of a city, state or country.

The Freedom Fighters in the US shaped the future for equal rights among black and whites. This shaping of the future was not without violence and cruelty. Non-violent struggle did overcome racial segregation, like it did overcome apartheid in South Africa with similar forces in action elsewhere many years later.  Again however, not without violence and cruelty.  People beaten, shot, disappearing, often at young age, – by their opponents. But they did overcome, marching up to freedom. Freedom land as a way of achieving, not the final goal, but a way. A way with violence to be avoided, – where possible. At least by not provoking this violence.  What we give we tend to receive. If we answer all violence with violence it makes us all blind and there are smarter ways, – ways being less destructive and more effective to bend sweltering injustice into a strapping justice of different sorts. It is the way of violence to be avoided within all reasonable dimensions.

–

Julian Bond, civil rights activist

Like the US was trying to control the status quo in the 196o ties,  South Africa was trying to defend the rights of minorities by compromising the rights of majorities. Many countries are still doing the same. But the non-violence movement has been neither restricted to the US nor South Africa. And still we benefit from such a movement, and the movement needs to grow as it is the only way forward to overcome man made institutional and other dangers being difficult to control. If man made dangers can’t be controlled by reason anymore, we are at risk of being controlled by defeatist perceptions regarding  those dangers, with the risk those perceptions take over at a cost of man made opportunities we have. The power of a non violence movement need to be able then to show greater leverage than the power of senseless massacres or decisions to go this direction.

Where the choice is made to make peaceful revolution impossible, the alternative however of a violent uprising is inevitable.

–

Peaceful change with the least possible violence is the way to overcome. A movement which should grow from Syria to North Korea, from oppressive regimes in South America to similar regimes in Asian countries. But the means by which the movement for change now tries to break through is by no means the same or fitting the Gandhi/Martin Luther King or Mandela legacy, – seems to evolve more dangerous even and perhaps more deadly. Often leaders now responsible for venom being injected to paralyze it’s people in fear, and not to speak out anymore.

Bloodshed and massacres do not seem to stop and the question is what sort of good may come out of all of this and what sort of “reason” people or countries may come up with , without making situations at various places more explosive.  Whilst some people may feel gratitude for both the past, the present and the future, the question as well what sort of “gratitude” people may have at places in the most difficult circumstance one can imagine,  – situations like we can only recognize from war’s we have been able to leave behind. The gratitude to live for some might be replaced by the gratitude to die for others, which is the worst of all gratitude as the last gratitude we should have is the gratitude to live. And this is the preferred gratitude we should be able to share and to contribute to, if at all possible.

The last is what we may think. But people are able to take this away from other people by the venom of hate, by the brutality of their violence, by the starvation of people. Some of them will “overcome” but not all of them. Some of them may see the new day but not all of them. Some of them may feel peace but others may have lost all peace, all gratitude, and don’t feel human anymore as their humanity has been compromised and violated on the altar of merciless torture and abuse.

–

It is this almost complex manifestation in nature as well, that life often comes at a cost of other life, –  whilst as human beings by nature we have the gift by choice. The last in general to change the dynamics of hate and destruction into the dynamics of a reasonable peace. Not an ideal peace perhaps. However, combined with more justice, at least the most desired option within the reasoning of our human options.  As long as we have such a desire and imagine the implications in the best possible ways, – we may attract positive outcomes if those ripples of hope are shared at the best possible frequencies of our human dimensions. With this shared gift we can change and “overcome”.

Liberation is only possible by ordinary people doing extra ordinary things by non-violence. The power of ordinary people can keep a dream alive, can move governments if so required, is able to resolve some of the dangers of war and all-out violence. Is even able to “move” people who lost their dreams as due to even an overload of prosperity. The other way around, – so to say, as people can “sleep in” through prosperity, being blind for what is going around.  However, whilst the broader movement of non-violent action resisting what persists along the lines of injustice of various kind, the question is whether the non violent approach as a starting  point is always possible to be continued under all circumstances as part of the process of liberation?

If we look at history the answer is simply: No!  Without violence it was not possible to remove Hitler and his followers. Without violence it was not possible e.g during WW2 to protect the Jews in various countries like e.g. the Netherlands, where resistance groups had to target Gestapo Officers responsible for the transportation of Jews to concentration camps, and likewise had to target collaborators who worked with the Gestapo. Without the perseverance of Brittain and the support of the US Hitler’s “Third Reich” would have had free play.  It is just an example. And there are far more and other examples as well. However non-violent action to bring required change is the most favorable and most honorable way to add to peaceful dynamics which may last. Perseverance is more prevailing than persistent violence

Let’s be grateful that despite tears, pain, hardship and even death, – history showed the growing seeds of forces turning against evil and overcome destructive powers. Therefore, still we can say “we shall overcome” even if we are not allowed to see the promised land, – we shall overcome.

Even with our confined days on this earth we have the choice to try to reduce destruction and improve life and the circumstances of those who needless suffer as due to the choices of evil powers, the last which should not to be tolerated in our times. Powers which are due to be eliminated as due to the risks they impose on humanity.

Time is slow for those in need. Time is slower for those who are desperate and time stands still  almost when people lose their loved one’s in ongoing violence. Violence  eg in Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and other areas…

Protecting of self-interest when under threat as a country is one thing. However, this should be reasonable and within proportions.  Being the captives of perceived national security threats and not being able to reach out to the voices of crippled people under the brutal forces of any military powers or secret police at times, – is hard to tolerate in a world which has been faced with so much pathological violence before. And whilst time may be slow, here  time is of the essence to resist this,  as morbid powers are not allowed to take over.

History did teach us many lessons in what works and also things which do not work, and we can be grateful for this.  However the highest appreciation is not utter words only but to live by those lessons, to live the gratitude for those lessons and to pay tribute to those in history who did contribute to more justice and gratitude and peace for our times and all times, – even when there are still areas on this planet where this is not felt at all.

Our obligation is not an obligation to pay lip service only.

We live in a world with increasing injustice, the last even within institutions,  – a venom if not eradicated!

Though we are limited in our endeavours, we shall overcome one day, .  as long as our dreams do last, .  as long as our unaffected efforts do not rest, .   as long as our mind conceives and believes, our gratitude does not cease, and we as people are able to fulfil, . in a way which lifts the burdens in and around us and makes us free.

–

Let us raise again in this dream, as to never forget, …as this is the reality of life where all men are created equal, – but most being surely more unequal through the far stretching differences and circumstances of life,  – the last for certain not always by choice.

Therefore, –  again, and more than ever before: resist in truth what is wrong,  and persist in truth what is good  whilst protecting live as worthy as possible.

–

We may have fallen with our feet trodden beneath the dust, but we shall rise up again. Reminding ourselves that our lives depend on the labour of others and that we have to give in the same measure as we received, taking things day by day and step by step, – knowing that endurance is more powerful  than ferocity.

–

Knowing as well that there is a place and time for the fullness of real gratitude,  and that amidst the corners of history’s shame we shall overcome one day,  as the wall’s of hatred and prejudice have been broken then, –  and mercy may prevail for our time and all times! ———–It’s a concept, a harness so to speak, an ideal, and perhaps not always applicable in the complexities of this world. But it’s the most preferable approach and guideline, just because of the complexities of this world.

–

Thanks!

Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

>>>>

–

> https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/ <

->>>

Related articles

• Gratitude is more than a once-a-year event (hollyonthehill.com)
• An attitude of gratitude (disruptyourlife.wordpress.com)
• We Shall Overcome (paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com)
• We shell overcome one day! (svobodnite.wordpress.com)
• Living In Thanksgiving Daily (Even When I Don’t Feel Like It) (mormonsoprano.com)
• Appreciation vs. Gratitude (quantumperceptions.wordpress.com)
• Archbishop Villegas prays for peace, end to violence and corruption (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (inc.com)
• My Gratitude to Prisoner Number 46664 (crazyorganicmama.com)
• Humanitarian Aid Helps Us Too (classwarinamerica.wordpress.com)

Decisions in 2014

English: Decisions Decisions (Horton, Point or Green) (Photo credit: Wikipedi –

“Here is a test to find whether your mission on earth is finished.  If you are alive it isn’t – Richard Bach

–

“By this means you will acquire the glory  of the whole world.”  – The Emerald Tablet      (Aprox 3000 –5000 BC)

–

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZYhxT5Mf8  <<    Vivaldi‘s Gloria

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You can still make decisions . . .Decisions based on your driving desire and your will. Decisions resulting in deeds and deeds resulting in your destiny, – so to say.

It is well known that the sum of your decisions largely define your future and “destiny”, by choice..

Let’s take courage from this principle of life, so to say. Courage at the beginning of a New Year again. Courage perhaps for the years ahead. Courage that at some extend and perhaps at some large extend we can take control, or still take control, as we have the gift of a free choice in most of the things we undertake. We have even the choice to buy into this principle or not, make the decision to use our freedom as good as possible within the given circumstances or not.

It sounds so simple “lets take courage” but in the broader context we are made to act and not acted upon. We are not made to stand aside but we are made to take part. We are not made to stay in idle hope but we are made to carry the spirit forward in the firm belief that life is worthwhile living, in the knowledge that this world is far from perfect. All this is based on our deeds, our decisions, – our will and our desires.

Our decisions need to be based on the simple fact that it is better to love than to hate, regardless that loving does not mean allowing anyone else to abuse us.

If we do so we may have peace at heart!

Nelson Mandela could have said: ” For those living  in countries like South Africa in the past – under oppression – any one may ask what he or she may contribute to the reduction of tyranny and improve eventually, where possible, the process of reconciliation with the power of forgiveness”.

Doing so means you have peace at heart like Mandela  had a particular way of  maintaining  peace at heart.

–

No reconciliation however is able to undo the torture of women and children, and the culprits of those acts against humanity should face the justice systems of their own countries as this is a required peace time effort.

If we can’t e.g resolve those problems in peacetime, civilisation is not by any means able to resolve such problems at war-time.

–

The question is what we are going to do about it and what our own personal response will be for our own future, amidst all the choices we have in our own circumstances in 2014.  Good is to improve life where possible, – bad is to destroy life where this in the spirit of both reason and compassion can be, or should be, avoided.  At times this can be an agonising question without peace, – but it may provide us peace.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth are not the means by which we need to live, and on all sides of the religious spectrum we are never told to do so. Those “who live by the sword will be killed by the sword”.

It’s a matter of peace or conflict.

–

As Martin Luther King ,Jr once said:  “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.”

 

The crux lies in the method!

–

We live however in a world where simple escalating events may lead to massive drama’s all around, – a world where peace in no way is secured.

War’s have been fought over various decades, influence shifted across the borders of various nations and the balance of power will be neither the domain only of super powers nor the prerogative of economic powers when we see countries arise with the potential of military and nuclear power meeting us again, – eventually by surprise perhaps. The last destroying historical efforts of civilised nations to stay above the potential of mass destruction, – based on the reasoning that a large new war is not a rational alternative anymore. Often this reasoning has been forged in the crucible of historical hardship, being different for most of the nations on this world, – however being unique in both the shared will to survive and to prosper. The last does apply for most nations but not for all perhaps. The Russian provocation on Cuba with the US in October 1962 brought the world only hours away from a very likely and totally uncontrolled all-out nuclear war, more or less prevented -so to say – at “the last minute”.

In our peaceful efforts we need to keep this at heart.

–

Both love forgiving and gratitude in the will to live and to manifest itself  in all our energies brightens the world, – like the sun brightens the sky. Nothing in this world is impossible and e.g. Nelson Mandela made sure to remind us of this! And as President Kennedy once said: “The only certainty we have is that nothing is certain”.

Today in the international arena of politics we are faced with the increasing prospect that relatively less influential nations and leaders may use their possession of nuclear warheads by narrow-minded decisions, – aiming to inflict as large as possible destruction for reasons nobody understands.  It will put peace at the biggest test…

Everything is a matter of perception and perceptions do rule the world, either in the leaders of people and governments, or in the people themselves. Whether those perceptions are right or wrong, bizarre perhaps at times – if we make decisions feuded by prejudice, and as such preventing that we work together with the most crucial different perceptions of our times, – we are taking away the opportunities of people coming together and making the impossible possible.

Decision , decisions..but we have to face them at any level, – wherever we live in 2014!

–

So the courage  to decide and try to maintain peace in general  is important, at any place and at any time,  – but the courage to love as well.  The compassion of doing the things being both right and good at every point of testing. This will define your future in the smaller areas and our future in the larger domain of living together, – living together on this small planet. It will define our future within this larger domain if the majority of voices on this world speak and act upon this language in the same or similar frequency

The courage to live life in such a way as well as if every day could be the last one.

–

The courage to strive for peace.

–

This is a question of courage and character, a question of encouragement or discouragement, – the question or ask to be a sparkling light as we have the privilege of a free choice to show ourselves this way, – this way with peace.

–

As once said, peace does not mean to be at a place with no noise. Peace does not mean to live without trouble or hard work, but it means to live at a place where our energies are focussed. It means we can be calm at heart when there is violence, calm at heart when there is injustice or hardship, – but work against it with “Peace at Heart”. Peace at heart when we realise that  the world lives in us and we do live in the world. The last with our own response, – with our own last choice to make  decisions with  peace at heart.  Nobody can take this ability away from us if our desires go this direction.

This is the kind of peace I wish everybody for 2014!   A  peace with neither limit nor ceiling, wherever we may live and whatever our circumstances may show.  This is the kind of peace within the domain of our own choices, our own decisions, – the decisions within the smaller areas of our life  or the bigger ones at a larger stage. As long we are able to make decisions based on those desires, our mission on earth is not finished and still, – still we are able to acquire the glory of  the world, as once was stated some 5000 years ago.

“Turn your face toward the sun and the shadows will fall behind you.”,  – again this is what I wish for all of you.  That the shadows fall behind you in 2014 and that so your desires reach the frequency of peace and compassion!

–

Have a GREAT NEW YEAR in 2014!!!!

–

Thanks!

–

Paul

–

Paul Alexander Wolf

–

->>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZYhxT5Mf8  <<    Vivaldi‘s Gloria

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Nelson Mandela Tells Oprah The Personal Myth He Wanted To Dispel Following His Release From Prison (VIDEO) (wonderfultips.wordpress.com)
• Nelson Mandela’s unique journey from prisoner to president (itv.com)
• Obama on the death of Nelson Mandela: Transcript (voices.suntimes.com)
• Newt Gingrich ‘Very Surprised’ At Nelson Mandela Backlash (huffingtonpost.com)
• Quiet Thoughts: How I Choose to Honor a Great Man (blackbunchedmassmom.wordpress.com)
• ‘I learned that courage… (seerxsociety.wordpress.com)
• Tory grandee smears Nelson Mandela and claims apartheid was harder for WHITE South African leader (mirror.co.uk)
• Tahir ul Qadri vows to bring revolution, like of Quaid-e-Azam & Mandela (sananews.net)
• Lessons for Muslim Da’awah Workers from the Life and Times of Mandela (signpostblogger.wordpress.com)
• The life of Nelson Mandela: Images and Quotes (middlepassagementor.com)

If we have loved well while we were alive..

“If we have loved well while we were alive, there is life after death here -our love will go on for generations” – Desmond Tutu.

“I am what I am because of what we all are” – Ubuntu.

“A time of crisis is not just a time of anxiety and worry. It gives a chance, an opportunity, to choose well or badly.” – Desmond Tutu

–

If we consider the will to live in and around us on this planet as part of a cosmic manifestation which started with extreme forces in the universe some multi billion years ago perhaps, one of the things we may wonder  is that we owe to the sun. Sounds strange perhaps. Without sun there would be no life on this planet. However the sun never asks what we can do in return, never asks for a favour. It is pure energy and light.

Love in the will to live and to manifest in all our energies brightens the world, – like the sun brightens the sky.

Love is one of the major substances of nature,  human life, and the universe.  As human beings we can love far more than we ever did before. Love does not ask for favours.  What this love – of a different kind  – creates is positive energy which will one way or the other flow back to us,  – resolve problems and divisions and many more.

As part of our creative abilities and being receptive to what is going on around us we can make the choice to look for the things we love, – what we love in other people, in events and circumstances.

Before we go to bed and fall asleep we may consider and feel what we love in all those little things and this on its own will lift our spirit. And obviously as proactive human beings we have to try to go for the things we love and like to do, – without wasting energy on pointless obstacles, if we are able to turn away from this.

If at bed time we are too exhausted and fail to have the energy to wonder about what we love or to realise what our gratitude requires, we can easily skip a few days, – as long as we try to make a habit to do this before bedtime at least once a week.

We can make the impossible possible for what we really love as we have our imagination and endless opportunities to dream things which were never before, with the conviction that it will happen (that it actually already happened).  Not always but often we can make things true of what we so strongly believe.

The gift to play with our mind in the positive may have been lost for some who may say this belongs to childhood. But if we keep control over our mind, our mind and heart will never be our enemy. If we train our mind to feel love and give love on top of our gratitude to all those people who may have had an impact on our inner and outer life, – the implications can be life changing.

A “thank you” for the gifts we receive(d) under almost all circumstances and to others, may help us to give in the same measure as we did receive in both the past and the present. Neither the present nor the past can prevent both our gratitude and love for what we want and believe for the future, – as long as we don’t harm.

Whilst life is not without struggle or defeat in our perceptions, – through gratitude felt by our heart we may find compensation in the “trials” of life.

The more we give in terms of love and gratitude, the more we will receive as well, – as love is really the major part of our substance. Major part of nature and the universe as well and if we we don’t see things with our own restricted human eyes, – somehow it will reflect back to us from various directions. Our links with the universe are of an unseen nature, which does not mean that those links do not exist. Through the energy of love in which we take part as products of this universe, we may give in abundance and may receive in abundance. The more we give this way, the more we receive the other way in ways we don’t need to understand.

The last only if we don’t give to receive, which is a subtle but important difference of our mindset. It does simply not work when you give to receive! I will reflect later on an early childhood experience.

Faith indeed is somehow trusting and believing and loving the things we don’t see, – and at some stage seeing the things we believed.

It requires a mindset of a different kind and love of a different kind.

It requires as well to say “thank you” for the things we received, – like Einstein did at least 50 times a day when he was asked what his major achievement was. He did thank the people who played a role in his life, people who had an impact on him and his circumstances. Perhaps this was one of the reasons that the universe provided him with the wisdom and the knowledge of the kind he received. It was Dr Albert Schweitzer as well who learnt to show his gratitude and his act to travel to Lambarene and start one of the first mission hospitals in Gabon was an act of love, – tough love. This mission started in the last century.

Let us never forget that Jesus said “thank you” before he performed a miracle.

There is more going on than we can see or hear in the interactions between our planet and the universe, but if we harness us with the power of love with abundance and the right energy, we will receive with abundance and we may enjoy this, – even though the world as it is is far from perfect.

Just anecdotal, I learnt my first lessons the funny way when I was close to eight years old only, – spending the summer holidays in Haamstede (Zeeland) with my parents my brothers and some friends. It was a place close to the sea, dunes and forest with a large gliding airport. I loved playing with a kite as kids do.  My kite often crashed and the lifespan of that kite was often not longer than a week as the stronger the wind the stronger the crashes. On the 16th of July it was the birthday of grandma and I did send her a nice card with a biblical text which was suitable for her as she was a very Christian woman in her 80ties. This was a gesture without expectation as it was her birthday, – would have been different perhaps if it was my birthday at the age of eight. It was a very pleasant surprise to receive a few days later an envelope with lets say some $25,-.  I forgot to say “thank you” to grandma (she lived some distance away ) and bought straight away a new kite, – which  crashed various times as well. This kite was done within 10 days (lasted a bit longer) but there was no pocket-money left.  My dad gave not any further pocket-money and the local little “Foodland” refused to give me a loan kite. Well, – I decided to send grandma a new card with this time a better text of similar nature. A few days later an envelope came in with $10,=.  At this age I did not understand why the moneys were reduced, but anyhow,  again I forgot to say a genuine “thank you” and bought straight on a new kite which obviously was of less quality. My slightly older brother started unfortunately to send cards to grandma as well.  My new kite did not last longer than 3 days this time, which was bad luck and a new card with the right text did not receive any response. My brother did not receive anything and felt perhaps unfairly treated. Grandma was aware obviously what was starting to happen but she took everything in her later life with a loving smile.

Experiences of “right and wrong” or half “right and wrong”,  giving and taking etc  do start at early childhood in every human being.  As long as people learn and are able to take the next step.

Some do from this point of view better than others. Most important is that a level will be reached of compassion, both love and gratitude, – the last  for what we received through the labour of others. Both in the spirit and the material things they provided for us. Both from people who already died and are still alive.

When I became a little older and in contact with people, – through circumstances and being engrossed at some lengths in the greater human spirits of our time,  I became to realise that what we give in love may live on, – and that the force of love and gratitude in life can make the impossible possible.

Nothing in this world is impossible as some did show the way they gave to humanity.

Let’s be grateful for every human spirit who kept our inner life alight, for any situation which helped us further, for any joy which left us in the positive, and for the One external force in God which protects us,  whatever we have to face, –  in death or being alive, but foremost during our lifetime amidst the expressions  of life in and around us.

Love and gratitude are the most important ingredients for a life in abundance.

Thank you!

Paul Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/rest-well-golden-eagle-in-memory-of-nelson-mandela/

–

We dream of things that never were and say: “Why not?” on January 6, 2013

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/our-future-lies-in-our-children-as-well/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/to-sweep-down-the-mightiest-walls-of-oppression-against-our-human-rights-and-create-the-biggest-movement-on-earth/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/peace/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-art-of-leadership-and-lessons-from-the-past-nelson-mandela/

 

Related articles

• Underwater Kites Can Harness Ocean Currents to Create Clean Energy (blogs.smithsonianmag.com)
• Gratitude is a Celebration of Life (omtimes.com)
• 207. Getting Clear on Abundance (toinspirefromwithin.com)
• Kites Will Sale Over Ocean City At Kite Expo (itrip.net)
• The Basic Gear for Kitesurfing (kitesurfphuket.wordpress.com)
• Life is a Gift (positive-thoughts.typepad.com)
• ‘We Must Fight Injustice to Animals’ – – Archbishop Desmond Tutu Speaks Up For Animals (onegreenplanet.org)
• Great Gratitude (californiamoon.wordpress.com)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (inc.com)
• You Can Get It If You Really Want (quickcuppatime.wordpress.com)

 

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

 

Picture of President Kennedy in the limousine in Dallas, Texas, on Main Street, minutes before the assassination. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

is an edited version on

Review  JFK  Assassination  2011: An  issue for both Democrats and Republicans. on June 9, 2011, – with more available information now.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today 50 years ago was the State funeral of President John F. Kennedy, – the 35th US President.

 

After 50 years we remember President John Fitzgerald  Kennedy for the things he left in both the memories of many, – and history.  Assessing him we have to recognise some errors but his large accomplishments were undeniable, – likewise his enthusiasm, his youth and his forward-looking approach in easing the tensions with the Soviet Union and Peace in general.

 

He played a unique role in his short time as US President.

 

It is fair to say he saved the world from a nuclear disaster dealing in his own way with the Cuba crisis in 1962, – ignoring the suggested hard-line approach.

 

He was an inspiration for a whole generation in his time and 50 years afterwards vivid memories have been shared all over the United States.

 

 

What happened in Dallas in terms of major crime with ongoing criminally negligent investigations in the past,  can’t be allowed to happen again.

 

Whilst this was allowed to happen without real reliable investigation and many things being left not aimed to be disclosed, –  it may happen again in different identities.

 

This is one of the reasons the JFK assassination can’t be put to rest as yet.

 

With the JFK assassination the US made a significant historical change with e.g. immediately afterwards an increase in the war activities in Vietnam  and more bombs being dropped over there than during  the second world war in Europe. After the JFK assassination a highly controversial  Lyndon Johnson took over as US President with close connection with the notorious FBI Chief Herbert Hoover and various others. If the JFK assassination would not have taken place LBJ would have been replaced as Vice-President as due to his own history of corruption. Hence the full background dynamics being important to be revealed, – including the forces behind this assassination. The Vietnam war became a massive drama and created significant unrest in the US.

 

When Robert F Kennedy in 1968 decided to run for the US Presidency as part of the movement against the war in Vietnam and as part of a growing need for social justice he was assassinated in June by likely the same undercurrents in US society who wanted to continue the war in Vietnam.

 

Boris Yaro’s photograph of Robert F. Kennedy lying wounded on the floor immediately after the shooting. Kneeling beside him is 17-year-old Juan Romero,[1] who was shaking Kennedy’s hand when Sirhan Sirhan fired the shots.
Location	Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles, California, USA
Coordinates	34°03′35″N 118°17′50″W / 34.0597°N 118.2971°W / 34.0597; -118.2971Coordinates: 34°03′35″N 118°17′50″W / 34.0597°N 118.2971°W / 34.0597; -118.2971
Date	June 5, 1968 12:15 a.m. (Pacific Time Zone)
Target	Robert F. Kennedy
Weapon(s)	.22 caliber Iver-Johnson
Deaths	1
Injured (non-fatal)	5
Perpetrator	Sirhan Sirhan

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The FBI did contribute then to various unrest and violence outside the  Democratic Convention in Chicago, with brutal force against anti Vietnam war demonstrations, adding as such to a climate of major social unrest after the murders of both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

 

All this helped to get the notorious Richard Nixon to become US President who worked with the military establishment to favour and carry out massive bombardments with chemical warfare in North Vietnam.

 

After it proved that he ordered the Watergate burglary he had to step down to avoid both impeachment and further criminal prosecution. His first Vice President  Spiro Agnew had to step down as due to fraudulent activities and a new Vice – President was nominated before Nixon had to resign from office.

 

Watergate scandal
Watergate complex
Events
List[hide] Timeline Nixon White House tapes Operation Sandwedge Operation Gemstone Watergate burglaries 1972 U.S. presidential election Presidency of Richard Nixon “Saturday Night Massacre“ “White House horrors“ United States v. Nixon Inauguration of Gerald Ford

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

This new Vice-President was Gerald Ford. Ford was called in Congress once “The CIA Man”. The last was not a surprise. Gerald Ford has been closely connected with the Warren Commission and leaked all confidential information to Herbert Hoover. The mission of the Warren Commission was to satisfy the public with an investigation into the JFK assassination, but to mislead all US citizens about the truth regarding CIA involvement.  Most of the participants of  this Warren Commission were very compliant and if there was any doubt, Gerald Ford made sure  that Herbert Hoover from the FBI was informed as Hoover had ways to change people’s mind.  Hoover had secret files about almost anybody.

 

FBI and CIA were not always friendly with each other, but agreed however on the assassination of JFK  together with the new President (LBJ)  that the truth should be concealed at any cost, which happened up until now.

 

Various witnesses disappeared at the time or were killed, evidence disappeared or was tampered and/or did not reach the Warren Commission.

 

When Gerald Ford took over from Richard Nixon he knew that further investigations in the Watergate scandal would open a can of worms leading to CIA connections being closely associated with the JFK assassination (some of the Watergate burglars were connected with the JFK assassination), – hence Richard Nixon got a full pardon. 

 

Any further investigation would  incriminate both Nixon and Ford and so the change of events after the 22nd of November in Dallas continued to scar various governments.

 

It went on to President Herbert Walker Bush, who has been Vice-President under President Reagan and President after the Reagan administration. Bush senior (a lot younger then) was present during a CIA briefing the day after the assassination in Dallas. Being later on CIA Director he had full insight in related state secrets. The war in Vietnam finished at the end of April 1975, but all Administrations after JFK – apart from the Carter Administration – had dark secrets with the CIA. Never disclosed in full to Congress.  

 

The background powers (due to be reduced under the Kennedy Administration) increased in strength and influence after the JFK assassination.

 

The first Iraq war under Bush senior was  justified as there was a UN mandate and Iraq did invade Kuwait. Bush stopped this war when the UN mandate was completed. 

 

President Clinton took over as US President from Herbert Walker Bush but the power of the CIA during the Reagan/Bush years had grown so much that he could not speak up against the Iran Contra scandal, when he was Governor in Arkansan. Under Federal Management one of the airports in Arkansas was used for getting drugs into the country, whilst the profits and military support went to the contra’s in the dirty war in Nicaragua.  Bill Clinton was aware then what was happening and did neither share concern at Congressional level on behalf  of the Democratic Party and his conscious, nor did he  respond to – or support – a public request for independent investigations in Arkansas then. And so Clinton – like some of his predecessors – was  already compromised before even entering the White House.

 

When George W Bush became President the background powers in the US had more or less free play as Dick Cheney the Vice-President (who served under earlier Administrations) and the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who served as well under earlier Administrations) were joint allies,  – both in the stand down of security during 9/11, the controlled demolitions, and the cover up with a heavily delayed establishment of the “9/11 Commission”. The last having the Government mission to allow an investigation, but to mislead the public as well. However as the Warren Commission did after the JFK assassination, also “the 9/11 Commission’s” conclusions left many unanswered questions whilst 2 wars for the wrong reasons were started  with many abuses of human rights. 

 

At present both George Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney can’t enter Switzerland without the risk of being arrested and standing trial for what they have to answer for in line with Swiss law.  However not in the US.  In the US they get protection as no further investigations have been supported despite many high ranking officials like ex FBI Division Chief Ted Gunderson and e.g. Major General Albert Stubblebine (the last being ex Commanding General of the US Army Intelligence) reflected on 9/11 being an internal job,  – facilitated by the CIA to provide the US President an excuse to go to war.

 

It goes that far that if the past Administration would have be denied protection by President Obama, the current President would have found himself on a collision course with the CIA and the Pentagon from the beginning of his Administration, – with the 22nd of November 1963 not unlikely due to be repeated.

 

President Obama did chose to leave the past behind and concentrate on the future whilst more pressing problems were at stake in 2009, including a terrible financial situation of the United States.  Apart from this an “Imperfect Union” , widespread divisions and significant security issues pending. He balanced well amidst all this with a stable forward looking view on his anticipated policies for the future.

 

History changed however forever after the assassination of JFK, as the background powers in the US were allowed to grow at exceptional levels without too much resistance. People being President were already compromised at times before they even became President and had to work with both the CIA and the Pentagon, not rarely on the conditions of those Agencies or Organisations. 

 

President Obama did not only take over the budget deficit from his predecessor, he took also over a CIA and Pentagon being more strongly established than President Truman ever contemplated when he warned for those excessive powers. Only in the right hands those powers can work for the real benefit of the US, but in the wrong hands they may inflict disaster at world level. Hence President Obama had to balance wisely, with courtesy, diplomacy and using his level of influence for the benefit indeed of a better Union. It proved to be difficult enough with the right wing part of the Republican party being as obstructive as it could be.

 

With the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy the US Government was in retrospect in a wider sense responsible for perverting the course of justice in a major crime against both the US and the deepest foundations of the Constitution, – which determines where the balance of power should be.

 

They could walk away from it. Never being convicted, as they were able to be protected by the law they compromised. The FBI Chief Hoover made sure protection was in place for those who worked with him.  This was possible in the United States of America. It will be still possible in the US  as the US has no sufficient accountability systems on board within this domain to prevent those things, – if they would ever occur again in a variety of scenario’s.

 

Both the CIA and the FBI have a lot of good people doing their job with conviction and integrity and there have been many people at the highest levels of the CIA and the Military Establishment asking for renewed investigations in e.g. the 9/11 drama, – as things simply did not add up and this incident with all its mysterious demolitions and the Pentagon being more likely attacked by a missile etc went too far. The background powers were even now prepared to allow and escalate a terror attack on US ground, whilst with premeditated controlled demolitions of  some WTC buildings a drama was created  to mislead public opinion afterwards and allow the US to go to war in an area ready for a US war after the CIA “work up” during the Clinton Administration since 1992.

 

It is clear that when the order to kill comes from “higher levels”, those who are responsible are often able to walk away, as long as they stick to the conduct of silence.

 

This is the reason we have to go back to the JFK assassination, back to the facts as they were and learn from it, – because this assassination was an “internal Pearl Harbour” against both the US Constitution, the law and everything where the US  is supposed to stand for. The enemy was within the systems of Government and not outside.

 

This is an issue for both US Republicans and Democrats to resolve as part of effective legislation perhaps, but finally as well as part of a realistic historical view on US Government dynamics during and after the JFK assassination.

–

 

CHANGED PERCEPTIONS

–

(Abbreviations used:  JFK= John Fitzgerald Kennedy.   LBJ=Lyndon Baines Johnson.   RFK= Robert Francis Kennedy.   MLK= Martin Luther King).  ARRB = Assassination Records Review Board 1998)

—————>>>>>>>>

The freedom of information act in the US did show various new information on lots of issues in the US, including e.g. more documents about the assassination of President John F Kennedy on the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas.

Enough material is available now to change the perception on JFK’s death and the circumstances leading to it, – however much of the available information has been in part redacted, changed over time, and some most secret documents not being released as yet.

FBI files created by former FBI Chief J Edgar Hoover do contain information with various degree of reliability as his files were at times used to compromise his own opponents or the opponents  of those persons he had a good working relation with.

Despite many publications already over the last 50 years,   it would seem that some recent records have not been put together as yet, – and the aim of this article is to give a fresh review on what actually happened in Dallas, including  the dynamics leading to it.

It is not that important for the purpose of this article who fired the real shots from the various directions.

More important however are the forces behind the assassination of  this popular President,  who was perceived as a danger by different groups and people at the same time. As will be illustrated, this created as such an opportunity to help to develop a monster plot with the help of fugitive undercurrents,  which existed at the core of America’s democracy. Hence what is known about it and still on classified files are not likely to be released, not even in 2017.

The US – in retrospect – allowed JFK to be killed without any full and proper investigations after the assassination, with most  justice systems deliberately failing at the same time, and officials including media misleading the public. It did affect the heart of the US as a democracy 50 years ago, but events in US politics continued to affect the heart of the US as a democracy,  in various ways for decades after the 22nd of November 1963.

Today with all modern (adapted) technology being available,  together with the option by choice to reopen the investigations based on non revealed ARRB  files (transcripts, memoranda, hearings etc) after the final (not conclusive)  ARRB Report (which is  filed in 1998 at the JFK Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park,Maryland), – renewed investigation is an option for a democracy which does respect itself in terms of lasting justice.

Based on well documented wiretaps of mobsters before and after the JFK assassination, the House Assassination Committee concluded 16 years after the Dallas crimes:   “There is solid evidence….that Hoffa, Marcello and Trafficante – 3 of the most important targets for criminal prosecution by the Kennedy Administration – had discussions with their subordinates about murdering President Kennedy.”

For certain the mob was a beneficiary for the assassination, but there were more. The organised crime drive in particular from the Attorney general Robert Kennedy prompted certainly a plan to strike back. In the first instance it would be an assassination on Robert Kennedy but the plan shifted later to the President.

The information about the JFK assassination till so far provides really more direction, – on how high-ranking American Government officials (including President Lyndon B. Johnson) dealt with matters after that fateful day in Dallas in 1963.  However there is more to this to be discussed.

–

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EARLY DAYS OF  JFK’s  PRESIDENCY?

–

Three days after the Bay of Pig crisis at the early start of his Presidency, – Kennedy ( being insufficient  informed by both the CIA and the Pentagon Generals)  started a Cuban Study Group (leaded by General Maxwell Taylor) to “direct special attention to the lessons which can be learnt from those events in Cuba.”    It sounds trivial but  “The Cuba study group” was  a significant creation of the Kennedy Presidency and whilst receiving little notice at the time, it was the source of utter CIA discontent after Allen Dulles as head of the CIA was fired by the President, – following  his failures within the CIA to advise him in line with correct procedure about the pending Bay of Pig invasion in Cuba, including its viability. The Bay of Pig  invasion in Cuba was a profound disaster for various reasons. Kennedy took responsibility for this.

Both the Kennedy’s and the CIA/Pentagon started a collision course as due to profound different perceptions on the military future of the US, – besides various personal animosities which played at a different level than the animosities with the mob. The introduction of Robert Kennedy in various security meetings as requested by the President, and RFK’s high level of assertiveness with some controversial Generals did not go always very well.

JFK ignored during the Cuban missile crisis (which brought the world close to nuclear disaster), – military advise to attack Cuba and with restraint and a last-minute deal with the Soviets on US missiles in Turkey, – he avoided an all out nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. The Pentagon advised to attack Cuba, indicating this was the best course of action, however in retrospect nuclear missiles were already installed in Cuba and Russian commanders were under the instruction to fire those nuclear missiles in case of a US attack on Cuba. The Pentagon’s advise at the time was that there were only missile installations and no missiles as yet, – this illustrating how the intelligence worked at the time. JFK’s reservations about his military advisers increased and vice versa.

Again against Military &  CIA  advise  JFK  wanted  to ease the tensions with the Soviet Union to avoid war. He knew the dangers of war and being ready though to go to war if there was really no other rational option anymore,  war was for him really the last resort, – whilst war actually seemed to be the priority choice of some hard-liners within the Pentagon. Some of those hardliners proposed a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Soviets, which got JFK really more worried about the Pentagon than a surprise attack from the Soviet leader at the time.

JFK’s  “Peace speech” reflected his ability to humanize the Soviet Union, whilst his “Berlin speech” showed his profound dismay with the political system.  Both JFK’s Peace speech and his speech about “Secret Organisations” in the US did indicate the direction this President wanted to follow, – besides the politics of transparency. This stunned both the CIA and the Pentagon

Fidel Castro in Cuba (a close ally of the Soviets)  remained however a significant obstacle (already since the Eisenhower Administration),  and a secret joint mission of both the CIA and the Mafia (the last with connections in Cuba) were close of being executed at the end of 1963.  The mission was  to kill Castro.  Robert Kennedy was involved in those plans, but tried however to stop Mafia involvement on the 7th of May 1962 during  a briefing  from CIA officials.

The Church Committee in 1975  reported that after this CIA briefing and discussion with Robert Kennedy, – the CIA with William Harvey continued to work closely with at least Rosselli to arrange the assassination of Castro.  This is significant as it is clear as  with other Presidents there was no full control over the CIA. The mob including Sam Giancana John Rosselli and Trafficantes had certain cooperative roles with the CIA (those roles being established for  quite some time already) –  long before the Kennedy Administration.

President Kennedy was aware of the potential use of Giancana, whilst having an affair with his mistress (Exner). The last did not put him in an easy position with the FBI Director Hoover, who was aware of this. This apart from the fact that Kennedy’s affair with Exner was taking a high risk to be compromised.

JFK planned for the future to recognise Cuba, assuming if  “they would buy toasters and dishwashers” – at some stage they would throw Castro out themselves. Obviously he did not accept nuclear missiles in Cuba directed at any city in the US, – but he preferred to ease at least some of the tensions about Cuba in his second term in office,  if he would win the 1964 elections.

He preferred a pragmatic approach and not increasing tensions, – again against hard-liners within the CIA and the Pentagon who started to perceive JFK as a security risk for the US, – especially as President Kennedy had little desire to escalate matters in Vietnam..

Under the Eisenhower Administration the CIA had already directives to coöperate with the mafia to overthrow Castro and under the Kennedy administration the CIA developed plans to gun down Castro in Cuba with the help of the Mafia. The Mafia had a strong interest in a Cuba without Castro for different reasons. The Church Committee discovered some aid plots  involving the CIA from 1960 to 1965 to assassinate Fidel Castro.

In 1960 President elect John F Kennedy was told by the CIA’s deputy Director, Richard Bisell, about the plot to kill Castro. This included mob help from Giancana, who has been asked by Frank Sinatra to help the Kennedy campaign in Illinois during the 1960 elections. Joseph Kennedy,sr would possibly seem to have asked the mob to help somehow as well but did not make any deals. Reportedly Frank Sinatra actually made a deal (without Joseph Kennedy being directly involved), assuming that he did do the right thing for the Kennedy’s. He did indicate even that JFK (once elected) would leave the mob as much as possible alone. However this did not happen.

Meanwhile the mob felt utterly  betrayed by both the President and his brother (the Attorney General), – as they anticipated protection once JFK was elected President. Once in office, Robert Kennedy in his function of Attorney General (on behalf of his brother) started the most intensive crusade against organised crime in US history.  The Kennedy’s had even before the 1960 elections involvement in vigorously anti- crime dealings as documented in the hearings with Jimmy Hoffa – the boss of the Teamsters – when JFK was Senator of Massachusetts.  As matters evolved in the White House, they (the mob and Jimmy Hoffa)  increasingly hated both the Kennedy brothers, and with Jimmy Hoffa  (an old RFK enemy)  they waited for the right timing for revenge. Giancana cursed Kennedy indicating that he went out of his way to help him to win the election, whilst his brother (“Bobby”) was targeting the mob. The last  with great embarrassment for Giancana  personally in respect to the other Mafia families.

On the one hand it seemed to the mob that the Kennedy Administration (with the President even having an affair with Giancana’s mistress, hearing Mafia secrets perhaps) were tolerating perhaps CIA mob connections  to assassinate Castro, – whilst  on the other hand being tough on organised crime. They really could not take this.

With Robert Kennedy in the final analysis trying to stop those long existing connections, –  this may have really infuriated both the CIA and the mob again,  who felt both let down  by the Kennedy’s anyway. Exner (Giancana’s mistress) once said: “They hated Bobby!”

Frank Ragano (Tampa mob lawyer) once reflected on a chilling conversation between his clients Trafficante, Jimmy Hoffa and Carlos Marcello. The three of them have been under scrutiny as a result of Robert Kennedy’s organised crime drive and had strong motives for revenge and survival. They considered what would happen if anything would happen to Bobby and they agreed that the President would  go after his enemies with added determination. The other option was “if something would happen to the President”, – Hoffa asked.     “Lyndon Johnson would get rid of Bobby”,  – one of Hoffa’s lawyers reflected.

–

OTHER BENEFICIARIES  OF  JFK ‘s  ASSASSINATION?

–

Obviously Robert Kennedy was in a profound state of shock after the death of his brother. He had not only to deal with his own grief, the grief of the Kennedy family, – but he became aware that he has been on a collision course for which he felt he was in part to blame.

When Robert was assassinated in 1968 he went to his grave likely believing that there was a real connection between his organised crime drive and his brother’s assassination, – which proved not to be true. The forces were far more stronger and complex than the Mafia on its own.  During the Kennedy Administration the spirit of the “cold war environment” was that within the CIA anything was allowed to overthrow Castro and to oppose the Soviets.   Within this context a further collusion of interest evolved between  more beneficiary’s of President Kennedy’s death. With close connections between the CIA and those in Cuba feeling hostile to Castro  – ( the CIA,  the mob and anti Castro people feeling betrayed by Kennedy due to him aborting the Bay of Pig invasion with no further support from the air)  – further dynamics were evolving, with both the CIA and the FBI (Hoover) developing  increasing resentments against JFK.  The CIA and FBI not always friendly with each other recognised some common ground on JFK and his brother.  Those groups had already positive connections with Vice – President Lyndon Johnson. However also with former vice -President Nixon. ( As a matter of interest Jack Ruby who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of JFK, – has been working for Richard Nixon since 1947). The question was how the CIA and the Military would  be involved.  – or was it the other way around? The last is an interesting question and the final answer will be somehow documented in the record still being on file.

JFK’s intentions to ease the tensions with the Soviet Union and a leaked memo that he was prepared to withdraw from Vietnam – on top of earlier evidence in which he showed  to follow a  line of action  independent from his military advisers (in close consultation with his brother RFK), – seemed to turn the tide really against him. In the public arena his speeches reflected directions of peace and opposition against activities of so-called “secret societies”. What Truman said in private about the CIA and the military, –  Kennedy brought in public what both the CIA and secret organisations (e.g “Skull and Bones”)  never wanted to hear. What was going to happen if this President was going to be re elected again in 1964, with such strong ties with his influential brother???

JFK’s direction was clearly against the hardliners within both the CIA and the Pentagon. Whilst both the Pentagon and the CIA were  strongly in favour to increase the war efforts in Vietnam, President Kennedy – supporting those efforts initially (as he did with the Bay of Pigs, based on wrong advise),  – became increasingly aware that this was not the desired direction for the future. When a secret document leaked that he wanted to withdraw from Vietnam he added only to increasing animosity with some Pentagon Generals, – besides the CIA.  The mob was quite willing to coöperate with both the CIA and others to do “the job” in Dallas (they had good coöperation with the CIA anyway about Cuba) and 3 different assassination scenario’s seemed to have been in place that day if the attempt on Daley Plaza would fail.  The CIA and the mob were in agreement “to sort JFK out”, each for different reasons. Alan Dulles, despite being fired as CIA boss, still had close connections with some hardliners within the CIA and there was still real animosity.  A profound difference in perception on the strategic military direction of the US was at the heart of this animosity, despite the fact that Kennedy was able to deal with the Pentagon more favourably than at the beginning of his Presidency. After all, the outcome of the Cuba crisis gave him some credit from at least a few within the Pentagon. The views on the future remained however most antagonistic. It was at a time as well that JFK was not too keen to have Johnson as his running-mate for the 1964 elections as due to past corruption scandals of LBJ and various other things to be leaked to LIFE magazine by RFK.

The fact that the President had such a close bond with his brother ( the Attorney general), even where it came to military operations, indicated for the Pentagon that this President (despite being prepared to listen)  would do it his own way. The CIA had similar perceptions.

Under President Truman the insidious power of the CIA became quite clear and both Truman and President Eisenhower warned for this as part of Constitutional fears for criminal peace time operations (the CIA often being side tracked from its original assignment). The CIA evolved into an operational and at times a policy making arm of the Government. Kennedy being aware and warned for those dangers by his predecessors, wanted to change this situation eventually, – being supported by his brother.  JFK reportedly planned to dismantle the CIA and the Federal Reserve whilst being ready to expose their illicit operations, – the last being most significant, but most dangerous!

Robert Kennedy not being convinced that CIA protection for the President would be always effective had contemplated on facilitating a private guard, – disconnected from the CIA, as the tensions were clearly felt. Some dangers were felt, however not that obvious as yet.

Beyond all those issues, JFK was  really able to reach outside the traditional and existing cold war perceptions of the US establishment, looking at the bigger picture to survive on this planet with a more global perspective, – whilst the CIA & the Pentagon under no circumstances wanted to buy into this, if required at all costs.

–

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

–

The question is how would above groups could work together. There was one more (but most significant!)  beneficiary of the assassination of the President.  Robert Kennedy opposed Lyndon Johnson for various reasons and both the Kennedy’s wanted to replace Lyndon Johnson as Vice President. As mentioned. In the 1960 LBJ was just a practical choice for JFK in the run up to the 1960 elections. The relationship between LBJ and the Kennedy brothers was at times  strained and in particular the Vice President’s relationship with Robert Kennedy were at times close to “explosive”. Lyndon Johnson had profound fears for going to jail about a potential exposure of the Bobby Baker scandal and Robert Kennedy fed extremely damaging information to LIFE magazine to show Lyndon Johnson’s corruption that would blow him “out of the water, once and for all”.

The Kennedy’s and LIFE magazine were – before JFK’s Dallas trip – only days away from politically executing Lyndon Johnson, – with his history of corruptions whilst running the Senate as a Majority leader, with LBJ still having an adviser with close Mafia connections in place. The Vice Presidential ticket in 1964 was most likely to go to either Gerry Sanford of North Carolina or George Smathers of Florida. LBJ was most aware of this!

Bobby Baker was Lyndon Johnson’s secretary and political adviser from the early 50ties until 1962, – however at the time with close connections with mobster Giancana in various business entities, – as discovered by Robert Kennedy. Robert Kennedy also found out that that Baker was also involved in procuring women for President Kennedy, the last having a well documented interest for females (at times most risky liaisons), – with  an added risk for further black-mail  from the FBI Director Hoover.

Whilst working for LBJ in the White House, Baker continued to have close connections with Giancana and an associate of Jimmy Hoffa, – together with Clint Murchison. Not the best people to connect with if your boss is US Vice-President. It is clear how close the mob was to both Baker and via Baker, – to LBJ.   LBJ received a pay off of $100000,= cash in a suitcase as due to his role in securing Fort Worth TFX contract (witnessed by Don B. Reynolds), which was needless to say both corrupt and highly controversial in his place.

After LBJ became President one of the first things was to contract B.Everett Jordan to prevent this information being published and a smear campaign was organised to damage Reynolds, – strongly assisted by FBI Chief Hoover who had developed a file about him. It is clear in retrospect that LBJ was under massive threat before the Kennedy assassination of his corruption being exposed by RFK.  As Jimmy Hoffa’s lawyer noted in a conversation mentioned earlier, the problem would not be solved by taking Robert Kennedy out of the picture.

LBJ  was for Government Agencies an ideal candidate for a Kennedy succession if  Government Agencies together with the mob could settle “the matter” on the 22 nd of November 1963 in Dallas at 12.30 pm. The timing was right as it would not be in LBJ’s interest to have the Bobby Baker scandal and his corruption leaked to the press. The last would indeed blow the light out of his political career. For the Vice President’s protection he needed not to be fully aware of all the in’s and out’s but his full help with the cover up afterwards was enough. LBJ had already “dirty hands”, as reportedly he has murdered a number of people in Texas (eg Henry Marchall in June 1961 ) to cover up his corruption scandals and at the background it would seem he set the scene at Dealy Plaza with others.

LBJ and Hoover had dinner at Murchison’s mansion shortly before the assassination. After this meeting LBJ told his mistress Madelyn Brown that the Kennedy’s “will never embarrass me again”. Some close associates of LBJ in 2006  (many years later) reflected similar suspicion’s of LBJ’s involvement in the JFK assassination.

In the 1980ties Billie Sol Estes – a close associate of LBJ – (just released from prison in 1983) , began confessing the murder on Henry Marshall on the orders of LBJ. The authorities never re investigated the Henry Marchall case, but it was clear that there was a risk that Henry Marchall would have “blown the whistle” at a most inconvenient moment in LBJ’s political career. Reportedly LBJ had a personal “hitman”. Reportedly as well he was ready now for “the clean up” of the Kennedy Administration with the required background support from various areas. Obviously organised crime was required to cover up the operation and both the FBI and the CIA were more than helpful with this and vice versa. Many witnesses (some 72) disappeared or were found dead after poisoning or “an accident”. LBJ was already a heavily corrupted man when he became President, and the truth about the Kennedy assassination would not serve any of his interests, neither the interests of the people he worked with in both the CIA and the FBI.

There are more stunning links.

George  Herbert  Bush (later President) worked for the CIA in 1963 and was pictured on Dealy  Plaza as one of the “crime spotters”.  Richard Nixon joined Hoover on the night of the 22st of November 1963, – the day before Kennedy arrived in Dallas. There is FBI evidence that former President George H. Bush was the recipient of a full CIA briefing on the day after the assassination of JFK, in his younger years. FBI Director Hoover wrote a memo referring to the Bush,sr briefing,   and the night before JFK was assassinated both Hoover met with others at the Dallas house of Texas oil baron Collin J “Clint” Murchison,jr as far as reports of the retired army brigadier General William Penn Jones concerned. Hoover like LBJ were most aware of what was going to happen, – likewise Richard Nixon. Never ever would Nixon later on as President allow further Watergate investigations as E Howard Hunt with a few other CIA man were both involved in the Watergate burglary and the JFK assassination.

All this information is on file and available on internet research. As earlier reflected some of the finer details are not disclosed as yet and are not due to be disclosed as they are still considered to be top secret.

Edgar J Hoover (the FBI Chief) was a close friend and neighbour of Vice – President Lyndon Johnson, – besides being a respected friend of Richard Nixon. Traditionally Hoover gathered as much as possible controversial information about any potentially threatening incumbant President and in this case he had  a file on the Kennedy’s to maintain his extremely powerful position within the FBI.  He was despised by both Kennedy’s and Hoover hated in particular Robert Kennedy,  the Attorney General (his boss at the time) , – but for certain JFK as well. His file could potentially destroy the Kennedy Presidency hence  the Kennedy’s had to put up with him. No President was able to remove Hoover as Hoover proved to be a master in creating controversial material. Besides this Hoover was on the verge of war with the Kennedy’s about their support for the equal rights movement  after the lessons from the “Freedom Riders” from Nashville in 1961 in Alabama.  Police inflicted repugnant violence in the police state of Alabama, with the FBI supporting the Ku Klux Clan. Whilst the Attorney General Robert Kennedy queried perhaps the wisdom of the Freedom Riders for their endeavours at that particular time, – supported however by his brother the US President –  he did sent Federal Troops in to protect those people. It proved that Hoover ignored his boss and no FBI protection was provided at all, despite promises.

(At the time of RFK’s death later on in 1968,  RFK was the representative for social change in the US,  for the last even more hated as well by Hoover.)

As one can see, the decision to take President John Fitzgerald Kennedy out of the picture evolved into a joint effort of various high-ranking groups and persons collaborating at the same time. Similar the disappearing of many witnesses was the effort of the same collaborating persons and groups as well, – after the Dallas crime took place. Those who gave the orders are still protected by US law,  not to be release documents incriminating the highest US officials.

Never ever was the world allowed to know what happened, – but as one can see the assassination was a Coupe d’ Etat, with a cover up of massive proportions – to be even continued under President Nixon , President Ford and Presidents following.  LBJ in retrospect blamed Castro from Cuba organising the crime, whilst admitting in 1971 that he never believed in Oswald acting alone. Before he died in the 70ties, – LBJ claimed that the JFK assassination was likely retaliation from Castro on a potential assassination in which both the CIA and the mob would be involved, and that Robert Kennedy has been involved in this anti Castro plot. In 1969 he claimed indirectly in an interview with Walter Cronkey that there could have been international connections. President Gerald Ford however (member at the time of the Warren Commission) –  just before he died in 2006 – reflected in his memoirs that the CIA was involved, which leaves besides all the other things only one conclusion about LBJ’s inconsistent reflections, and him as a person.

Robert Kennedy in agony at times about various questions he had, – asked Johnson at some stage: “Why did you kill my brother?”- Robert Kennedy knew the secrets of the Kennedy Administration, he had suspicions on both the CIA and the Mafia as well. However he was not sure as yet.  After resigning as Attorney General in the Johnson Administration (FBI Chief Hoover totally ignored him),  RFK  became elected and was “allowed” to be the Senator for New York where he would be of no harm to the LBJ Administration.

RFK accepted the outcome of the Warren Communion as he had little choice, being  both aware of the background powers and the potential of  further (anti) Kennedy smear campaigns. Besides this he was profoundly and for quite some time in despair about the death of his brother.

Robert Kennedy however was under close watch, in particular when he decided to run for the Presidential elections in 1968, – opposing both the sitting President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam war. If he would prove to win California in the primaries he would most likely get the Democratic nomination and being elected US President after Johnson, defeating Nixon in his second efforts against a Kennedy.  For certain RFK would have decided to withdraw from  Vietnam and change the CIA, being aware of the dangers of the CIA. Besides this he would have endeavoured a different direction for the United States, as his grief had made him more compassionate for  the less privileged  groups in and outside the US.

With Bobby Kennedy being nationally an increasing popular Presidential candidate he did sign in a way  his own death sentence.  Both the FBI Chief Hoover and the same undercurrents in the CIA with mob connections  involved in the murder of his brother, did not allow a second Kennedy to be President, – and for certain not Robert Francis Kennedy!  President Johnson felt again profoundly under threat of Robert Kennedy. It was beyond any doubt that no RFK could be allowed in the White House, by all “ruling parties” (including Nixon at the background, supported by Hoover).  Besides a different direction for the US,  for certain RFK  would be able to unravel the Coup d’Etat as it took place in Dallas the 22nd of November 1963. This would  neither be in Hoovers interest, nor in the interest of the CIA, nor in the interest of Nixon or LBJ or any other party involved in the JFK assassination less than 5 years before. It will be interesting to know which reflections are stored in the secret US files incriminating those people who gave the orders. For certain the CIA connection has been established already, but it is unclear where the instructions came from.

A smartly constructed CIA conspiracy ended Robert Kennedy’s  race for the White House in Los Angeles, June 1968. Various bullets were fired. Martin Luther King,jr was just assassinated a couple of months before by likely the same undercurrents with FBI involvement as well. Hoover hated MLK,  including the movement against the war in Vietnam.  All this created massive unrest at all corners of the US, – besides sadness after 2 assassinations in a row.  Within this climate of unrest it was not that difficult for Nixon to be elected after Robert Kennedy’s assassination  in 1968 and President Nixon  intensified the war in Vietnam. FBI Chief Hoover was a close ally of the Nixon Administration, – feeding Nixon with all sorts of wired taped material of conversations between people which could provoke potential damage if used. Henry Kissinger, who reportedly served as a dual agent for both Germany and Russia during the second world war, became Secretary of State under the Nixon Administration. When Nixon had to resign over the Watergate scandal, Gerald Ford took over as the 38th President of the US. The first thing he did – and I repeat saying this – was a Presidential Pardon for Richard Nixon, as such avoiding further investigation into the Watergate affair and preventing further revelations about further connection in the Kennedy assassination as well. The New York Times stated that Nixon’s pardon was ” a profoundly unwise, divisive, and unjust act”. In one stroke it had destroyed the new President’s “credibility as a man of judgement, candour and competence.”

Regarding Gerald Ford’s involvement in the Warren Commission in 1963-1964, – Ford said far later that the CIA  destroyed or kept from investigations critical secrets about the 1963 Dallas assassination of President Kennedy. He said as well that the aim was to prevent “certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed.” It was the CIA’s purpose “to hide or destroy some information which can easily being interpreted as collusion in JFK’s assassination.” In other words some information has been destroyed. Before Gerald Ford died he published his memoirs in which he stated that the CIA was involved and he knew.

It is more than likely that the US military establishment including the CIA, the FBI, various of the highest Government Officials and some politicians were involved in the JFK assassination. It is not entirely clear who gave the orders and how they were executed in detail.

An FBI memo released in 2008 -again- reflected that Gerald Ford secretly provided the FBI with information about 2 members of the Warren Commission who doubted both the FBI and the Warren Commission’s conclusions about the assassination. The position of the FBI was that there was only one gun man firing from the Texas Book depository. It proved in 1978 that Ford in 1963 volunteered to advise the FBI about the full contents of all the deliberations in the Warren Commission, provided that his comments with the FBI was kept confidential. This condition was agreed with Edgar Hoover. It proved as well that Ford had strong ties with both the FBI and Hoover. The later President Ford as a member of the Warren Commission in 1963/1964, had full insight in  the deliberate failures of the Warren Commission and played a most controversial role with the FBI whilst assisting the cover up and supporting the Warren Commission’s findings. Ford at the time had close connections with the CIA as well and was likely fully aware – later on – that there was far more to Watergate which could incriminate again highest Government officials if e.g Howard Hunt (one of the Watergate burglars) would be put in a position to break the “code of silence”. Hunt made revelations on his deathbed on his and LBJ’s involvement in the JFK assassination and if  Gerald Ford would not have given Richard Nixon a Presidential Pardon, Ford as past member of the Warren Commission could be subject for impeachment as well.

Before his poisoning death Frank Sturgess told the San Fransisco Chronicle in May 1977: ” The reason we burglarized Watergate was because Nixon was interested in stopping news leaking related to the photo’s of our role in the assassination of President John F Kennedy.” Additional assassination photo’s would seem to have been available, besides assassination footage taken from a helicopter which would proof that the story about Oswald was fabricated to support the lone – gunman and magic bullet theory. When Nixon stepped down many years later as US President over the Watergate scandal to avoid impeachment and further investigations, it was (this needs to be repeated) President Gerald Ford – who has been a controversial member of the Warren Commission in 1963- who gave Nixon a “general pardon” avoiding as such any further investigations. Gerald Ford has been publicly praised as well for his courage to leave “Watergate” behind, whilst this was clearly not an act of courage. It was again a “cover-up” and  just a reflection how the “system” worked in those days, how in a row people could get the top job in the White House whilst being corrupted beforehand. This  was possible in the United States of America, this is still possible in the US and only few people know.

Both JFK and RFK did not get the chance to change the “currents” towards more justice within the political systems of the US, hence the significance of their deaths, including the corrupting powers which followed. Powers working closely together with the massive war machinery of the Pentagon at the background and CIA covert operations of immense proportions. People like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld appearing in various Bush Administrations. The Bush (Skull & Bones) and CIA links have been always very close. It may be questioned which oath was more important, the oath to Skull and Bones or the oath to the Constitution. George W Bush called the Constitution once a piece of paper only. What he inflicted or at the end was responsible for will be for decades top secret.

To come back to the original theme:

FBI Chief Hoover died in 1972 whilst President Nixon was in power.  Gerald Ford took over the Vice Presidency from Spiro Agnew (who took bribes) in 1973, – one year after Hoover died in office. Hoover was fully aware of the Nixon dealings. Gerald Ford had no Presidential ambitions when he became US Vice President under Nixon, but with his CIA background and past relationships with Hoover, – any secrets would be secured if he had to take over from Nixon.

What happened at Dealey Plaza in Dallas on  the 22nd of November 1963 was actually as follows:

An alleged change in the motorcade route was instructed at the last minute by LBJ and the CIA. When the Kennedy motorcade turned into Elmstreet, closing in on Dealey Plaza,  CIA protection officers to protect the President’s car were called back. As far as video footage concerned one of them reacted utterly surprised but they had to follow orders. Kennedy’s car reduced speed and was not protected at all, – whilst LBJ’s car had full CIA protection. The famous Zapruder footage of which fragments were confiscated by the FBI, revealed years later that the President’s head and upper torso moved profoundly backwards after the last fatal shot, indicating that one bullet was fired from the front – right area, –  Jackie  Kennedy’s head  turned just nearly in front of JFK’s face on impact of the fatal last bullet. She would have been killed if the bullet came from behind. After the first bullet the Presidential car reduced its anyway reduced speed further, allowing (?coincidence) the last bullet being to be fool proof. The exploding  impact of this last bullet was of such nature that it opened  almost completely the right upper site of JFK’s scalp, – leaving blood and brain material on the first (following) FBI police motor on the left hand site. Kennedy died on the spot after this last bullet and for him there was no further physical agony anymore.  More than 3 shots  were fired and at least 1 came from the back. Arriving at the Parkland Hospital, the President’s car was carefully and immediately cleaned by the FBI when the President was rushed into the emergency treatment room. Cleaning a crime scene by the FBI was most unusual for usual FBI protocol, but with Hoover in the background anything was possible. The autopsy report was falsified and the brains of the President appeared to be missing later on.

THE WARREN COMMISSION

–

The Warren Commission presents its report to President Johnson                       (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Warren Commission was established on the 29th of November 1963 by President LBJ and he selected a group of so-called “wise man” to investigate the assassination of JFK. The 808 page final report was presented on the 24th of September 1964 and was made public 3 days later. The conclusion was that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of Kennedy and wounding the Texas Governor John Connally, besides the fact that Jack Ruby acted alone in the murder of Oswald. (There are reports Nixon ordered his employee Jack Ruby to kill Oswald, but this is subject to further prove.)

The Warren Commission which has the nickname of “The Alan Dulles Commission” (because he controlled it) proved to be an utterly failure, – like many years later the “9/11 Commission” proved to be a failure.  The 3 hardcore cover up participants of the Warren Commission were the 3 Council on Foreign Relation members: Alan Dulles (Former CIA Chief and fired by JFK),  John McCloy ( “Chairman of the American establishment” – mixing at the highest levels of intelligence and business, besides being close to the Kennedy hating Texas business élite) and Gerald Ford (later US President).    Gerald Ford was -as reflected earlier- secretly reporting the contents of the Warren Commission deliberations to Hoover and the FBI and Newsweek called -I repeat- Gerald Ford in 1970 “The CIA man in Congress”. Ford served later on under President Nixon as Vice-President and Nixon reportedly called “The Warren Commission” the biggest hoax in US history. I will repeat the last one later on in context.

The Warren Commission report is indeed an illustration of many inconsistencies, exclusions of evidence, changing stories or changes made to witness testimonies, oversights and errors. Some witnesses to either the events connected to the JFK assassination or to the assassination itself were intimidated or threatened. A suspicious large number of people connected  with the investigations of the JFK assassination died. There was a pattern of deaths around the various government investigations, both during and after the Warren Commission sessions, – besides both around the times the New Orléans District Attorney Jim Garrison started his own investigation. The pattern continued whilst the Senate Intelligence Committee looked into the potential involvement of US Intelligence Agencies in the 1970ties and when the House Select Committee on assassinations was starting up its investigations later on. All those deaths for certain were desired by those not willing to be confronted to become the truth of the JFK assassination to become public, as it would shake up the entire Government and the image in the world.

Though quite a number of classified documents were released during the mid to late 1990ties, some significant records are not scheduled to be released until 2017. This was initially 2029 and not unlikely part of it will remain that way. A Government hiding those things for sure has to hide something.

Never ever lost the US a President who compromised himself with either clandestine CIA operations or CIA inflicted terror as long as the cover up systems were in place. In 1963 the US however lost a President who despite some personal flaws had the courage to decide a more independent direction from the 2 most powerful Agencies in the US, – for the benefit of the US and the world. He was entitled to do so based on fair his fair judgement on the operations of those Agencies in those days. Needless to say that if  Nixon would have been President and not JFK during the Cuba crisis, the US would have most likely attacked Cuba and the world would have been lost within the fires of nuclear destruction.

POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS:

-The last words have not been spoken about this but a few comments are justified, just to summarise a few issues:

1.>>The JFK assassination with all the cover up’s and elimination of witnesses etc,  the dark operations of both CIA & FBI,  the links with the mob at high levels,  US Presidents being involved in an enduring cover up with LBJ reportedly even directly involved in the assassination preparation, – do show the fragility of the US as a democracy.

The systems of Government with the background powers of both the CIA and Pentagon have despite warnings from earlier Presidents never changed and still put the US potentially at risk, as illustrated e.g. during the last Bush Administration. Will touch base on the last later.

2.>>>As long as systems of US Government continue to have connections with furtive undercurrents,  – real democracy in the US could be potentially in danger. Secret operations do not only take place outside the US, – but within the US as well.

3.>>>The independence of a US President can be  taken away by both the impact of the CIA and the Pentagon. Full oversight is not always possible. All CIA and military activities of any kind need to be fully authorised by the US President, – being disclosed as well to Congress. Any activities not being disclosed to both President and Congress (the last perhaps with a delay of 3 months) need to be considered as a  breach of law and/or Constitution. The same applies for the FBI.

4.>>>When a President should be impeached it is up to the House of Representatives  and the Senate to decide as such. Under no circumstances in the US “a Coupe d’Etat” as happened in 1963 should be allowed, – neither by the CIA nor by any other Government Agency and/or related or unrelated.

5.>>>Members of secret societies may have or will have at some stage a profound conflict of interest if serving  in any Government – or related body. Representatives of any Government institution or related body, should neither by law nor in the normal practice of duty have connections with either secret societies or the mafia and/or related crime organisations. If connections proven such people have to resign from office. The point is that an oath to secret societies seems to supersede the oath to the Constitution, – as e.g. reflected during the Bush Administration.

In case the President is maintaining such relationships, the normal rules for Congress and the House of Representatives are due to prepare impeachment procedures considering the nature and seriousness of the offense.

5.>>>In the “unforeseen case” a President would be assassinated, neither the course of justice nor the hearing of witnesses (without intimidation) should be compromised in any circumstances.

OF NOTE REGARDING  THE JFK  ASSASSINATION:

Also here the last words are not spoken.

1.>>>There has been a sinister cover up by various groups and highest ranking government officials to cover the truth re the JFK assassination in Dallas. Former CIA agent and Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt before his death in 2007 (in his autobiography) implicated LBJ in the JFK assassination. Hunt claimed that LBJ organised the assassination at the background with the help of the CIA, who has been angered by Kennedy’s actions as President. It has been claimed that Nixon thought that LBJ ordered the assassination, but again this is subject to evidence.

LBJ mistress (Madelyn Brown) did also implicate LBJ with the assassination of JFK. In 1997 she claimed that LBJ along with Hunt started to plan an assassination as early as 1960. Brown claimed that the conspiracy involved dozens of persons, including the leadership of the FBI.  Both the  Mafia and well known politicians have been involved, – with journalists being helpful in various ways. Similar suspicions have been echoed by a number of Johnson’s associates in the 2006 documentary “Evidence of revision.”

2.>>>Regarding the autopsy report Douglas Horn – the Assassination Record Review Board Chief analyst for military records – said that he was “90-95% certain” that the photographs in the National Archives are not of President Kennedy’s brains. Dr Gerry Aguilar together with Dr Cyril Wecht wrote in the 1999 “Consortium News”: According to Horn’s findings, the second brain – which showed an exit wound in the front –  replaced Kennedy’s real brain – which revealed greater damage to the rear, consistent with an exit wound and thus evidence from a shot in the front.

3.>>>Emiritis Professor of history David Wrone (Wisconsin University – Stephen’s Point), after examining the Zapruder film in 2003, concluded that the shot(s) that killed JFK came from the  the grassy knoll at Dealy Plaza. From 3 different angles, three shots were fired, non of them from the window of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas Book Depository.

The wooden fence atop the grassy knoll, and the Triple Underpass with the highway sign, which at the time of the assassination read “Fort Worth Turnpike Keep Right” in the Zapruder film.   (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

RFK  ASSASSINATION in 1968.

–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoKzCff8Zbs

1.>>>RFK has been assassinated because the same people being in place responsible for the JFK assassination would not allow an RFK Presidency, with implications on discovery of the truth, a shake up within the CIA systems, withdrawal from Vietnam, and with a “no pardon” for LBJ, Hoover, Allan Dulles, Gerald Ford, the CIA and others. Not only this but his true sense of required social reforms were not accepted by those who wanted the status quo to be continued with Nixon.

CONCLUDING IN GENERAL:

Final conclusions are not possible as yet

1.>>>Potential dangerous US dynamics are still there and could strike again at any time in the future. As long as a US President stays within reason of the established frame work of both FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon he is on safe grounds, – however if he is braking with old traditions and existing connections – even if they are controversial or corrupt (depending on the dynamics and undercurrents), – then even a US President again would be at potential risk of being assassinated,  even if there are no constitutional grounds for impeachment. The cover up’s of the Warren Commission with all the participants, including the joint dealings of both the FBI, CIA and the Mafia on the 22nd of November 1963, – were not only unconstitutional but they were high treason to the US, hence all efforts were put in place to wipe out all potential witness and destroy or tamper most of the crucial evidence. It proved that all involved high-ranking government officials and furtive undercurrents were stronger than the US Constitution (or those who were supposed to protect this)  in their joint efforts to mislead the public  in the aftermath of this horrendous crime.

2.>>>The complications of the CIA and Pentagon being a disproportionate power in the US has never been resolved, likewise the undercurrents being involved in various actions both at US homeland and abroad, – despite historical warnings  from both Truman and Eisenhower.

Dallas 1963 proved that even for a popular and powerful US President, – neither personal safety nor Presidential protection rules will be secured if Government Agencies conspire (e.g. with the mob)  to end a US President.

3.>>>In the more recent past there are still many unanswered questions as well about e.g. the 9/11 drama including the vertical collapse of Building 7  -(WTC7) , – which did show a controlled demolition with the destruction of lots of investigative CIA material. See nr 8 again for more detail as repeating certain facts may help to see the complexities.

The building was of a very sound structure and this particular collapse had nothing to do with the obvious bin Laden’s terrorist attack in Lower Manhattan. The attack was reportedly used to provoke a drama far worse to aid the US to retaliate both in Iraq and Afghanistan with public support.

4.>>>The CIA has been called on several occasions the military wing of the Council of Foreign Relations. It has however never been as such formally established, but it seems close to the practical reality if legislation is not being implemented to cut the powers of this organisation.

1. >>>Still the Warren Commission’s findings have never been “formally rejected” by the US Government and the United States Government allowed one of it’s finest Presidents to be killed without any proper & independent investigation, – regardless the outcome!

2. >>>The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976 on the assassinations of JFK, MLK and the shooting of Governor George Wallace, believed that the conspiracy was neither organized by organized crime nor by anti- Castro groups but could not rule out members of those groups working together. The HSCA conducted its work mostly in secret and much of the evidence (again) was sealed for 50 years under Congressional rules.

3. >>>In 1992 Congress created the Assassination Records Review Board with a last report on the 30th of September 1998, the day ARRB went out of existence. The ARRB was supposed perhaps to renew US citizens trust in their government, but the scope of the mission was limited.   T. Jeremy Gunn was the Executive Director and General Counsel of the ARRB. The Board from its final 236 – page report concluded that still aggressive efforts were required to pursue more information and the general concern was that still “critical records may have been withheld” from its vigorous efforts to come closer to the truth. By law this Agency was required to close its doors.

The ARRB did not re-investigate the JFK assassination (as this was not the aim), however in its search for further records it did conduct many interviews revealing new links and insights into various government operations which many federal agencies would prefer to keep out of the public’s eyes.

The ARRB had deficiencies as well by e.g. not subpoena Thomas Evan Robinson. He was one of the JFK embalmers and handwritten notes of a May 26,1992 conversation with Certified Legal Investigator Joe West were found in Joe West’s Investigator’s Notebook following West’s death in 1993. The transcript of those notes do provide further evidence that the autopsy report of JFK was falsified, adding to the conclusion that the conspiracy in the cover up was very widespread. In 1997 the ARRB interviewed the government employee who developed JFK’s autopsy photographs after his murder and she disputed each picture from the set of autopsy photo’s in the National Archives.

The ARRB documents show the planned phase withdrawal of American Forces from Vietnam by President Kennedy and the fact that the plan was immediately reversed after his assassination.

Though the ARRB did do a thorough job, the report does not reflect any of the stunning revelations contained in various declassified files under their review. Copies of the release of the grand jury records and the prosecution files were only available for public inspection from 9 am to 5 pm on the 12th of June 1998 at the Public Reading Room at the ARRB, 600 E Street, NW,Second Floor Washington, DC.20530. Thereafter the records were transferred to the JFK Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland.

Still the assassination on President J.F. Kennedy “officially” remained shrouded in both mystery and secrecy, compounded by series of Governments penchant for secrecy. Generally spoken government secrecy has been harmful for both the confidence and truthfulness of federal agencies.  The ARRB needless to say was a firm step in the right direction, but there was still lack of access as agencies still considered release of further records too sensitive to open to the public.

Less than 50 years after the JFK assassination systems of government and/or agencies still prevent renewed investigations in the JFK assassination. It seems a step by step approach in which every decade perhaps more truth is allowed to be revealed, however not everything will be made public. Not even after 2017.

The powers behind the Executive Branch of the US Government are so powerful that it almost seems they are more powerful than the Presidency itself.

8.Within context it would seem that the US  Military and Intelligence Apparatus could not allow the JFK presidency to be continued. Hence the dramatic intervention in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963.  This truth needed to continue to be concealed as it would compromise any trust in future US Governments and it’s Agencies.

Just before he died former US President Gerald Ford reflected in his memoirs that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, but he never went in detail on the extend of this involvement. This has been mentioned before but it is revealing

Former President Nixon on one of the “Watergate tapes” stated that the Warren Commission report was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated”. He did not went into detail why he questioned the report. Obviously not in the presence tape recordings.

Roger Stone, one of Nixon’s former aides, reflected in his recent book that Lyndon Johnson micro-managed Kennedy’s Dallas motorcade, insisting that it would pass through Dealy Plaza on the afternoon he was shot. This has been earlier reflected in a different context. Read more about this: https://www.google.com.au/#q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2322981%2FFormer-Nixon-aide-claims-evidence-Lyndon-B-Johnson-arranged-John-F-Kennedys-assassination-new-book.html

–

Hence full disclosure and new  independent investigation in the JFK assassination is required to show the dangers which are a threat to the US as a democracy. Like the Zapruder Film again showed that the last fatal shot came from a total different direction than the Warren Commission claimed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0tZFkVhN00

 , – the official 9/11 Government Investigations again never explained the unexplained collapse of tower 7 (WTC7)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

WTC7 again did contain many case files for ongoing investigations. Some three to four thousand files were destroyed. WTC 7 housed many private tenants including e.g. the CIA, the SEC, the IRS, the EEOC and the US Secret Service.

This article once more is not about 9/11 but about the issue that the truth about major (and likely Government related) criminal events in US history are kept away from public knowledge, and this includes the JFK assassination. No country or Government serves itself by accepting major crimes from the past by misleading the public it needs to serve.

In 2013 there was  the 50th anniversary of  the JFK assassination and a whole nation came together to remember the far-reaching events in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963.

President John F Kennedy once said:

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

Abraham Lincoln once reflected:  > “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.

It was just 100 years later that JFK concluded:  >”A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehoods in an open market is a nation afraid of its people.”<

“Love is the soul of genius”, –  as one would say. Without heart no genius. The way the US Constitution has been applied in both the 9/11 drama and the JFK assassination showed neither love, nor genius, nor even “heart”. The “show” for those who did know and still do know more, has been going on until almost even 50 years after Dallas and still it does not seem to stop.

Some countries prefer to live with certain lies, even when it affects the application of the Constitution in major crimes from the relatively past. Even in the days when the future looks better under the Obama Administration. 

However not dealing with the past has the risk of repetitive events in the future under different US Presidential Administrations.

Facing the facts with love for the historical US truth may enhance the Constitution and “The Union” rather than compromising it.

Whilst there are many things far more important and pressing in the present, the past should not be forgotten. Fifty years down the line people in the US may even know more, – however without the powers to change things for the better as that opportunity then has gone.

Courage not served is both courage and truth forgotten!

–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

Challenges of our times and generation

–

 

 

For those being interested in more material related to this particular article below can be found some  supportive material, – including “video” details etc ->>>>>>>>>>>>

–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j5xgNH-P6M&feature=player_detailpage

(LBJ involvement in JFK assassination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJIb73SPzkE&feature=player_detailpage

(Nixox joking about LBJ involvement, however was Nixon involved as well?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-y2KQvvYtg&feature=player_detailpage

(Watergate could open “Bay of Pigs” and Kennedy assassination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loM1uaVOXTA&feature=player_detailpage

Reasons behind Watergate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPxz8vA6f2I&feature=player_detailpage

Gerald Ford: “The National nightmare is over…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eZfS-oly10&feature=player_detailpage

Gerald Ford admits CIA involvement in the JFK assassination before his death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ua45otjKpw&feature=player_detailpage

Baker on Bush Senior & JFK assassination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM9TssOt5RE&feature=player_detailpage

LBJ Coup against JFK, Military Industrial Complex Profits from war in Vietnam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcHwMqc5pTA&feature=player_detailpage

George H.W.Bush connected to JFK assassination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD4611qW6R8&feature=player_detailpage

(E. Howard Hunt implicating LBJ, various editions about Howard Hunt)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b70OKzL1M&feature=player_detailpage

(CIA, NWO involvement in the JFK assassination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8&feature=player_detailpage

(Secret Service Stand down, – as clear as it !)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0xiAYAHFM0&feature=player_detailpage

(CIA, Military involvement assassination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adG7WAXHMgw&feature=player_detailpage

( Courageous ex- FBI members re the killer James Files, who fired the fatal head wound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdsXe0cpNFo&feature=player_detailpage

(James Files speaks and admits many years later, – he received his orders)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUecqrHoj3I&feature=player_detailpage

(Howard Hunt’s confession about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Hunt was involved in Watergate as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ATbhCUZxjQ&feature=player_detailpage

(Edward Lansdale, Military & CIA involvement in the JFK assassination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGFilkbzfZ4&feature=player_detailpage

(Double Cross Giancana and the Kennedy’s, the Mafia connection)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y&feature=player_detailpage

(LBJ’s Mistress blows the whistle about Johnson’s knowledge about the JFK assassination before it happened)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiMCd-iSndo&feature=player_detailpage

(Ted Sorensen: JFK was “implored” to go to Texas)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FDflK_Iug&feature=player_detailpage

JFK deathbed confession – Jesse Ventura

 

Related articles on the JFK assassination:

• The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State_on Anti-War Progressive Teach-in (noliesradio.org)
• Six JFK-Assassination Skeptics (nation.time.com)
• JFK assassination: Alistair Cooke’s dispatches for the Guardian (theguardian.com)
• Half A Century Past JFK’s Assassination, Camelot’s Fall, Still Only Dark Truths (everything-pr.com)
• JFK Assassination Documents on Display (wgno.com)
• 50th Anniversary of the JFK Assassination in Dallas TX (wearechange.org)
• JFK assassination: Alistair Cooke’s dispatches for the Guardian (theguardian.com)
• The JFK Assassination: The Impossible “Assassin”. Defending the Gangster State (rinf.com)
• Fifty years later, J.F.K.’s assassination is the mother of all conspiracy theories – NorthJersey.com (northjersey.com)
• Popovich on JFK Assassination: ‘I’ve always wondered what would have happened with Vietnam’ (mysanantonio.com)
• JFK assassination intertwined with Project Northwoods – Andrew Kreig (voiceofrussia.com)
• These 6 People Are Still JFK Assassination Skeptics (nation.time.com)

Related articles

• 7 interesting details you might have forgotten about the JFK assassination (miamiherald.com)
• The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State_on Anti-War Progressive Teach-in (noliesradio.org)
• Half A Century Past JFK’s Assassination, Camelot’s Fall, Still Only Dark Truths (everything-pr.com)
• JFK Assassination Documents on Display (wgno.com)
• Popovich on JFK Assassination: ‘I’ve always wondered what would have happened with Vietnam’ (mysanantonio.com)
• JFK assassination intertwined with Project Northwoods – Andrew Kreig (voiceofrussia.com)
• JFK Assassination: New Motorcade Footage Could Challenge Lone-Gunman Theory (Exclusive) (thewrap.com)
• JFK assassinated by US 1% War Criminals: 4 powerful learning resources (examiner.com)
• JFK assassinated by US 1% War Criminals: 4 powerful resources (thedailyblogreport.wordpress.com)
• A JFK assassination book that stays away from conspiracies? (ask.metafilter.com)

Related articles

• RFK killer moved to new prison on anniversary of JFK assassination (theguardian.com)
• Fascinated with the JFK assassination? There is an app for it. (womenlovetech.com)
• JFK assassination intertwined with Project Northwoods – Andrew Kreig (voiceofrussia.com)
• Popovich on JFK Assassination: ‘I’ve always wondered what would have happened with Vietnam’ (mysanantonio.com)
• How to tell if what you’re reading or watching is still part of the JFK assassination cover-up. (obrag.org)
• Behind the Scenes With JFK (nation.time.com)
• The JFK Collection: Eight Films – DVD Review (historynet.com)
• How The World’s Newspapers Reported JFK’s Assassination (huffingtonpost.com)
• JFK Assassination – An Interview With FBI Informant Jack Van Laningham (planet.infowars.com)
• The state of the JFK case in 2014 (jfkfacts.org)

 

Both International And National Security Starts At Home – US in the picture.

“I have not seen anywhere else in the world a gun lobby that has the same level of influence on its own government as the NRA does in the United States.”    –Andrew Feinstein.

–

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of insidious forces working from within.” – Douglas MacArthur.

–

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all” – John F. Kennedy

–

The topic for today is the importance  of both increased national and international security and the nature of leadership we need in a changing world. However the focus will be on the first one, with an example of things starting at home in the US. Both with proper legislation and law enforcement within the domain and control  of US Congress. The US here is just an example and different examples do exist all over the world.

When times are economical challenging, foreign policy matters are rarely the topic of discussion. But in recent weeks issues on both foreign policy and security worked their way up within the public domain of attention.

During the crisis with North Korea in which China played for certain a role of influence for the better, – we had first the Boston Marathon bombings with the related questions about terrorist connections.  This is relatively a new element that from areas where you don’t expect it, people find their way on US ground and evolve in personalities able to prepare bombs with the intention to kill indiscriminately. And so they did, as others may do again anywhere.  Both inside the US and outside the US.

Whilst the airliner plot over the Atlantic and  World Trade Centre attacks are unlikely to happen anymore in the identity as they evolved, – the prospect of terror from a different kind seems to be more of an issue in the future.

It is terror of a different kind than 9/11. But it is the terror on top of increased gun violence in the US anyway, and from both sides of the spectrum there is easy access to guns, assault weapons and other tools to inflict destruction.

It’s a warning that dynamics in society are changing and that we need to be mindful of the fact that we are simply not ready for this.

Proper legislation in line with the spirit of our time and similar law enforcement need to be in place.  This being prepared in a proactive way by anticipation on the dynamics in society.

Within those recent dynamics in the US the civil war in Syria did break the news with a high index of suspicion of chemical warfare being used against the opposition in Syria. This followed by an Israeli bombing near Damascus to prevent the transport of missiles and chemical weapons close to the borders of Israel.

At the same time Congressional hearings in the US provided more detail about what happened in Libya when the US ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans were murdered during a terrorist attack. Lacking the total picture, some Republicans claim that the White House should be held responsible for either insufficient protection or misleading information.  It would seem that the dynamics within the domain of some Republican members of US Congress go that far that they would like any effort to try to impeach President Obama on this issue, if they could.  A reflection of a “House Divided” where some members of this honourable branch of Government lost touch with both reality and the priorities of this country.

It illustrates the dangerous paradox in this country, the downfall of democracy when Congress is misaligned on some major topics and obstructive elements are able to block progress against the will of the majority of voters.

This is not new and it may happen anywhere in countries with democracies. It might be considered as the play game of democracy but in some events it’s a dangerous play game setting the tone for more little fruitful dynamics in society…

Whilst not proven perhaps, there is more chance a society at peace or stable in itself at times of peace, – will sustain the disharmony at times of no peace better than the kind of society already divided in itself.

It illustrates somehow as well the sad thing that people often tend to stick together in crisis only, but go their own way when there are no dangers on the horizon.

We live however in a world where simple escalating events may lead to massive drama’s all around.

For this reason the  topic to be discussed today is an interesting one as the perceptions about leadership, democracy and security are almost as different as the dimensions about security and leadership on its own. Issues about eg Israeli’s and Palestinian security have different perceptions all around the world. History shows that people can make a difference within certain positions.

Interestingly we had recently 2 US Presidential candidates with different perceptions and personalities. The person who started his US Presidency in 2009 was able to continue in 2013.  The perceptions of one leader and the choices being made on behalf of international security may define the outcome of many future dynamics. Likewise within the US,  US Congress may define the outcome on other dynamics.

It’s a matter of leadership and being proactive, with inclusive views.

The nature of fast growing  and increasing  economic and financial interdependence of countries around the world, with all sorts of growing  interactions, –  need a far stricter international security than ever before.  It all starts in home land activities, to get grip on those things we don’t want, those things being disruptive for our well-being in the countries where we live, – the things affecting national security.  An issue for all of us, wherever we may live.

Both National and International security are in ways connected.

Speaking about security at a challenging time in US history, we only need to look back some 150 years ago.

A time where US Congress and legislative issues paved the way for the dynamics leading to the US civil war in the 18th Century.

President Lincoln would not have been the person history remembers if he would not have been challenged after his Presidential election to lead his country through one of the most difficult times in US history.

He was the unexpected President exposed to the worst, which through a combination of circumstances made him the best!

Some would say that the American civil war in those day  was a security and a significant emancipation issue for the US as a Union.

Emancipation still to be remembered, still to be remembered by those members of the Republican Party who are unable to see that emancipation and  inclusive progresses are ongoing issues in history. Running behind the important social and political events of time will catch up with those who have to deal with the implications in the future. History learns that not being proactive comes at a cost.

Being true what he said in his inauguration, President Lincoln did not allow a minority to disintegrate the Union, –   but he preserved the Union, by which he followed through with his planned declaration of Emancipation to end slavery.

He succeeded as part of the Republican movement at the time to create the next endeavour in US history, keeping the right balance on the required issues of national security in his days.

Whilst generally Southern Democrats were obstacles for Emancipation in the 1860 ties, – Northern Republicans are generally stumbling blocks for 21st  Century US progress. Both with exceptions within  each party in the days of President Lincoln and today. True is that the Republicans were the driving force for progress  one and half century ago.

Republicans should take this on board.

The last still in a most divided America.

Congressional choices long ago by overturning the so-called Missouri compromise which intended to restrict slavery, played part in the  evolving drama in the 1860ties, before it actually happened.

Today we jump a fair bit in time. To illustrate that divisions can go one way or the other but unresolved within the required legislation will lead to all sorts of processes in society hard to contain.

Also an issue subject to  Congressional choice.  The choice either being proactive or reactive.

It is not long ago  the National Rifle Association moved to block a UN treaty on gun control. The NRF serves strongly the interest of both national and international arms deals, with a high level of influence in US Congress.  Clear is that  US Congress has been willing to serve the power position  of the NRA by simply not approving Presidential proposals to revise gun legislation. The majority however of US voters wants a change in the current legislation on gun control as increasing gun violence disrupts a nation and may compromise eventually national security, the last because the current legislation is not aligned with changing dynamics in US society with more gun related violence and deaths, – both at the cost of children and adults.

.

Whilst some 700000 people died during the American civil war at the time of President Lincoln,- more even died as a result of unlawful gun use in the US over various decades.

The downfall of a democracy is that a minority may act against the will of the constitutional rights of voters. Voters to have their voice  properly represented in the legislation a country deserves.  It is true that the ignorance of a few voters – in the words of John F Kennedy –  may impair the security of all. In some cases the security of a Republic.

Congressional ignorance on the issue of gun control may disregard national security interest where it comes to the protection of US citizens. Voters want to reduce the risk  of more generalised and increasing gun violence in the US as the extremes will come together in the context of changing social dynamics. The last  as part of increased globalisation. Congress is not allowing those facts to be considered within the concept of national interest and as such  tolerating  the death toll of existing gun violence, –  eventually debilitating the US ability to keep control in own house. Getting worse when the forces of external terrorism meet existing dynamics in US society with more or less free access to unrestricted guns and assault rifles, enabling massacres at large scale.

A matter of national security.

Congressional choices may define future dynamics whilst the US President is almost powerless to change this at a time this being required.

It’s a matter of poorly understood national security of the United States of America. The dynamics of society turning into  increasing and senseless massacres, – the last often caused by  ill minded and mentally disrupted people from which the statistics say they are only on the increase.  Meanwhile US Congress allowing to be influenced more by NRA interest, and not  taking the dynamics in society or the wishes of voters on board.

Douglas MacArthur within a different context reflected once his concern for his own great Nation; “not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within”.

He was right in one sense, but today the danger comes from 2 directions, – both from threats within and without,  and with the current Congressional attitude towards increased gun control as is today, – this is a potential menace to the security of the Union.

Lincoln would have turned away from this, – if he could!   It is a matter of emancipation, constitutional emancipation.

Where history changed with new dilemma’s to be sorted, – the ask of true leadership is more profoundly needed all over the world.

But it all starts at home to have the required legislation and law enforcement in place.

We are faced with different dilemma’s this century.

True leadership is required today when the proper balance gets disrupted with lots of things being at stake. And often as it proved in history it falls back on people with a distinct personality and attitude, – bright in their assessment and determined in their actions.

The last applies for US Congress as well. An honest and fair assessment being required, both based on the choice of people being represented and the dynamics in society.

If we speak about the issue of security in a broader sense:

Not only  increased globalization is asking for stricter national and international security, but also  a new political economy with shifting influence from west to east and a population growth hardly possible to sustain, – with an increased unstable relationship between our fragile global civilisation and an increased depletion of our resources.

The last will become vital in the future.

Hence from an international perspective, international security in the Asia-Pacific region can’t be allowed to be compromised by nuclear dictators as eg in North Korea.

Similarly US security can’t be compromised by increasing gun violence inflicted by more  people turning their hatred on society,  with the same easy access to guns and rifles because Congressional legislation did not follow the trend in society.

Rifles and gun’s being far more advanced than when the Constitution was written. Dynamics within society and international far more different than they have ever been. The US more at edge than ever before.

The issues of both national and international security are getting more important as more things can go wrong at the same time with wider implications faster speed and greater destruction and disruption.

Without the right tools, the right brains and the best possible  assessment, – we lose both momentum and direction for a more stable world.

And again it all starts at home.

If we look at the Middle East, the situation in Syria is a prime example of major dangers and the potential of an escalating conflict. Civilisation and reason totally lost.

There have been dangers and evils in the past, so will there be evils and dangers in the future and we need to recognise them at an early stage.

When Lincoln made his Emancipation declaration amidst the American Civil war, – it took still hundred years before the Civil Rights movement got its way into proper and equal legislation for each American citizen.

I hope the desired emancipation on gun control and the required restrictions on gun related violence will not take an other 50 years in the US.  It would be a massive drain on society, both for victims and their families, but also for those who have to work in authority within the given restrictions of  incomplete gun legislation.

People in the police force have families as well.

Fortunately there is no room for racial hatred anymore, but whilst the last  belongs largely to the past new issues of friction and potential hatred arise at the spectrum of social development, – with mixture of cultures and religions, and increased travel from various countries around the world.

Being multicultural in one sense is good and has the potential to bring the goodness of different nations together. The downfall could be when people from poverty stricken area’s in today’s world travel at different countries, – with at times the narrow and restricted perception of only blind hatred. Receiving in some occasions terrorist training in their homeland of origin,  with a mission to destruct and destroy.

Alqaida has eg booklets designed to help terrorists overseas to make bombs and strike and kill in various ways. The target quite often seems to be the US  and its allies.

We might be horrified to know of what is possible to happen, – but most of us get horrified when it happens. Whilst we need to love our neighbour as ourselves, we have to denounce the persons and groups inflicting violence and terrorism. Similar with countries deliberately exporting this sort of people or ideology to be held accountable in line with international law, – the last subject for renewal and change at various levels to combat the dangers of our time.

But again it starts at home.

Insufficient restrictions on international nuclear control and allowing more countries to have access to nuclear weapons by lack of internal law enforcement is asking for more dictators or other countries “pulling the trigger”, – like allowing more people in the US to have access to lethal rifles and other dangerous guns, – is asking for a more unstable society, – creating a situation with potential “mass pulling of triggers” where the US army may have to act against its own citizens at times of national unrest.

 It seems correct that the Bush Administration prepared for FEMA concentration camps in case of social unrest. More important is that the triggers for social unrest never escalate in the use of massive gun violence in one society, – just for the sake of civilisation and protection of citizens. The law simply needs to be adapted to prevent an almost unlimited access is some States.

Again a matter of Congressional choice, but it would not seem they see it this way with some members of this establishment even devoted to get the Obama Administration down on what happened in Benghazi, Libya. Not being able to take the long view but using the short-sighted view to debilitate proper Governance at a time this being required makes jurisdiction stagnant.

 

Just an illustration how members of Congress can add to a “House divided” by not getting the priorities right.

It happened in the past, with US civil war just 150 years ago. It is for some part up to Congress to prevent this ever happening again by reducing increasing gun violence in a similar divided nation on different issues by proper legislation in line with the spirit of time.

With eg the Boston bombing just recently behind, an alleged terrorist rail  plot being foiled in Canada, sarin – gas being possibly used in Syria, and North Korea “one click away” from pushing the launch button of firing ballistic missiles, – it is clear that changing international patterns are evolving into more risk involving scenario’s waiting to become reality. both national and international.

This is what I mean when I say that at some stage  the extremes are coming together, both from outside the country and inside the country.

At the end of the day the means to have control is largely a  matter of the right legislation being in place with the proper law enforcement and the proper people right for our time. This both applies at the arena of national and international politics.

National Security starts at home and coming back on the US, Congress should act in favour of increased gun control.

A matter of civilised and effective legislation to support both national security and the safety of US citizens.

On the extremes outside – and within the context of international security and coöperation against terrorism  – it is  encouraging that President Putin from Russia emphasised the need for increased international intelligence coöperation,  as prevention at an early stage is the better substitute.

G8 summit in Ireland, June 17, 2013

Some nations posses the power to abolish any form of human poverty but also any form of human live.  Both  a matter of responsibility and choice, – a matter actually of priority to support any extended nuclear freeze proposals,  and contain the current level of nuclear experience where it comes to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.

Whilst most nations appreciate the responsibilities on this and have already reduced their nuclear arsenals, new powers arise with the wish to have those weapons as well, – and with a clear intent to either use them or apply international blackmail.

Those countries are an issue of serious concern. They need to be stopped at the earliest possible stage through reason and if reason and sanctions do not help, through force if so required, – in line with international coöperation by those nations committed to stop the dangers to multiply.

The UN plays a central role.

International security on this is based on the practical choice not to allow any new country to develop those weapons, – regardless the question whether it is good or wrong that other countries do already  have those weapons. It is clear that with increasing countries having access to nuclear or chemical weapons it is getting more difficult to keep the world secure.

Same applies with providing at times even more unpredictable people an almost free access to fire arms, – as such creating increasing difficulties to prevent massacres of any kind as result of gun violence, the last with a potential domino effect.

Stable we can make it through more succesful partnerships on the issues we face in the 21st century. US Congress is not much familiar with succesful partnerships on this issue of restricting gun violence.

Science is able to unleash the powers of destruction by human choice, unless we prevent humankind and powers to make this choice, – by restricting at least the powers who are able to destruct each other.  Most of them who are nuclear now do realise that the choice of such destruction means self-destruction,  involving all humanity.

Likewise science provides terrorists the means to unleash powers of more limited destruction, both by senseless shootings or bomb blasts at areas of their choice. However the means by which terrorists are able to apply this destruction in the future is by no means sure and increased international coöperation is required to recognise at an early stage the features of certain persons and groups committed to terror

Whether terror is provoked or inflicted by guns or bombs makes in essence not much difference when we consider the lethal outcome on both children and adults. School shootings where people die are as terrible as disrupted sport events where people are killed through the hands of terrorists using bombs. Those tools need to be be banned from the street with the restriction (if the Constitution can’t be changed as yet) of gun’s being controlled, registered and only in the hands of mindful people, – and assault rifles being excluded in any case for “civil use”.

We live in a world insufficient prepared for terrorism, – which does not mean we have to learn to live with terrorism as if this would be our fate.

 

Both National and International security starts at home in our own countries with the things we can control, with proper legislation and law enforcement on issues being required in the context of changes in society, changes in the way children are brought up and the way they become adults, apart from the changes related with globalization and the technology which brings people down from different countries.

Whilst it is hard to change or control the mindset to take lives for no reason, it is easier to control or limit the means by which we are able to do this.

This applies both to guns and nuclear weapons, –  and it all starts at home where we are privileged to make choices on restricting the tools and dynamics of violence.

US Congress should reconsider the issue of effective gun legislation for the benefit of a more secure society where people are becoming slowly less at risk of violence as due to unlawful use of bullets, – regardless whether those bullets come from US citizens or people who travel from overseas to inflict violence for the reason of hatred against US society.

Waiting for escalating gun violence in the future, wherever it comes from, is pointless. The warnings are there, written already in the hearts of many people who lost loved ones in this repetitive cycle of non-required violence, –  waiting to get worse only.

We have neither right to inflict suffering nor death on another human being unless there is an unavoidable necessity for it and any culture or country which endorses the right to bear arms amongst it citizens has blood on the law provision it provides on this and will pay at later date a price being higher than initially intended at the time those laws were made.

The clause on the right to bear arms in the US Constitution is a serious defect considering the time spirit of the 21st Century and lays the foundation of the potential destruction of it’s culture through internal destructive forces, – if not adapted.

Thanks!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• How Hollywood cloaked South Sudan in celebrity and fell for the ‘big lie’ (theguardian.com)
• Review: My 2013 Predictions (throughthefringe.wordpress.com)
• Sen. Bernie Sanders: 2014: Seize the Moment (huffingtonpost.com)
• Who Legalized Arming Black Men to Kill Confederates? (theroot.com)
• Seize the Moment (counterinformation.wordpress.com)
• Yearly Review (harpers.org)
• The Destabilization of Africa. A Machiavellian Intrigue of Colossal Proportions (rinf.com)
• The Destabilization of Africa. A Machiavellian Intrigue of Colossal Proportions (libya360.wordpress.com)
• A Year-End Security Review Of Southern Asia – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
• The Destabilization of Africa. A Machiavellian Intrigue of Colossal Proportions (therebel.org)

 

21st Century’s collision course of nuclear disaster, – both the possible and the impossible!

Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.”

Those who get confused about the real priorities on earth and lose their cause will pay the costs

This is the reason I want to speak about the prospect of war tonight, not because I like it but the risks are more clear than ever before. The risk of people as part of humankind as a whole being confused about the real enemies and threats we are faced with.

This is the topic for tonight

Tonight people in Western Australia‘s Pilbara region are being warned that the pending Cyclone Rusty could bring 250 km/hour winds slamming into the coast and inflicting massive destruction. Major parts of the Queensland coast and New south Wales have been battered by storms, twisters and flooding at a scale of increasing force. Both the east and west coast of Australia are encountering changing in patterns subject to greater forces of violence of nature in the future.

That’s nature only.

Like one small wave or earthquake may cause a tsunami, destructive in all its power, – a minor escalating conflict may cause atomic war

Just moments before a tsunami hits can be a time of serene calm, – as calm and hidden can be the preparation of war. In some places the water actually pulls back from the coast. In some cases, harbours and bays are entirely emptied of their water. And people may be misled by those signs, whilst full destruction is pending.

The same applies when times are filled up with hope, where the absence of war does not mean there is peace. Peace though being desired as the most important revelation on earth, – peace being desired as the most important power being able to combat both war and the preparation for it. Peace being required to combat the elements of nature and not destruction ourselves by choice through science being used the wrong directions.

It will be neither Air Force One which brings this peace, nor is it the breaking of a man’s spirit which may cause war, – but the sum of all efforts in either direction of both peace or war will make the difference between our existence or our total destruction, – the difference between the worst possible menace of violence, or our ability to communicate with each other and try to solve problems, – civilised within the potential of our humanity, as civilised we need to be at the major platforms of international discussions

“Civilisation” in the international arena of politics and eliminating dangers, both about forces of nature and war, should be based by principle on communication and efforts to change perceptions and give countries a chance to stick to international acceptable standards, – knowing we do not live in an ideal world. Hence the reason to do it this way, rather than the other way round.

When the bible speaks about the Kingdom of God being pending within the given variety of historical options and debate, – regardless indeed the potential of global self-inflicted destruction, – we have to remember that still a natural law applies: that we can only bring so much of God’s domain into this world as we have access to and willing to apply.

In the past 100 years, since 1914, we have seen two “World Wars”. World War 1 was more profound in it’s destructiveness than the sum of all the wars over the last 2500 years. World War II was four times more destructive than World War I.

The nuclear annihilation of two cities in Japan was the end of it

Two small bombs.

The nuclear bombing which crippled Japan for many years, – had the most painful physical effects for many.

In no comparison with what is available now.

Any humans which survived the first blast of this explosion in eg one city only had major radiation exposure. Some 140000 people who survived this first nuclear explosion being used in war, sustained radiation exposure with many 3rd degree burns and were after the blast subject to the long term after effects of radiation poisoning. They were subject to increased risks on various cancers, the unborn being exposed, – and once born months later, far more vulnerable, with the far reaching increased risks of leukaemia and other malformations later in life.

From the first survivors only some 10% did live for a further 2 weeks as due to the wounds, the pain and the agony.

Nurses being overworked waited just for people to die as this was the last blessing to be relieved from their pains.

The long term after effects were horrendous.

The 2 nuclear bombs destroyed everything in its path. Those bombs killed about 165000 people within the first 3 months in Hiroshima and some 80000 in Nagasaki at a similar time frame

Nothing in comparison with what is available and possible now when any nuclear power would opt to use its arsenal, apart from the domino effect on other nuclear powers doing the same out of retaliation.

The Tsar Bomb eg developed by the USSR and detonated in 1961 over the Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya, had a power of 50 megatons, – about 10 times the total explosives used in WWII, including the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Its fireball was so huge that it reached the ground while almost reaching the altitude of the bomber plane 10 km in the sky. It was felt almost 1,000 km from ground zero, and the heat from its first flash could have caused third degree burns some 110 km away. The mushroom cloud that formed was about 65 km high and 45 km wide, and the blast could be seen and felt in Scandinavia, where windows were broken. This bomb was originally designed to be one of 100 megatons, in other words twice the power as been exploded.

The Soviets decided in the end not to go ahead with this 100 megaton bomb

Mind you, – – those nuclear explosives were developed in the early 1960ties some 15 years after the end of the second world war and now we are living in a time where small nations developing nuclear weapons which could equate the 100 megatons in about 20 years or less, as those initially being designed by the Soviets and exploded in 1961.

The potential problem for every country in the third world which wants to be a nuclear power, provides the risks they may develop the sort of weapons both the US and Russia already had in the 1950ties, – and the world for certain should not allow this regardless the fact that the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, India and Pakistan already have nuclear bombs of various strength, -with Israel being included for almost a half century.

North Korea eg is an increasing power, -however a very unusual and unpredictable power, – last but not least as part of its almost total isolation. Despite good connections with both Russia and China in the past, the last 2 superpowers are getting concerned as well, – and the UN does not affect North Korea in any way to change positions of the regime.

There are different ideas about diplomacy and how to apply this in certain circumstances, – but so be it.

There are ideas about applying force, – so be not at this stage!

There is nothing against down to earth diplomacy, face to face at top level, – to prevent an otherwise potential worst case scenario. Only a minor shift in perception may change the risk of war. The reasoning behind this is that North Korea wants to go nuclear as part of its military deterrent in its confrontation with the United States, – which it describes as “the sworn enemy of the Korean people.”

Long range missiles are not aimed for South Korea but are on the long term for the US and its citizens and the only way is working on a shift in perception, guided by both Russia and China as the long term developments and scenario’s may hit them as hard as the US in terms of costs protecting its citizens. It will help the US to get both China and Russia on the same page of the international agenda to stop North Korea with its dangerous endeavours.

The diplomacy of the kind being applied till so far did not work, however top level face-to-face diplomacy has not been tried as yet. Top level diplomacy does not mean bending towards NK’s demands, but high level direct diplomacy should be both aimed to ease the tensions and to create a fruitful alternative, – or NK indeed to face the gradual implications which would make regret its actions.

Such meetings with NK is not rewarding them for bad behaviour but allowing them by choice, and after exploring the alternatives, to engage as the last possible option into the domain of civilisation, – besides preventing the possibility that nuclear technology might find its way to Iran, al-Qaeda and others.

The last scenario would be only the start of a more devastating process, – widespread nuclear terrorism included – –

In the long history of the world, at times there were good powers in the Middle East, – like there were repugnant powers as well, living at the cost of many others, – those who died, forgotten in the dust of history.

As history often shows, people do not learn the way they should do, as a group or as a society, – and with this knowledge in the 21st century we need to make this different to survive as a human race on this planet. The flaws in foreign policy from the past should not be the repeated flaws in the future. Nuclear war starting in the Middle East could easily annihilate the human race, with a destruction and chaos as never being met before.

Like a tsunami may hit us unexpected at the lower coast lines, – nuclear war could hit us unexpected anywhere and unprotected everywhere.

The US may play a major role to help fruitful dynamics, along with China and Russia.

The US can’t be indifferent as a broker, however this does not mean it would be dishonest, or should be dishonest with integrity by principle, – regardless the agenda of placing some safeguards for Israel. Safeguards being justified within the context of ongoing threats. Safeguards, – as the alternative of doing nothing to bend the road among the dynamics in the Middle East more positively, – means simply the clock is ticking towards more chaos and violence. Whether this is in Egypt or with the Palestinians, – Hezbollah in Lebanon or Iran, – or any other areas with conflict including Syria. The last with a promising diplomatic Russian intervention yesterday, with the current regime being ready now to talk to all parties, – despite the risk of so called lip service to dialogue in more sustained ways.

We know it’s all complex, but terrorism and war are even more complex, – and safeguards should be there for any party agreeing with the fact  that broader violence is an inflated perception, leading to nothing else than a final destruction of this whole area and with this at least part of the world. Destruction of what once was build in terms of culture and difference. The Middle East being ancient and rich as once was the Roman empire, the first even older than the last.

Everything is a matter of perception and perceptions do rule the world, either in the leaders of people and governments, or in the people themselves. Whether those perceptions are right or wrong, bizarre perhaps at times – if we put up barriers feuded by prejudice, and as such preventing that we work with the most crucial different perceptions of our times, – we are taking away the opportunities of people coming together and making the impossible possible.

Impossible it seems before arriving at meetings, impossible when people are angry at times and reasoning from emotions, leaders living with ideas of going to war, – especially when those ideas do resonate at Departments of existing Foreign policy or at major military platforms. But history shows that the impossible is possible, even when we are faced with the impossible, like we are faced with the impossible of earthquakes and tsunamis when forces of nature do hit us wave by wave leaving behind bewildered people amidst destruction. But the last are situations where people despite destruction and losses of lives find each other in their willingness to help. That’s again a difference in perception, guided by what hits us.

Guided by what hits us, – whether it is a major bushfire or flooding, a tsunami or an earthquake. Those are challenges we don’t ask for but they hit us unexpected, – like a major rock from space can hit us unexpected.

And you know, – we train doctors and nurses, medical teams and fire brigades and all the others to help when required, – but the terrible contradiction comes in when major war hits the horizon.

War may hit us unexpected but the difference is that the dynamics leading to war are premeditated, dynamics who find their roots far too often within inflated perceptions not being properly discussed or taken to a level of exploring different alternatives.

This is the world as it does present us to day, whether it applies to the problems in the Middle East or in Korea, whether it applies to tensions between the US and China. And even when it seems that certain perceptions are not subject for change, those perceptions being purely based on blind hatred and prejudice, – whether it is the prejudice against the Jews or prejudice of any other kind, – still it is worth giving communication a chance, perhaps a last chance. Even when it seems against all odds. However, there should be zero tolerance for people and even countries who simply kill either on their own or in groups, – just for killing and destroying lives.

Zero tolerance for this!

leadership and I mean true leadership is not the rhetoric from behind the desk in front of a microphone, nor is it confronting people with the facts after disaster happened with the knowledge it could have been dealt with differently. Leadership as well is taking fear for granted and leave it behind in order to tackle the problems which need to be tackled. Leadership is not watching a train taking the wrong railway path and simply watching how a collision will occur and tell us thereafter that it occurred without taking action to alarm those being able to stop the train, or plane, – going into a collision course. This applies to the dynamics of potential world events as well, and we know they are closely watched with far too often too little proactive action. And if we speak then again about eg North Korea, the questions is what kind of discussions with NK do we mean? What kind of settlement do we seek? – – Not an American forced process which may escalate problems by American weapons or war. Not the security of us being a slave from a dogmatic regime running the treadmill of their own insecurities by isolation themselves of the rest of the world by their war machinery. Not only by their current war machinery, but by their nuclear potential just years down the line. We can’t afford to turn a blind eye for this.

I am really talking about a genuine process which helps both sides to reconsider an ability to take a different direction, – a direction of helping to grow one nation sidetracked from common civilisation, – anxious about the concept of liberation as it would as such destroy the current status quo.

What we know from history is that nations did arise and disappeared at times in the dust of history, a process over many and many more years. We know as well that dictators grew old and were replaced at times. We know as well that the people of some nations said that they had enough and went on the street to provoke change. Change at times so desired and needed. All this is not possible at the moment but we can’t allow one nation at this point of history potentially destroying history itself by simply not talking. Total war as a result of this, triggered by error or miscalculation makes no sense as no one will surrender without resort to those forces which could destroy us all. Believing that negotiations and fruitful discussions do not make sense means that people feel it is inevitable that NK goes it own way by further producing thermonuclear devices and more advanced missile systems in the future, – allowing as such that at some stage we will or may be subject to international blackmail. Not believing in the only possible way of discussions, to change perceptions as an act of real leadership, is a regressive defeatist belief leading to the belief we have no grip to change those forces and powers which need to be changed, – forces which need to be modified based on simply the reason at this time in history.

This time in history!

Whilst sensible words and conversations do not harm and open options for further dialogue, easing tensions, – provocative words and actions may lead to war.

This time in history!

Whilst there is no “magic formula” to make peace, man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly impossible and I believe we can do it again whilst we learn from the past and walk the many miles to reach out to make the impossible possible, – like this happened eg during the Cuba crisis, like this happened eg when the Iron Curtain between East and West Berlin was abolished, like it happened eg when a first US President did visit mainland China for a new chapter in history.

This time in history again!

Facing the facts of this world we can’ deny fanatic nationalism being on the rise, with the situation worldwide being similar to the conditions that triggered both past World War’s. In 1994 Africa’s Rwanda proved how tensions suddenly can explode; church-going neighbors turned on one another with genocide. Close to 1000,000 died. Even women and children that took refuge in churches were hacked to death by machete.

Again this time!

Multinational wars in Africa claimed some 2,500,000 lives, including the hidden war in the Congo, almost completely ignored by western news media. India and Pakistan have exchanged angry threats in the past, backed by nuclear missiles.

War usually does cause famine by disrupting farming, like happened during and after the 2 World Wars. Stalin created death by starvation of millions of his own countrymen in Russia . After the second World War about a fourth of the world was starving.

Corruption and war has starved millions in both Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia and North Korea. Zimbabwe had a corrupt and brutally racist regime, using selective starvation to crush dissents. Wealthy nations do show “compassion fatigue,” Sometimes the news media just ignore situations until hundreds of thousands are already dead. In other places, the problem is not one of war but gross inequality: the rich are sumptuously stocked, while just across town the poor cannot afford even a balanced diet. All too often the poor in so-called “developing” countries have to stand with empty hands and empty stomachs whilst rich harvests are exported for hard cash which then being used to buy weapons being used by the government against its own people.

All this in our times!

The World Health Organization reflects that at least 5 million children die every year from malnutrition. At the same time in the well developed world many children are grossly obese with already early signs of both diabetes and high blood pressure.

The world is shaking both by its bankruptcy of moral values in some countries as literally by earthquakes. Besides this there have been major upheavals in societies and governments in the past century. Empires have been broken up, and divisions have split nations along ethnic and religious lines. In 2008 there was a near-collapse of the world economy due to greedy financial manipulation, with great difficulty slowly recovering but the markets both in Europe and the US still unsure, the last as due to a huge deficit. In early 2011 we observed an Islāmic Spring with still uncertain outcomes.

We can’t deny it, it happens all in our time, in past time and currents times over and over!

In many places around the world people put heavy steel bars over their windows. Often honest people being in jail whilst criminals walk the streets. Confessed rapists and murderers set free and courts finding technical excuse to do so. In some places 80% of all children are born to single mothers with not rarely the father not being known. Many semi-slave laborers as part of the human trafficking industry, often enslaved and very young within an increasing dangerous and powerful evil business overtaking in the years ahead the industry of the “drug barons”. Poisons being poured out into rivers whilst people downstream have no other choice but to drink the contaminated water. Multinational corporations hiding their trail of injustice and profits in a legal jungle of complex contracts where government officials turn a blind eye for cash. The exponential increase of our human population in the 21st Century will raise more expectations on normal living circumstances and shelter, – unsustainable as more people adopt modern lifestyles of consumption and pollution. Climate change will provide a burden for us all, – but in particular for those people with little shelter and less normal circumstances of living.

The 21st century, – all our time and may be the end of times if we don’t pull together as civilised nations and use reason as the guiding force to streamline our decisions, decisions or choices which will determine how we proceed this century.

Conflicts are increasing over essential resources, especially water and energy. Accelerating climate changes with profound changes in patterns both in Australia, the US and other parts of the world. Political and economic instability including the slowly spreading of nuclear weapons give little hope in objective terms. Church officials being exposed as pedophiles, seducing or raping little boys and girls. The Roman Catholic Church turning a blind eye for a long time to this like they turned a blind eye to Hitler Germany to continue as a Church. A reflection of the violence of institutions, indifference and inaction and slow decay. But still amidst this good people as well fighting this decay.

Many good people in our times as well! —-

Going back as not being finished yet:

Hitler, Lenin and Pol Pot who did mislead millions of people doing the most repugnant and wicked things, apart from the “smaller evils” like eg Idi Amin.

However, – still we have the last choice, if people say to kill we don’t need to kill.

If we were abused as children by parents, we don’t need to abuse our children..

For some, – religion as part of their appeal with Al-Qaeda being a prime example now.

All in this world and in our time!

And still, – we can only bring so much of the Kingdom of God into this world as we have within ourselves, – which includes our sense of piety or respect for life, – within the concept of a practical and down to earth wisdom on international relationships.

Our times are full of shame and sorrow despite the hope for a better future where forces of nature should be the enemies and not humankind divided in itself. The victims of the violence and senseless bloodshed are across all religions, black and white, rich and poor, young and old.

“Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.”

Violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and indifference amidst this is a different sort of violence on its own. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, the hungry and those being victims of broad-spectrum abuse, whether it is human trafficking or the abuse of elderly in homes.

I am not saying this because I have remedies for this. No not at all. It’s more that I am speechless of the complexities and dangers of this world, – our only world.

It is not about me but it is about all of us, young in heart and spirit to do what life asks us to do with the predicaments of our time. This time and for all times, just to set the records straight for future generations.

The question is when we may find in our own hearts that sort of leadership re humane purpose that will see and hear the terrible truths of our existence, to be replaced by the kind of love and commitment which helps people and nations to grow with real destination, with true distinctions in our search for meaning in life, – neither enriched by hatred nor revenge. But a meaning which frees our children from the injustice inflicted by others and allows them not to build their futures on the misfortunes of those who lost their fight for justice in the agony of life.

Let us look around towards our fellow men and women to seek the bond of common faith.

This faith which can teach us neither to be indifferent nor to have illusions, but to see the world as it is and still keep hope by working and healing wounds in hearts and spirit, – by working to be brothers and sisters with a common goal to make the impossible possible.

Whilst there is again no “magic formula” to make peace, – man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly impossible.

And I do believe we may do it again by being free man and taking our bullets of self-destruction to the ballet of international coöperation, – to counteract the problems of our time, to counteract it for the future of our children and their children, – but it will come at a cost we can’t foresee as yet.

All in our time.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• Nagasaki marks 68th anniversary of atomic bombing (bigstory.ap.org)
• Iran Still Engaging In Diplomacy, While U.S. Continues To Spit On Them (truthfrequencyradio.com)
• Nuclear Weapons: Forgotten, But Not Gone (in Tyee Books) (thetyee.ca)
• The West has lost control of the world and disaster awaits (telegraph.co.uk)
• Fidel Castro: Mandela Is Dead, So Why Hide The Truth About Apartheid? (rinf.com)
• Mandela is dead: Why hide the truth about Apartheid? (mathaba.net)
• For Nearly Two Decades the Nuclear Launch Code at all Minuteman Silos in the United States Was 00000000 (todayifoundout.com)
• Fidel Castro: Mandela Is Dead, So Why Hide The Truth About Apartheid? (praag.org)

The Realistic Threat Of North Korea: a different approach

Tonight once again, once again the same old discussion. The discussion being heard so many times but so little effective action being taken.

The discussion about the pending and increasing dilemma’s as how to deal with North Korea. North Korea perceived as an increasing threat, – North Korea being an increasing threat.

North Korea, with snowy mountains in the north and rugged ranges in the east with swift rivers flowing to the sea. A country ideal for growing rice and other crops, but being harsh in winter. A country with mud coated and thatched cottages being bleak, and black pigs lolled by barns, – and the digging of soils still being carried out by the kind of spade used by land working men.

Men and women, – like us, like everywhere.

The country where fishermen converge like seabirds in tiny fishing boats to catch a share for thousands of families to sustain the living conditions in an exploited land full of stricken poverty, – and malnutrition of far too many children.

A country once invaded by the Russians and denied free elections in history, with iron curtains dividing both the south and the north.

A country once invading the south with the US and Japan coming to the rescue of the south, – with finally the south and the north controlling each their own zone… Isolated now, close to the borders of China, – not only isolated in terms of trade and other good things with the outside world, – but foremost isolated as well as a country in terms of rational international diplomacy.

North Korea in 2001 still the country remaining communist, closely spied by its Government, cut off from almost all outside contacts and over and over armed.

One new young leader now with a massive war machinery behind him, in a way fragile and not mature as a person, – but coming forth from a family tradition of maximum power and ambition. Encapsulated in various inflated views about the world of North Korea and the real world.

Encapsulated by historic traditions within the army, a powerful army, – but the last powerful as well where it comes to keep up existing doctrines, which do not work.

Neither do they work for the many people who are poor in North Korea, the families with children and malnutrition being the events of the day, nor do they work for the outside world, – as North Korea is one of those nations enduring great difficulties to face the challenge to become civilised, and responsible, – in the way they deal with matters.

It is one of those countries who perceive in their isolation threats from the outside world, – perceive their family neighbour from the south as an enemy, – perceive the US as an enemy. And in all this are preparing for conflict, – being both irrational and pointless.

The facts are now that North Korea will conduct its third nuclear test soon, – that North Korea did sent a satellite into space in December and are preparing for both long range missiles eventually having the ability to carry nuclear and/or other weapons.

Reason does not seem to work as North Korea is perhaps the worst enemy of its own ideology, but reason never reached North Korea as isolation created fear and fear created the potential for major confrontation where nobody as head of any civilised state apart from China did visit North Korea in the eye of its Parliament.

It takes courage to prevent war and create dialogue. History showed on a few occasions that the actions of men are able to this, as once illustrated in the Israelite Parliament with the visit of a seemingly almost forgotten Egyptian President, who stood up for Peace being the last rationale argument to fight for.

Different circumstances though, the last, but the examples are there of men and women, people and Presidents taking action with a bigger interest at heart, proactive in style and determined to win their case, – as a lost case being the case of war goes at a cost of millions who are innocent and did not ask for it.

In the eyes of North Korea both the US and South Korea are earth enemies for reasons never being really clarified in face to face communication. Face to face communication with both modesty and strength, to reach both out and to try to diffuse inflated perceptions. Face to face communication – like eg happened in dialogues between Reagan and Gorbachev at a crucial time of the cold war right in the face of all hard-liners, – all hard liners being surprised of the break through being created at the time.

There is a situation now not being the place for making any threats, – as words lead to provocations and provocations lead to war and war leads to an instinct of willing to combat by every means.

It’s pointless, – pointless as it proved so many times in history!

Lets face it, we are not living any more in time of guns and bullets only, but the guns have been replaced by potential missiles and the bullets have been replaced by plain potential nukes, – either dirty or clean, but in both cases devastating in its implication once used by people who lead wars from behind their computer, – blind for the destruction of human life and culture

The new US Secretary of State John Kerry liked engaging North Korea in the past at the time he was a Massachusetts Senator and this is the only way forward. Kerry, who replaced Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined with South Korea and Japan in calling on the North to end its “provocative behaviour” or face “significant consequences from the international community” in a statement Sunday, – but he did not make endeavours to visit North Korea as yet. Being only joint by Japan and South Korea, statements of this nature have no impact on North Korea at all!

Media presented threats do not help. “There’s a reluctance in the White House to have a deal with North Korea only to have it repudiated again,” said James Acton, an expert on nuclear non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. However, – some risk is required as the risk of war and not being able to end the process once the last is implemented is a greater risk, and again we are not simply speaking about guns. North Korea will master a delivery system for nuclear weapons, and it will join Russia and China as the only non-U.S. allies with such capabilities, – besides Iran perhaps. Kim Jong Un seems to shrug off pressure from most of the international community, including North Korea’s main ally, China, and go ahead with a third test. Bruce Bechtol, a former Pentagon intelligence analyst, said it is really not up to the United States solely to alter the North’s behaviour. He said Kerry’s instructions from Obama will likely be to work closely with the South Koreans and have them set the tone.

However the US needs to go into a straight dialogue with North Korea and Kerry needs to visit and speak to the Communist Parliament as only a minor shift in perception may change events in history, the last being of greater impact when a delegation of South Korea would visit the North. The reasoning behind this is that North Korea wants to go nuclear as part of its military deterrent in its confrontation with the United States, which it describes as “the sworn enemy of the Korean people.”

Long range missiles are not aimed for South Korea but are on the long term aimed at the US and its citizens and the only way is working on a shift in perception, – a shift of perception delivered perhaps even by the US President in North Korea.

The new US Secretary of State John Kerry would be well able to visit first, and discuss with the North Korean leadership the issues of concern. Such a visit will have a major impact and may help the required shift in perception which enables parties to reconsider existing strategies. Besides this benefit it will create some element of goodwill, – noticed by both Russia and China, as the US goes out of his way to avoid confrontation. However one should be watchful for this oppressive regime

If no change afterwards it will help the US to get both China and Russia on the same page of the international agenda to stop North Korea with its dangerous endeavours, leading simply to an avoidable war, – now.

Leadership by providing a change of perception works stronger than sanctions as sanctions proved to be the cut corner strategy not having an impact on historic based perceptions in this case, – the last neither being changed by media delivered warnings nor by measures being perceived as provocative

North Korea is able to test two devices at the same time, one with plutonium and the other with uranium, both then with more technological information and political damage being provided, – apart from the single fact that they are not far away from testing a thermonuclear device more powerful than any of their earlier devices being used, and again, – again straight on dialogue and working on a shift in perception with coöperation being the aim is a short-term goal of eminent importance, – even if this is against Pentagon advise.

Politically the new regime of Kim Jong-Un is more defiant to U.N. dictates than his predecessors, – just by still pursuing his nation’s nuclear aims. Neither stronger sanctions, nor the likely discontent of both Russia and China with his behaviour, appears to change North Korea’s young leader from its military driven aim and it is clear that only straight on discussions on both dismantling and cooperation might be helpful to change the perception that the US is not not the number one enemy, – as this is an inflated perception not based on any realistic facts, – unless the facts do change by further provocations by North Korea.

This is what the military leadership in North Korea needs to understand or facing the implications if North Korea indeed is going to face a nuclear threat for the region, with growing pressure from both China, Russia and the US.

The UN proved to be of no value to North Korea.

The aim is to get both China, Russia and the US on the same page of the strategic agenda as by not achieving this shift in perception with the North Korean leadership, this nation becomes a vey unpredictable nation at the potential cost of millions of people inside North Korea and outside its borders.

Hence steps of courage being required at the personal level to change those possible dynamics in history, as history will judge both in retrospect and relentless, on what “we” did to prevent “the North Korean problem” from evolving into a worst case scenario.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• North Korea sends nuclear warning by fax (independent.ie)
• S. Korea moving to extend soft loans to firms with ties to N. Korea (koreaherald.com)
• No Violence or Hatred Lacks a Cause: The Example of North Korea (ososabiouk.wordpress.com)
• N. Korea recalls deputy UNESCO envoy (koreaherald.com)
• Photography From the DMZ – North and South Korea’s Border – in Winter (theepochtimes.com)
• N. Korea may stage provocation against Seoul around March: think tank (koreaherald.com)
• North Korea’s ‘people’s ski resort’ is completed (thetimes.co.uk)
• Rob’s Resolution: The Black Hole that is North Korea (robertckirk.wordpress.com)
• This photo of Kim Jong Un riding a ski lift is North Korea’s way of flipping off Europe (washingtonpost.com)
• S. Korean FM to visit U.S. to discuss N. Korea, regional issues (koreaherald.com)

 

America’s Role In The Middle East – Justified?

English: youth orchestra of the middle east (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We shall live at last as free men on our soil, and die peacefully in our own homes”, – as Theodor Herzl once wrote in his book “The Jewish State“.

He wrote this almost a century ago, long before the concentration camps of Hitler, long before the increasing tensions in the Middle East, – not being aware that what he said now applies for most people living in the Middle East, the young and the old, the sick and the frail….

The tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, the tensions between some Arab nations with both each other but with Israel as well, – proved to be one of the most intractable and ever-lasting conflicts in modern history, not forgetting the history of thousands years ago. A conflict with still powerful impacts outside the boundaries of the Middle East, either on the price of oil or on the growth of global terrorism, – fended by those states getting increasing powerful.

The Middle East is both a dream and a reality, – the Middle East a frame-work for both interesting difference and evolving cultures, – but still a major threat to both international security and peace.

As one said years ago: “We have tears about Johannesburg”. This at the time of major friction in South Africa, with the risk of ripping South Africa apart and social unrest escalating into civil war. It did not happen finally as wisdom did reign by the actions of some.

Today can be said: “We have tears about the Middle East”, as neither Allah nor God, the same, – would approve any of the activities of those who hate, those who kill without reason.

Yesterday, – about 43% of US voters had the opinion that the United States was too much involved in the Middle East, some 15% did believe the US should offer broader involvement in the Middle East. Perhaps some 31% felt fine about the current level of US involvement in this part of the world. This has been the outcome of a recent Rasmussen Report with a 95% confidence level. In other words, the outcome of the Rasmussen Report was very close to give an correct idea of the American public at a time the role of the US in the Middle East takes a more central role, – as far as the confirmation hearings of the nominee Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel concerned.

Is this surprising?

Some may feel this is part of an ongoing worldwide conflict between the Islāmic world and the West, but such feeling is most questionable if we look at the Islāmic culture and it’s real traditions, – which by far the majority of people of Islāmic background is favoured. Most of the Islāmic people are hardworking people with a common faith and a common believe in family traditions and a common hope for peace on earth. Both for their children and themselves.

In essence their belief system is close to ours perhaps, where it goes to be tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, supportive to the striving and tolerant to both the strong and the weak. The tensions in the Middle East are not between regions or religions, it is not about the poor versus rich, but it is about those who hate, – and those who feed their hate with weapons of prejudice and destruction, with infiltration by night and attacking by day, – both at small and larger scale, – both with risk of massive escalation.

The current US Administration is sharing this view and it is about the last risk being mentioned that US involvement may shift to a broader involvement, – perhaps against public opinion, but with the aim to prevent an escalating situation where this is possible on reasonable terms.

Widespread coöperation is still possible, as illustrated eg by the famous Conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim‘s with his Youth Orchestra, – joined by young talented Arabs and Israelis. This was a real life show of musical harmony in the Middle East, a show as well that behind the scenes, behind the scenes of hard work, – those young people were able to share what they have in common, to share their humanity and their dreams regardless of what their Governments say. And as so often happens, – it became clear as well how many of those people who created for a brief moment musical harmony in the Middle East, – were influenced of what was spread by the media in their own countries, the prejudice of often their own Governments, affecting the nations of many people. People who don’t want to have anything to do with a new war, – don’t want to live in ongoing fear.

Musical harmony is great, as it bind souls and people in common endeavours, – regardless colour, race, identity or belief. It binds the people good at heart and intention, – being ready to work for harmony with the tool set of various instruments and skills, under the guidance of great and skilled Conductors, – Conductors encouraging people young in heart and spirit, encouraging people who are not blindfolded as yet by the common convictions of prejudice and hatred.

That’s about music and music needs harmony.

Those who persistently fail, either on purpose or lack in effort, – lack in effort to play their own role at such an Orchestra need to be replaced as they destroy the collective effort. The last does not need force, it requires reason, – and most of those participants make place for better ones, even if it takes an argument. But it is better to loose an argument than a friend. At the Orchestra of world politics, at the orchestra of politics in the Middle East, – repetitive exercise to get the best out of our endeavours is required as well. Required the repetitive exercise to increase the need of harmony, with the obligation players being ready to use their tools and instruments to make such harmony, this harmony all around, – despite differences, despite errors, despite tears at times.

 

When it was decided to go to the Moon, when it was decided to go for this goal, – it was not because it was easy but because it was hard. It was not because it was cheap but it was expensive and worthwhile to explore the wonders of nature, and to bring out the best of us in a common endeavour where everybody has it’s own role, – a role to bring those who were nominated and trained, – to visit that part of the universe not being explored as yet.

And yet, the universe of peace and harmony has never been explored that much, – as what music is able to do in harmony, as what we can in our efforts to explore the moon and all the others, – as what we are able to do in science and technology.

It is nearly as what Isaiah not literally once said almost 3000 years ago, – that the “prostitutes” do not only represent Rome, but that they represent all the corrupt powers, the evil powers and authorities of every age and every generation, powers still having their share in evil and massacres, – in immorality and abuse.

The Middle East is possibly the most dramatic scene of potential major violence, the most dramatic scene of emotions neither being controlled nor realistic. Ongoing conflict not being resolved, – as so many players are due to be replaced, as so many Governments are due to work through change in the spirit of hope and challenge to get the best out of our human endeavours.

Israel, some days ago, did sent warplanes into Syria with widespread condemnation of both Syria, Hezbollah and Iran, condemnation from Russia as well. Iran warned last week via Abdollahian that Iran would consider any attack on Syria as an attack on Iran itself.

Whilst world leaders try to seek aid for Syrians being the victims of their brutal regime, Israel’s warplanes did hit a convoy with surface-to-air missiles, likely Russian-made missile parts potentially being used in a possible pending attack on Israel. Those weapons were intended to be provided to Hezbollah in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran.

We know the Assad’s regime is failing after nearly two years of fending off the ongoing and justified rebellion, and Hezbollah probably wants to take hold of various weapons before the al-Assad regime gets crushed, – again supported by Syria when everything is lost. The last thing then to do is to divert the attention by supplying even chemical material to equip some of the Hezbollah Scud missiles. It is not surprising that Iran is responding the way it does, turning a blind eye to the violence inflicted by the Syrian authorities on its own people, but supporting Hezbollah inflicted violence, – providing a reason to retaliate if Israel would hit back.

Both White House spokesman Jay Carney and Victoria Nuland from the US State Department refused to comment on the Wednesday airstrike, with Israel not having much to comment either.

It looks like a simple incident but whilst the Syrian authorities are still entertaining their cruel efforts to hold on power with all means they have to kill, regardless age and gender, – the UN needs now to respond as requested by Syria and other nations, whilst Israel only tries and tried to prevent worse scenario’s as potentially being prepared.

Iran Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that Israel’s attack was “in line with the West’s policies of undermining the victories of the Syrian Government.”, with the ambassador for Syria in Lebanon saying that Syria reserves the right to a “surprise retaliation” against Israel .

Victories of the Syrian Government?

It shows how the dynamics are. It shows the evil in some existing systems not being overruled by the people younger in generation, avoiding conflict and war. Systems of evil being allowed at the Orchestra of world politics to kill eg it’s own citizens at massive scale, not in the name of Allah, – but in the name of corruption and holding on too brutal power. Syria eg again is a prime example, apart from a few other countries.

This is the reason that the US needs to keep a very close eye on the dangerous dynamics in the Middle East, – as those dynamics changing in a war machine of preparation affect us all once they escalate.

Neither music nor Conductors can change this, but the power of people and real leaders may change this when the efforts are there, – and the wind has been taken away from the sails of those who hate, those who kill regardless gender or age.

What happens here has neither to do with the authenticity of the Islam culture nor with a worldwide conflict between those who represent the West and those who have an Islāmic background. It’s the conflict between barbaric or evil elements and culture, the conflict between evil and civilisation. It’s about the insight that the travel of prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry is fatal

Like the famous Conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim’s Youth Orchestra showed the coöperation between young Arabs and Israelis, who found common ground in the way we are as a people, – it’s the next generation of youngsters perhaps who may offer peace and coöperation in the Middle East, after all the evil offending participants have been taken away from the political arena of the Middle East.

Hence wisdom and restraint being required until this happens, but the day will come, – and we are all waiting for this.

It is like Gandhi once wrote: “Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.”

The time may come that war is asking us what we were doing all the time before it started, – and this is the reason that US role in the Middle East is vital until a new generation of peace makers takes over. Whilst wisdom is a matter of reflection, long and hard before we act, – it is Israel who failed to withdraw from the West Bank, Hamas and Hezbollah continuing to mount attacks on Israeli’s citizens leading to military responses by Israel. All this serves fuelling the hatred against Israel with the USA being Israel’s major supporter, but the Middle East dynamics support as well the murderous activities of groups like al- Qaeda. It supports as well other evil systems in the Middle East, – and hatred seems to be the irrational engine of all activities of violence.

It seems hatred is the longest lasting pleasure in the Middle East, creative in it’s dynamic’s but creative as well as to the extinction of values and human rights, – hence our support for those youngsters turning away from the “masters” of hate, working on the harmony among people from all different backgrounds, – like some may find in the harmonies of music. Those people are the people who represent somehow the will of both God and Allah, – the same. And during their endeavours of tuning their instruments and playing together, – they will meet each other from heart to heart and work out the reason for which they were created, …regardless the settlements, the military, the defeat, and the tears at times.

Meanwhile the US needs to play its role. Trying to enforce peace in the mindset of people not ready for it is like painting on a wet wall. It does not help. Vision and mission to create an enduring peace and an enduring cooperation requires leadership receptive for the sentiments of all parties, – besides deep trustworthiness. We are not there as yet. We may not do it in this generation and even not perhaps in the next generation.

The main emphasis when people are not ready to talk and get a real understanding from where they are coming from is to try and avoid conflict and balance the powers as good as possible.

Israel is entitled to defend itself against eminent significant threats.

America’s role in the Middle East is an important one with an adequate US Administration now being place, as through reasoning and diplomatic actions with the right mind and skill set, – to give diversity and hopefully “non violence” a place. trustworthiness in any endeavours may give the cement to keep a fragile peace the least, ..and the last is more important than no peace at all. Whilst the US has obviously an important and influential role, – it’s not only the responsibility of the US as there is something like a “global responsibility” as well. A responsibility of nations being prepared, nations being able, – to take this supportive role on board.

Peace in the Middle East is a process of many little positive actions, providing forums where people can meet face to face to dissolve hatred and hardline policies. The US and others perhaps can only be the facilitator, – as when nothing changes in the heart and mindset of people, nothing will change in the world of the Middle East.

Finally, – history shows that the root of most evils is hatred. The art of real leadership when the heat is going up, amidst the dynamics of hatred, – is to try to diffuse the last in the most reasonable acts to prevent this hatred flowing into the most irreversible deeds of evil. Whilst this is not always possible, those acts are justified. Those acts like straight on meetings with enemies or foes need both talent and skill, besides foremost great compassionate and deep rooted courage. The courage not to refrain from encouraging both opponents or foes to renewal and change, – not to refrain from trying to rejuvenate responsible and reasonable thinking. And if possible, not to refrain from trying to prevent hardening existing perceptions, – as perceptions may soften in humble face to face meetings perhaps.

This is what seems to be required in the Middle East,
to prevent the tears of future generations….

The point is, – we either die together or we live together!

We can put up walls, – or build a cathedral!

Sure?

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Related articles

• Kerry to Travel to Middle East on New Year’s Day – Voice of America (voanews.com)
• The Russian Bear steps in as the American Empire Unravels in the Middle East (activistposter.wordpress.com)
• Iran named largest cement producer in Middle East (theiranproject.com)
• Subsea cable, which is part-owned by Middle East telcos, was infiltrated by NSA (insomniadiary.wordpress.com)
• Gerald Celente ~ 2014-Middle East Total Turmoil and Financial Crisis [Video] (shiftfrequency.com)
• Twelve Editorial Staff Rules for the Great International Media When the News is from the Middle East (thatrandomcandidate.com)
• Analysis: Despite plight of Mideast Christians, some leaders still single out Israel (jpost.com)
• Putin & the Iran Problem (english.pravda.ru)
• So the Middle East ‘Killing Fields’ Journalist (technologyka.wordpress.com)
• Why I Love Traveling in the Middle East (planetbell.me)

 

The Question Of Character And Courage

“Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose”
–Tom Krause

–>>

…We thought about it and we spoke about it for many years already and It has gone through our minds, perhaps someway for ages.

Not for everybody but for some.

Often we did see the examples in day to day life and we admired them wishing it could be our own, – less often we did read about it, in the papers or in some books perhaps, – besides from what we were able to see on TV, in documentaries or on DVD‘s

Do you remember the question going through your heart and mind as well?

Did we fail at times that we were running low and progress was slow, did we fail at the times we forgot about it as things seemed well, and there was perhaps no reason to ask again, – or to raise again the issue of character and courage?

We like to be of good character or want to be seen as such. We like to have courage and faith but there are moments we fail in both courage and good character. Not that those incidents give a fair assessment on the total of our actions, – but simply the fact is that we are never always good in character, or always good in showing courage.

Is this an “open door”?

Yes, – it is, as trying to get to the bottom of the question of character and courage a fair assessment is required.

We like to be true to ourselves as well, but not always are we true to our real self. As I said once, freedom and choice are indivisible and need to be earned and conquered each day,each week and each month, – and the sum of those efforts may work in favour of both our character and our courage. Both courage and character are indivisible as well, – like so many things are related or interrelated.

Whilst the secret of happiness is perhaps freedom, using the gift of choice the greatest potential, – the secret of freedom is courage. The last implying being able to make the right choice under any circumstances.

A matter of character as well.

For sure any of us will have our weak moments as long as we raise when the storm sets in, – even when the storm imposes a strain or challenge on our position or principles, – when it imposes a risk for ourselves, our future and other things perhaps. When the storm comes the leaves may fly away as long as the tree stands firm, and when the storm settles, like so many storms, – the tree may start a new season as no storm will leave nature unmoved. It’s part of life, – it depends how we are grounded, being firm in our convictions or weak in our principles.

There are many small actions of character and courage, often shown when “we feel like it” or were “in the frame of mind” to do so.

Those actions are neither dramatic or huge as the actions of those leaders who at the right frame of mind, at both the right place and the right time in history, were able to turn events in favour of greater change for humanity, – nor are they as dramatic as the courage of the last moments when we are facing death.

Speaking about the very last, – this crossed my mind when a young woman in her 40ties got cancer. Her family around her and her older sister were there when her time came. They had their memories, laughter and sadness, but when she died it could be seen that she went back to her own Creator. She took her death with peace as she knew she went back where we all came from, despite the agony and pain at times. When this happens in your family, losing loved ones at young age, – you realise there are only a few things in life which really matter. It’s a small thing only to have been able in life to enjoy the sun, a small thing to have lived light in the spring, – to have both loved and done when we “leave our footprints on the sands of time.” And even those footprints will be wiped away as time evolves and little will be remembered, unless we showed both great love and courage. In this it’s all about the courage to love , the courage to live and the courage to leave a legacy, – besides the courage to face death when the last is facing us.

So courage again, in general, is important, – but the courage to love as well, the compassion of doing the things being both right and good at every point of testing. The courage to live life in such away as if every day could be the last one. This takes besides having a mental alertness to have courage, both in the simple things but in particular at times of adversity, at times meeting the facts of life, at times when it is required to go straight at things without dodging them. It means as well we have to pick up or seize the vital issue in a complex matter, without getting wounded by running away from it.

Long before he became US President, John F Kennedy did write a book about “Profiles in Courage“. A study of men in the historical and political arena of the US where they stood firm on their principles at times of challenge in either the US Senate or the House of Representatives (apart from some other area’s), – at times when crucial decisions were due to be made and the balance between conscious and public opinion or “public favour” were tense, at times when both the public and colleagues were hostile.

Courage is not about the past, it is about the future, – and therefore the examples of courage are so important.

So many examples!

The soldiers who save their mates at the battlefield at risk for their own lives, the people fighting for human rights and going into areas and questioning the areas of controversy at risk for their lives, the courage to stand up when it is required for either a good cause or in a speech when the real issues need to be challenged. But also the people who stand out to help those at times of disaster, – bushfires, massive flooding and earthquakes etc, – all often not without risk for own life.

The “New Frontiers” of Kennedy were neither East nor West, neither South nor North, – but in his own time as US President where he fronted the facts as they were. At the level of President Obama we find an untroubled spirit who tends to look at things in the face as how he meet them, and know them for what they are, – dealing with them at the right time and place.

Courage, – the combination of bravery at times, integrity more at times, – based on principles. And life is the arena where we are tested on those virtues, each of us at times under excessive pressure, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation and constant in praying, – for those who pray within the silence of our Creator.

This is one of the dimensions of courage.

As Bob Greene once said: “You need to know what life you want (as well as what life you don’t want), then you have to muster up the will and the drive to go after it.”

This is courage as well.

Courage is like a diamond, “unbreakable”, with a hardness and the sort of light dispensing, – allowing to show people the various dimension of the light it reflects. As a gemstone it is a highly valued commodity, but courage in human life is an essential commodity, – not as highly traded perhaps but being graded as the one and only virtue at each testing point in life’s endeavours.

As the Roman poet Horace once wrote more than 2000 years ago: “Tomorrow we take our course once more over the mighty seas.”

It takes courage to do this, it takes courage to be the housewife with 4 children and going every day over the mighty seas of friction and care for loved ones, when the income is low and the prices are high.

Courage is “grace under pressure” as Ernest Hemingway once said, but it takes courage to raise the sails if the winds of grace are blowing, – and they don’t blow every day. At times it is easier said than done when the oil of daily life is going through our troubled sea of thoughts, as life may face some of us this way, – preventing to keep our mind smooth and equable.

Tough times can come when we are at our weakest point, and raising up to be the “unbreakable diamond” we want to be may arise at the worst possible times, as we may be discouraged as human beings as due to ongoing misery, – as due to staring at the water without being able to cross the sea.

Blessed are those who keep our hopes up in those circumstances.

The circumstances when we can’t get into the mountain ranges as due to the desert where human feet can’t go, – as due to the ends of unknown seas when neither wind nor sails are the tools we normally use to find direction. Human life has those circumstances where there is neither boat nor sails, neither the morning breeze at a blue ocean nor the sight of a destiny.

Perhaps it was once there, but for some it has gone from their sight, – those being depressed under the most horrendous circumstances of both poverty and abuse, – deprived from education and diminished in self-destructive perceptions.

That’s life, – a mixture of both tragedy and triumph, both with implications and expectations, both with dangers and failures all around.

But still, as once the 3rd  US President said: “One man with courage is a majority.”

From that point it is true that the courage of “one man standing up for an ideal” as Robert Kennedy once said, standing up to improve the lot of others, others who suffer the implications of injustice, – is an act of courage as well.

The courage of helping those with neither hope nor courage. The courage to send forth the implications of peace, against oppression and resistance. The courage to build up a current in which people can raise their tiny sails on restless boats, – to cross the barriers and waters they have to cross to build a life for their own, both with value and dignity.

“The world is a lost place” as some would say, – however not for those who judge themselves on the contributions they have to make, and the goals they have to shape, – to improve the lot of others.

And then when we have to face death ourselves as part of an eternal cycle, – the question is not how much money we made. The question is whether we tried “to love our neighbour as ourselves” and whether we made a genuine effort to improve the lot of those who really needed this.

Indeed, when we are going back from where we came, the only one Creator, – our time has gone, our attitude has gone, both our joy and abundance have gone, – but what stays in the twilight of memory, in the actions of people we had an impact on, is whether our private chart during our discovery on both the earth and the sea did contain the light of spring: that we have loved and done, that have done and loved.

This is what takes courage, – courage in sustained ways, but also the courage of the diamond with that single strong reflection which holds everything together, – by sharing it freely from our heart and spirit, in whatever life asks us to do in all those things we need to do.

This is a question of courage and character, a question of encouragement or discouragement, – the question or ask to be a sparkling light as we have the privilege of a free choice to be this way.

This is what matters most, the question of character and courage, – the matter of grace under pressure and the ability to make the right distinctions when the heat is on, – all this with wisdom and perseverance.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• change and courage…….. (fancythots.wordpress.com)
• Courage doesn’t… (victorialittle.wordpress.com)
• Finding the courage to enjoy social nudity (nickysworld.wordpress.com)
• & you need to be fearless… (andlivefreely.wordpress.com)
• 5 Emotional Strategies – 2014 (dietrying999.wordpress.com)
• On Courage, Vulnerability, and Just Being Human – Love removes us from our pedestal (soshitech.com)
• Israel boycott ‘courageous act’: Analyst (rinf.com)
• Courage (donnapiper.wordpress.com)
• Finding the courage to enjoy social nudity (portugalnaturista2020.wordpress.com)
• The Man From the North: Impossible Courage by Rivera Sun (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)

 

The Question As How To Serve…

Albert Schweitzer, Etching by Arthur William Heintzelman. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

–Marten Luther King,Jr.

“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”

—Robert F. Kennedy

“We need to find the courage to say NO to the things and people that are not serving us if we want to rediscover ourselves and live our lives with authenticity.”
—Barbara de Angelis

SOME PEOPLE ASKED  me in which way they could serve in the best possible way, – and I smiled because they asked me.

For those who don’t know, I serve my patients from a comfortable position being paid as a Family Physician in Australia. However I love what I do and look with gratitude on the things I received and still receive, – knowing that in all of this I am dependent on the work many people did before I was born, and during the time of my life until the present.

The best answer on the question as how to serve in the best possible ways can be given by those who serve or served best.

Those who went out in any kind of wilderness, – lacking money and recourses and build up their heartfelt dreams.

There are different ways of serving.

I have neither vivid memory on my school friend who died to early at the age of 6 as due to childhood cancer, nor do I remember his face, – but he “served” me in the way he died with a peace you don’t often see.

Besides this he left me with one of Bach‘s most beautiful organ plays, played by Albert Schweitzer. This left me at an early place in life with a memory on something different from life itself. I am still grateful that this old school friend passed my way, not because of what he was, – but of what he was able to “plant” without knowing it.

Sometimes, many years later, we do realise. In a way this is a secret of a kind we need to cherish, not by speaking about it when we do realise, but by allowing it to grow. So are human encounters at times of a nature we better not speak about, but our “awareness” is enough on its own and as such we respect life as it is without touching it. On other occasions we do good to show our gratitude at least ten times more than we tend to do.

There are 100 billionaires all over the world who could wipe out hunger with little more contribution. The difference between rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger. Some of them indeed do contribute but they are not the people who work in the front line against poverty, against war and against various abuses of human rights. If people ask me as how to serve, I tend to say to look at those people who do and find the answer in your own heart.

We are limited perhaps in our potential as due to nature and living conditions but there is neither limit nor ceiling to our potential to love and work our imagination the desired direction in our own circumstances.

It is as Albert Schweitzer once wrote about his work in Lambarena less then 100 years ago, – that anybody can create his or her’s own Lambarena. An affirmation only to illustrate that everyone can create his or her’s domain of care, and serve as such. Those who care do serve and the options are endless. Many examples are not seen by the world or valued for what they are.
Child soldiers who lost their innocence at an age far too young. Many of them did do terrible things but some of them reacted amazingly well by saving lives. People who fight the cruelty in central Africa, – within the domain of strong discomfort but perhaps with peace at heart. People who reach out without fame or name, saving friends and family amidst war.

Fire- fighters entering houses with people, children, at risk to be burned, and they do this at risk for their own life. People providing aid in Syria now. Fathers and mothers protecting their children in the Congo, without caring for themselves anymore. People providing polio vaccinations in Pakistan despite Taliban death threats. Journalists working at the forefront of all those things to bring the news, at risk of their own life.

Human encounters are essential before being able to serve as the memory of some people may enlarge what we are able to do.

And in our memory those people deserve honour.

The question as how to serve best is an interesting question, but much depends on the situation where you are and on both your desires and imagination, besides the level of love you feel for those desires.

Sometimes people may be put in a situation where they have no other choice than to serve as staying on the side line would be betrayal of one’s own conscience. Sometimes people go out and meet those situations by
choice.

Again it’s hard to say.

One thing is sure, we can’t wait for the moment everything and everything is ready because in such case we are not likely to begin to serve or reach out.

The other thing is true as well, – true that if we want to work on a dream, to build a ship, – that it is no point to drum up the people to collect the wood and other material. That there is no point to give them tasks of the work due to be done. Working this way is an error of judgement, as the starting point is to help people see what you see, and teach them the ways to get the dream into a reality, – to help them to buy into the endeavour themselves, and then it’s time to collect the wood and all the other things.

Faith is to believe the things you don’t see, rewarded at times by seeing the things you believe. Time might seem to be a limiting factor but not where it comes to the frequency of love. Love is the prime substance of both our life and nature, the prime substance of both earth and heaven. Without this love there would be neither cosmos nor sun, neither earth nor life.

“For everything there is a time and place”, – so to say.

The other thing being true is that you don’t travel as you think, but you think as you travel. Neither is it true that as you attract you do love, – but as you love you do attract. True love and real care are indispensable and we don’t always touch what is beautiful, neither do we lose the opportunity to see anything which is beautiful, – whether it is a fair face or a plant, a fair sky or a dark cloud. We absorb the seeds in our own soul and this gives life, – and may give direction as where to go, as alert we need to be. One spark of fire may light ourselves and from that fire we may light the world. None of us is too small to serve and freedom can be gained by giving more of ourselves.

Real love may reach the frequency of “the universe”, the last which may transform us as a transitional “human-being”, – through the awesome grace of God.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Related articles

• Ex-homeless man now serves those in need (TBO.com)
• A week of Sundays? (blowfisharmageddon.com)
• Beyond The Walls (echothechurch.wordpress.com)
• Lost Girl 4.07 – La Fae Epoque (weareunaligned.com)
• Mortality Salience Awareness (nplusonemag.com)
• True Change- A Call to G-d (xntricproductions.wordpress.com)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (inc.com)
• 2013 To 2014: Rekindle Another’s Spirit (kdhhealthcomm.wordpress.com)
• Just beyond the Mile…… (redzhis.com)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (jeremiahtillman.wordpress.com)

 

To Cross The Waves Of Time..

“I look up to the people who keep dancing even after the music has stopped, because those are the people who keep on trying even after all hope is lost” – unknown origin

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner” —Nelson Mandela

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”

—Martin Luther King. Jr.

“We are the creative force of our life, and through our own decisions rather than our conditions, if we carefully learn to do certain things, we can accomplish those goals” —Stephen Covey

>>>>>>>>>>>

The GREAT thing of our time is not where we stand today, – but in what direction we are moving tomorrow.

Whilst it has been on the news today that more children are charged with violent crimes, that our nation in part is under fire, that sea-levels -as predicted are indeed going to rise with Queensland authorities contemplating action for the lower areas at the coast, that sex abuse victims are still waiting for justice, that the court hears details of the recent shooting horror in the US etc, – the great thing of tomorrow is not to be defeated by the realities of yesterday. That leadership at all levels will hopefully gain the skills and knowledge to: “Obtain Peace that will surpass your understanding”.

Our understanding so to say.

However this type of leadership is largely controlled by the condition of both our heart and conscious, – together with our mind, and the tools of both our knowledge and skills.

Being on holiday so close to the Ocean, I will speak about the Ocean today, – the Ocean both as an inspiration and force.

The Ocean as a desperation for some and an aspiration for others.

Being just near the Ocean during just a brief holiday, – it does cross my mind that “thought” is like the wind. That it is “knowledge” which is like the sail, and that it is “mankind” like being the vessel preparing to sail, – what we say for the unpredictable waves of the ocean, unpredictable they can be.

There is no easy sailing and there is no easy ocean, – but every day we need to be prepared to take our own course, – again and again over the mighty seas.

Get my point?

Not really perhaps..

The Ocean provides different words and connections perhaps.

The winds of compassion will be always blowing. There will be always sounds which we can hear.

Whilst we may always see the light which we can “see”, the only thing to do is to raise our sails to catch the wind of compassion, – as the last provides the required movement.

The last is the perhaps most important addition to above leadership features. There are many “excellent and effective” leaders.

However where compassion or conscious fails, – leadership does fail, at any time in the bigger picture of our time.

Interesting?

Blessed those who have souls which hear “the sounds”, and see “the light”, – as they have a “inner society” in themselves.

This is the “mini society” with none intrudes, but this is the type of society which has desires. Nobody can take this away. Like we are part of the cosmos, an impression of the cosmos, – we have a little cosmos in ourselves. With feelings we not always can control, but with desires we can control  and  both imagination and love to give our future direction.

Simply said spirit or conscious first, and then heart and mind. Heart and mind, – the heart being the base of our desires.

Conscious which needs to control our desires.

Blessed are those who have both desires and dreams as a result of the last, based on good conscience without “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”.

Blessed are those who have dreams which carry the rhythmic flowing harmony of the Ocean.

Those who carry as well the free confined force of Ocean, – unconfined the force of the Ocean can be.

Blessed are those being able to use the force of Ocean, – helping us to cross the waves of time.

Sorry, –  the Ocean again!  The Ocean just as  a  symbol  for both force and  inspiration.

In the long-term of history somehow we came from the Ocean and at some stage we will go back to the Ocean. But in the total picture we may see it differently. Nobody asks what we do owe to the sun, as without sun there would be neither life on this planet nor waves in the ocean.

History shows that changes are coming from the little things, tiny waves perhaps. Tiny waves in the cosmos perhaps with major implications in terms of the ability of human perceptions

A slave who became the second in command in ancient Egypt, – through God’s love.

A shepherd who became Israel’s most famous king, – imperfect as he was, – the first through God’s love.

A 20 years held prisoner who became the first South African President, with a wisdom to unite, – the last as an impression of the universe with a desire to bring together what was lost. At that stage he was at an age most of us would be retired, – but on the frequency of love as part of cosmic creation there is no barrier or ceiling on the possibilities of human endeavours.

An African-American native-born in Hawaii who became the most impressive US President since many years. He crossed the waves of his time from working as a community leader in one of the ghetto’s of Chicago to the Presidency of the United States. For those who believe nothing is impossible.

The list goes on and will endure.

And so we see the need for people to be prepared with some of the precious gifts of heaven, – for the leadership we need.

The last will keep the world equable at the roughest storms to come.

To “cross the waves of time” in our times, – self-control is essential for any kind of leadership. Leadership on its own can’t be confused with control but the best control is perhaps self-leadership based on vision and mission, – based on values and principles, all being devoted on what life asks us to do in our domain of influence. Life which asks from us to do things with the best possible desires, the best possible imagination and enough love to support our desires and imaginations.

It’s a challenge!

And if we look around it’s already difficult enough to cross the waves of OUR times, not even to speak about “to cross the waves of time”, as this sounds endless. But as the Ocean has been nearly timeless in human history, every time when we are near the Ocean we may be both impressed by the abundance of the seas, the abundance of what we see and not see. The abundance of what we may believe and may see.

Meanwhile:

Freedom and choice are indivisible, they need to be earned and conquered, – guided by our internal ability to give direction, – each day anew, TIME AFTER TIME!

There is no thrill in easy sailing, but there is satisfaction when we reach our destination.

Does this require courage?

Yes, it does! The courage to see things as they are and try to see them different, – and once you see them different things will become different. All it comes to is to raise the sails and catch the winds of compassion, leading you to an unknown destination. This journey on it’s own will be one of struggle, movement and struggle, – movement and high seas. But the movement itself will balance the required energies, with the security of your own compass. With the security that any positive wave will create new waves providing a ripple effect of hope. Raising the sails to catch the wind of compassion requires already hope and conviction on its own. It requires a selective mind with the right sense of timing, but again (last but not least), – hope. Wisdom is the light by day, hope is the protection by night. Time does not move hour to hour on the sea of those endeavours, but from moment to moment.

There comes a time when land and sea come to rest, but not our hope. There comes even a time when the heavens withdraw, but not our hope. It’s the hope when our world gives up that something in us says to give it one more time. Whilst we may get weary, hope says not to give up when we know the direction is right. Hope, being well centred and balanced whilst the sails are catching indeed the winds of compassion, is the most powerful tonic.

When the time comes when it looks like that even the heavens withdraw, – those who once raised the sails in the winds of compassion, to cross the waves of time, (whether it “our time” or “all times”) – may rest from their journey, when we did what we had to do.

“Why not?”

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Related articles

• The Facts Behind Ocean Waves (geography.answers.com)
• Eternal Waves (summerjunes.wordpress.com)
• Exploring the Power of Creativity: An Article (creativityisrevolution.wordpress.com)
• Take A Vacation In Ocean City, Maryland (itrip.net)
• Comment: How the US isolated and starved a Mexican village (sbs.com.au)
• Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice (frontpagemag.com)
• Which Way? Which Way? (firstmateslog.wordpress.com)
• The Ocean Is Broken (readersupportednews.org)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (inc.com)
• Day 183. Conspiracy (opttrajphot.wordpress.com)

 

We dream of things that never were and say: “Why not?”

Kennedy giving his speech on Martin Luther King, Jr.. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life; define yourself.” — Robert Frost

–

“We must be willing to let go of the life we planned in order to have the life that is waiting for us.” — Joseph Campbell

–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCrx_u3825g

–

“You see things; and you say ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?’” —George Bernard Shaw

Being asked at some stage why this blog had the pretentious title; “We dream about things that never were and say: why not?”, – I refer back to one of the plays of George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) “Back to Methuselah“, which actually is a series of five plays on its own.

In “Back to Methuselah” the above quote is used by The Serpent to Eve in the Garden of Eden. The play was performed for the first time in New York City at the Garrick Theatre in 1922 and entailed for the time a most interesting science fiction fantasy which took three nights to do.

The former US Senator and assassinated Presidential Candidate Robert F Kennedy (1968) borrowed this quote and said it differently: “Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?”

Kennedy and Martin Luther King were the people at the forefront for change in the United States during the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King was assassinated just a couple of months before Robert Kennedy was killed.

The movement for change came to a standstill, the Vietnam War escalated, – social issues to be developed in the US were put on hold. The last until the movement for change embodied in President Barack Obama evolved into a new episode in US history, at a time crucial for various developments in the world.

If the further movement for change on issues of human rights, on Peace and International Stability requires to get stronger, and if the quote in above fiction play (from Bernard Shaw) is being allowed to embody a stronger emphasis, then the “I” part in the quote needs to be changed in the “We” part.

We are all strongly interdependent and if the “dream” in whatever entity resonates as a ripple effect across the generations, like the waves are coming and going but (!) always coming in terms of new energy, “We” may create a movement eventually which breaks the obstacles for Peace and stability, the obstacles to reduce poverty and keep the ingredients to protect this small planet against  climate changes and other disruptions of various nature.

We dream of things that never were and say: “Why not?”, reflects a shift in perception so to say.  A shift in thinking where new and better options are explored, new ways discovered. Where the creativity from the  right part of the  brain takes over the reactive activity from the  left side of the  brain, the last where those activities are not balanced in the actions of people. Actions which are not right and call for change. Actions which require passion and creative thought for peace and development.

Where conscious activities take over the activities from the mind, as it is not the mind which dictates the outcome of the future, the first determines then the outcome of our common activities.

Obviously we can do this as people in breaking with the past where this is required and at times we do this by choice, – using this gift we all have.

At the end it is not “I” it is “We”!

 

There is no pretentious aim in the title of this blog, – as it is not about “me”, it is about “We” as a people, “We” as people, “We” embodied in the future with plenty of issues to be resolved. “We” who bear both the seeds of potential and defeat.

Defeat we had, potential we need.

Far too often we see the scary demeanour of empty confidence and coolness in this world.

People who both often speak too noisy with overbearing pride. People often who build their lives at a cost of others, –the last not rarely with intolerance and suppression. We see this in families, our communities, in organisations where people are still able to manage from inflated principles, – and finally we see this in our country and many countries around us.

Often in “the culture” as well of our political systems, – whether they are democratic or the opposite.

The more suppression there is the more violence it may create, with violence creating retaliation and retaliation creating more violence, – whether this is the violence in our demeanour or the violence of a society.

Again and too often we see the sickness of not rarely whole societies, – with true respect for those who turn against it. And too often as well again we see the sickness of the souls of those people with the kind of sickness we are neither able to remove nor to heal.

What we can remove however is the hidden sickness of our own souls and shine as brightly as we can, – knowing that we don’t live in a perfect world. But the last thing which remains by free choice is trying to take away some part of the misery of humanity and this world, when it comes our way drop by drop and piece by piece, – either by coincidence or by choice.

In the final analysis as human beings, – we have the last choice. And again this is not about “Me or I”, but it is about “We”, – where the sum of our individual activities do help to call the trumpet of our collective activities. The last in alignment with a massive human orchestra, directed perhaps by those conductors representing global efforts in favour of increasing international coöperation on the issues of our time.

This part is not seeing things and standing by only, – and wondering “why?”. This is part of the active process of “Dreaming things that never were and say: Why not?” A creative and proactive activity, an ongoing movement for change where only “we” as a people can  make this change.

In the broader sense of the word it is a team effort of gigantic proportions, which does not fail when one of the leaders would be assassinated, but where the group activity would make sure that the anti-movement would be eliminated by the proper law enforcement which would be the fruit of our collective endeavours, – and the movement would endure, regardless death, which surrounds us day by day.

Whilst the reality of this world may make many of us pessimistic, – the power of being hopeful and believing in the potential goodness of human nature and going beyond the realities of ignorance and violence, – provides us with the seeds to “Dream things which never were and say: “Why not?”

So let us go forth therefore unto keeping the human spirit alive, against all odds.

Let us go forth into the field where we are able to touch the lives of others who walk in “the dark”, whether they are rich or poor, – whether they represent countries in regression or under repression. As both in our communities we are able to offer the peace which helps people to move forward and inevitably among countries as well, – we are able to support those who need guidance. Not the support of weapons, which only give destruction and not the provision of hope, – but the support to inhabit this planet within the range of our human destiny where forces against its survival can be controlled by the rational end of the human spirit.

The last to be shared with the vigilant efforts within our families, communities and finally between countries, – where law enforcement on peace, human rights and the protection of our environment is not impossible.

Not even impossible in times where annihilation still is possible, – when people can’t do without this enforcement on peaceful efforts to settle disputes of any kind.

Therefore we need to continue to dream things that never were and continue to say, – as acting we must: “Why not?” Each time and in each generation those efforts need to be renewed. Each time and in each generation new identities need to be evolved to combat the danger of evil spirits and evil movements, – whether it is organised crime or human trafficking, whether it applies to countries who foo the world or people who represent terrorist activities.

Where non-violence needs to be the universal aim, – violence can’t be always prevented as ready we need to be to combat the risks of greater destructions.

Never ever we will live in a perfect world. Never ever will there be an enduring peace as there is always the risk of conflict. But “We” as a people need to dream things to create the antidote for the evils of humanity, – which is an active process starting at the base of our own conscience in all our day to day activities where we have to make choices, where we have to make choices to make things better or bitter.

Therefore we have to dream things which never were and say” Why not?” Not because the people have to do it for us, but we have to do it for the people, for those who deserve our care and compassion.

Again lastly (I touched base on this before), the last responsibility we have as people is to remove the hidden sickness of our own souls. Either the sickness from the past or the present, which manifest itself in small and often unnoticed deeds. It’s a process of personal growth which means we need to leave certain things behind us and replace this by better things today and shine as such as brightly as we can.

After sustaining and surviving the most horrible experiments in 2nd WW concentration camps, –  it is as Victor Frankl once said about choice.

Indeed, at the end we have a free choice.

They can take away everything from us, and even at the last moment we have the final choice as how to respond or not respond at all anymore.

So neither death nor life needs to face us in the things we don’t understand, as long we play our own part on this little planet.

At the end nothing is terminal, everything is transitional, – even where death separates us from our duties here on earth.

But the duties continue in hopefully endless generations to come, each with its specific problems where man made problems need to be resolved.

And finally therefore the “We” part in saying we dream things that never were and say “Why not?” is so important, because the power of our collective dreams for a better world in action creates a ripple effect which can’t be stopped, – neither today nor tomorrow!

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/the-question-as-how-to-serve/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/rest-well-golden-eagle-in-memory-of-nelson-mandela/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/to-sweep-down-the-mightiest-walls-of-oppression-against-our-human-rights-and-create-the-biggest-movement-on-earth/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/peace/

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/our-future-lies-in-our-children-as-well/

–

Challenges of our times and generation

–

Related articles

• An Englishman in New York (hiscoxusa.com)
• Letters to Writers – On Making Mistakes (G.B. Shaw) (contemplatinglove.com)
• George Bernard Shaw in his own words. (oneworldchronicle.com)
• Creating Oneself (aryasowl.wordpress.com)
• Dreams (christianmotivations.weebly.com)
• Unkind Postures of the Boss (spyghana.com)
• They’re All Mad (theburningplatform.com)
• Happy New Year!! (docreits.com)
• 365 Quotes to Inspire You in 2014 (inc.com)
• Everyone had a friend in Cynthia (muscatinejournal.com)

Some predictions for 2013 after 2012?

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN07 – John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts (Democrat), USA captured during the session ‘The Future of the Middle East’ at the Annual Meeting 2007 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2007. Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>”Don’t sweat the small stuff when so much else matters.”<

Predictions are not always easy and sometimes impossible. We have one certainty and this is that not nothing is certain. Our agenda for tomorrow based on today or yesterday may well work out, but sometimes it may get disrupted by the unexpected and we have to deal with things as they face us. The day may end differently than we expected, despite a good start perhaps and despite the fact that we assumed everything would by all right.

The same applies to predictions on a New Year, we hope for the best but nothing is certain. Same applies to the weather forecast. We may have good grounds to say it will be a sunny day tomorrow and go to the beach, but we may have to change plans as it proves to be a rainy day with a thunderstorm after eg a very humid day. Let’s be happy that the forecast that the world would end on the 20th of December was nonsense, nobody is able to predict those things.

In other words we may have our intentions but we are not sure whether they come true. Hence what I have to say about 2013 is based on assumptions, based on trends and certain facts perhaps but knowing as well that everything can be changed by the unexpected. In other words and if you like, read what is written below for your pleasure only. It is written by a country Physician, – so be on your guard as Physicians are not supposed to know anything about the future, not to speak about international developments. However what is said is not too difficult and perhaps we all know about it already. Besides this there is no pretension to be complete on those things as completeness on those things as far beyond our abilities.

2012 was for sure not the most dramatic year fortunately. As I said the world did not come to an end and for some this was a bonus, if they were aware of those predictions. Still there have been plenty of issues in 2012 with the seeds of events setting the scene for 2013. This includes eg the launch of a long-range rocket in North Korea, a country with just a new young leader.We had the conflict between Israel and Gaza, or actually as well the non – coöperation from Israel towards a new Palestinian State next door with still clearly significant Hamas impact and the potential of new rocket attacks from East Jerusalem, – if again a conflict situation. Hamas still being supported by Iran, not particularly Israels biggest ally so to say. We all know this. Nothing new. There has been always friction in this area.. Even in the Old Testament there were many reflections on struggle and endless fights. The problem now is that we have different means to start war’s. It’s a bit scary at times. Iran’s nuclear ambitions within this context are only adding oil on fear.

The ongoing civil war in Syria with endless killings and with the remote risk of escalation is an other example, and sadly spoken there is no reference for life at all in Syria (its leaders).. The only thing which is positive after the international community being tight into “non action” is that Russia is getting a bit over Syria with its troubles as well, which may aid international coöperation to end this pointless conflict, – based on a dictator hanging in for power. It’s a terrible example.

There are the current tensions between China and Japan about an absolute insignificant rock in the ocean, which means apparently enough for those countries to send Navy vessels to this direction. And we all hope that no idiot will start to sink a ship in this breeding conflict as little things can have major implications. However feel assured, neither the Chinese nor the Japanese are idiots, they need to show to their own people that they take this issue serious. However one may ask for what reason. One miscalculation or error in judgement may ruin plans. Interestingly Kennedy during the missile Cuba crisis in 1962 was at the end more concerned about his own Generals than about the leader of the Soviet Union at the time. Gives an indication perhaps that playing with fire may give unexpectedly a fire and sometimes a big one.

The continuation of Obama’s Presidency in 2013 may cause him more grey hairs, but his team approach will help to set the tone of international developments where both wisdom action and restraint are more balanced when the election outcome would have been differently. History has not always been that lucky.

Syrian dictator Assad still being in office with all the ongoing massacres will drive him into increasing isolation.Hopefully it is just a matter of time that international approval will help to stop the needless killings and extreme violence in this troubled country.The whole Middle East area is already troubled enough.

Needless to say that the Middle East will be most challenging in 2013, more so than in 2012. This since civilization festered area with religious hatred and conflict for certain will not easily find a harmonious solution for all parties involved. The most practical interim solution will be straight on US – Iran discussions to test Iran’s willingness to coöperate in multi part talks to restrict/reduce the chance of an escalating war without end.The emhasis should be to end all terror related violence as only this will encourage Israel to help the Palestinians into the developments needed with the protection of all people in the Israel/Gaza region.It is just wait and see whether it will go this direction, but it would be wise to include Iran subject to prove of genuine intentions to keep friendly relations with all neighbours in the area, including full safety guarantees for Israel.

It is amazing to see that the Euro crisis has been able to drag on for another year without a final conclusion. In December 2012 Greece is still in the Eurozone and different European countries are struggling with various intensity to stay straight, so to say. Unemployment ratio is increasing likewise the closure or reduction of various businesses. For many the belief in the Euro future is bleak with Germany however insisting that the Euro should survive. Needless to say that a potential fall of the Euro will have lots of implications for the people of Europe, but also for the nations with strong Euro connections.

Leadership changes took place in various countries during 2012 and generally spoken not much change can be expected immediately after those transitions. However, the leadership changes in both North Korea,China, Russia, Japan and other States will set the agenda for changing dynamics in 2013, with the inclusion at least of a stable and trustworthy foreign policy approach of the US under the same President with a good successor of Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. John Kerry is a foreign policy expert and an impressive elder statesman in the US Senate. He will not need much “in-house training” to aid US foreign policy on critical issues in 2013.

The most important issue perhaps of being resolved at present is unfortunately financial . If both the US and Europe are unable to solve their issues with the required political will, it will enhance the weakening of the “western hemisphere” in almost every dimension. Fiscal cliffs or not, the balance between outgoing’s and innings need to be right. The current US deficit and the Federal Reserve printing heaps of money not backed by any “golden standard” or “oil” is asking for trouble down the line with the risk of a massive new recession.Utterly complex matters within the US not fully controlled need to be be managed or controlled by vigorous new legislation. Gun control is important and a public topic at present but the system of financial self-regulation is vital for the US to continue to exist in the way it does and not go down the road as the Roman empire once did. Some countries perhaps would be delighted with a reduction of US power, but the risk of a significant reduction of US power could destabilise the world and President’s Obama’s second term will be vital to face and deal with the issues as they are.The potential foreshadow of social unrest and increasing violence as a result of a possible second recession makes gun control even more significant to protect US citizens against itself. The potential destruction of the US not necessarily may come from the outside but can come from the inside and the years ahead are critical for the US. Inflation and possible recession are going hand in hand if no firm control on the Federal Reserve, but the powers behind this are significant and dealing with this is a risk for the US President. However what needs to be done needs to be done. At the end of the day it is all people’s work translated into energy, rewarded by money, – which is decreasing in value by the private control of creating money by the Federal Reserve. Man made problems can be resolved by men, only if the political will to support the required directions resonates through various legislative branches in both Europe and the US.Without any predictions being possible it is wait and see how the dynamis in this area will evolve in 2013, knowing that any international conflict could ruin the efforts of each country to solve its balance between spending and cutting costs in a way which protects those who have worked hard for their money, but also those who live from their superannuation, those who are disabled and fragile in society, the elderly and the children included. “Sometimes the wrong choices bring us to the right places.” as was once said by Nathan Pyle, – however I doubt this for 2013 (in no uncertain terms).. Increasing costs for food and energy against reduced value of our money is harmful wherever we may live on this world, and still the majority of people can’t afford it anymore and live below any reasonable standard of living.

Various countries in the Middle East will face the problem of opposing Islamist groups taking responsibility of taking Government as many Islamists have their own political frictions with the potential of increasing sectarian conflicts in the years laying ahead. Initial peaceful countries could turn quickly into new areas of intense conflict.

The US has renewed interest  in the Asian Pacific for both economical and security reasons after withdrawing from both Iraq and eventually in 2014 from Afghanistan, but the vacuüm created will have both Iran’s and India’s interest to have their perceived deserved share of influence. Also an area of different dynamics with an uncertain outcome at this stage after US withdrawal by the end of 2014.

It is anticipated that US dependence on oil exporting countries is going to reduce in quite sustained ways with significant “US dollar” issues. There is a tendency already of increasing countries less relying on the value of the US dollar with as final result (forgetting about a few other issues) that the US impact on foreign international policy may reduce in value and strength..

President Obama shortly in his second term will have greater influence to balance the critical important relationships between the US and China. The new President Xi from China needs to get agreement and support for a different set of policies in a rebalancing act on the Chines economy and the demands of some 350 million middle class people. The facts behind the conflict between Japan and China in the East Chines sea could be well that the Chinese government can’t afford to look weak. It is clear that the US has been worried about China for some time and it is not hoped that Japan might be forced to act in a very trivial conflict with apart from this the still contentious issues around Taiwan.

As we all know, words from leaders may lead to action and both feeding empty rhetoric and false sentiments besides fear, are unhelpful to balance the required coöperation between Washington and Beijing.Tha call for action goes together for the call for great care on both sides. Again note that it has been an international interest to have President Obama reelected as US “Commander-in-Chief”, even though a number of US citizens feel different about this.

Iran has been faced with various sanctions in 2012 together with increased inflation and unemployment.The desire of Iran to go nuclear and have potential weapons of mass destruction is going at a significant cost for Iran.It’s standing in the region as due to the Arab uprising is not as strong as it was before.It’s ally Syria is fully involved in a civil war and Israels insistence on a preëmptive attack may seem to have diminished somewhat, waiting what a second Obama term will deliver in terms of security for Israel. The question remains whether containment of a nuclear Iran is possible. Israel will still reconsider its options and in terms of US foreign policy it would be wise to test Iran on its willingness to have serious discussions on security matters in the Middle East area, including its place about Israel. If Israels security is without any doubt accepted it is neither in Israel’s interest nor intention to start a preëmptive war with Iran, but also this is a wait and see matter as how dynamics will evolve. Needless to say again that this is an area of both great concern and importance and proactive management from the US Administration is a need to keep the right balance as from other countries this can’t be expected, unfortunately. It’s a critical issue in US foreign policy in the Middle East and it would be hoped that John Kerry will be granted with a new US mission to explore the potential coöperation with Iran to balance US vital security interest in Israel, without a major Middle East war.

Climate change and the implications of Climate change, the protection against terrorism of any kind will remain high on the international agenda, likewise and hopefully increasingly the protection of human rights. The last often an issue of international lip service and a need being recognised but not often materialised where it proves to be required, including the issue of increasing human trafficking. Also in this domain we have to wait and see how international coöperation will work out, but at least a stable world will contribute and a world with increasing conflict will compromise, – any form of human rights! Hence the importance of the 2013 agenda that some countries are going to deal seriously with their own financial affairs as what we can learn from history is that the great depression of the 1930ties was one of the triggers of the second word war.

America’s stronghold as an economic power has been compromised in the past and it is by far nor sure this will be sorted in the future. A sudden recession or an unexpeced and escalating conflict could ruin each potential to overcome its problems if both leaders in Europe and the US are unable to get the required support to control internal economical dynamics not being sufficiently managed in the past. Fruitful international relationships are  of ongoing importance, which will be really the challenge of 2013 with a new generation of leaders in vital countries of potential conflict.

Far more to say about 2013, but let’s leave this to the experts with more insight information about existing background dynamics. What often seems true on the surface is different from the inside, with the knowledge reaching this inside.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Guardian Weekly year in review 2013: Hope born in Iran but fades elsewhere in Middle East (theguardian.com)
• Writing the Wrongs: Obama Administration Iran Deal Cannot Work (writingtw.blogspot.com)
• Israel and Its U.S. Congress Demand Americans Pay and Die For A Third War – Against Iran (uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com)
• It’s going to get bad fast between Israel and the US (timesofisrael.com)
• News Analysis: Rocket attack an attempt to drag Israel into Lebanon- Syria crisis – Xinhua (news.xinhuanet.com)
• Writing the Wrongs: Israeli Arab Hadash Party falsely denies PMW report documenting the party&?39;s Facebook posting of terrorist calling to kidnap Israelis (writingtw.blogspot.com)
• Doc’s Talk: The Year Obama Wasted (docstalk.blogspot.com)
• Mohamad Chatah fmr Lebanese minister, wrote a letter last week to Iranian Pres Rouhani; was killed by car bomb Friday http://t.co/JFR1KRAI7W (online.wsj.com)
• MEMORANDUM: USA Planned Syrian Civilian Catastrophe Since 2007 (Timeline exposed) (syrianfreepress.wordpress.com)
• U.S. had been planning Syrian Catastrophe since 2007 (inquiringminds.cc)

On the issue of human trafficking

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=human+trafficking+photos&go=&qs=n&form=QBIR

English: Prostitutes in front of a gogo bar in Pattaya, Thailand. Original text: Like slaves on an auction block waiting to be selected, victims of human trafficking have to perform as they are told or risk being beaten. Sex buyers often claim they had no idea that most women and girls abused in prostitution are desperate to escape, or are there as a result of force, fraud, or coercion. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

-Speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative past Tuesday, US President Barrack Obama took the remarkable step calling modern day slavery “barbaric” and “evil” as he spoke against trafficking and praised companies, organizations and people taking up the fight against the traffickers: “It ought to concern every person, because it’s a debasement of our common humanity. It ought to concern every community, because it tears at the social fabric”. “It ought to concern every business, because it distorts markets. It ought to concern every nation, because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime”.”I’m talking about the injustice, the outrage, of human trafficking, which must be called by its true name  –  modern slavery.”

A 2011 paper published in The Human Rights Review  about Sex Trafficking, the trends, the challenges and limitations of International Law,  noted that since 2000 the number of sex-trafficking victims had risen while costs associated with trafficking had declined: “Coupled with the fact that trafficked sex slaves were/are the single most profitable type of slave, costing on average $1890,= each but generating $29000,= annually, leaded to stark predictions about the likely growth in commercial sex slavery in the future.” In 2008, over 12 million people were classified as “forced labourers, bonded labourers or sex-trafficking victims,” – as the study stated. Approximately 1.39 million of these people worked as commercial sex slaves, with women and girls comprising 98% (or 1.36 million) of this population. Trafficking as can be seen is a lucrative industry. It has been identified as the fastest growing criminal industry in the world.  It is second only to drug trafficking as the most profitable illegal industry in the world.

President Obama signed legislation for domestic federal contracts, and tightening anti-trafficking rules for government contracts. He praised businesses in their industry, church groups for using their faith to tackle slavery and people trying to make sure the products they buy are slave-free. He further said: “Our fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights issues of our time, and the United States will continue to lead it.” The President also spoke about modern-day slavery in the U.S., from child sex slaves to migrant workers who have their documents taken from them. He said: “Last year we charged a record number of predators with human trafficking… We are going to do more to spot it and stop it.”

What he said should apply to each country, should be the responsibility of each nation, – the rule of each State to make sure there is proper law enforcement to irradiate this crime against humanity, – to ease the burdens of those who are forced to live at the bottom of a total unacceptable social and moral spectrum. A spectrum where the law of criminals rules, where people get abused and tortured for life, if they survive.

–

 There are countries whose governments fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s (TVPA) minimum standards but there are many countries as well whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards. Some of them are making efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards. Others however do not comply with the bare minimum required standards and neither are they willing or making efforts to do so.

A White House news release recently mentioned: “More than 20 million men, women, and children worldwide are victims of human trafficking”. “Companies around the world are taking steps to end the potential for trafficked labour in their operations and supply chains, and President Obama is committed to protecting vulnerable people as government contractors and subcontractors perform vital services and manufacture goods procured by the United States.” “As the largest single purchaser of goods and services in the world, the U.S. Government has a responsibility to combat human trafficking at home and abroad, and to make sure American tax dollars do not contribute to this affront to human dignity.”

–

Why is this single issue so important?

–

This single issue represents at large the standard of any morality in any country, and failing to comply with the protection of human rights as such in this area is of predictive value as how the social & political standards of counties do evolve, – some of them simply ignoring and blind folded by the gross injustice affecting vulnerable people. Not taking any action against it is similar as allowing the world to become a worse place where cruelties within nations themselves are interlinked with the level of increasing moral decay of institutions where criminals have increasing free play. It is very clear which countries are the worst culprits in allowing this injustice spreading.

–

In 2009 it proved that seven countries at least demonstrated the highest possible performance in effective policies for the most significant dimensions of protection, even though those countries had problems on this issue as well. At least they did something. These countries were Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Sweden and the US. The second best performing group included France, Norway, South Korea, Croatia, Canada, Austria, Slovenia and Nigeria. The worst performing country in 2009 was North Korea, receiving the lowest score. The global extent of the problem is still horrendous. Thousands of children from Asia, Europe, North America and South America are sold into the global sex trade every year. Often they are kidnapped or orphaned, and sometimes they are actually sold by their own families, – a problem still tolerated by many countries all over the world.

–

Whilst there is still a  lack of understanding of human trafficking issues, poor identification of victims and deficient resources for the key pillars of anti-trafficking, besides identification, protection, prosecution and prevention, – the good thing is that the current US President is voicing his opinion on the matter. It’s an international dilemma and it deserves international attention.

The ignorance of the violent past is inadequate for the even more stormy future if little is going to change on this important aspect of human rights. Whilst ignorance is able to multiply on thousand occasions ,violence against human rights is able to multiply on a million of occasions The occasion is piled high with difficulty like we see amidst a different scenario in Syria, and we must rise with the  occasion. We can’t afford to turn a blind eye against gross inhumanity across the globe without the last and final implication that at some stage we will be ourselves the victim of similar gross inhumanity, as where we allow others to fall we will degrade ourselves as well. People not being educated on the moral issues of our times are lost people, like a child uneducated is a child lost.

Progress in our general humanity is neither automatic nor can it be escaped, however the road towards increasing justice is as old as Methuselah and requires struggle and suffering, besides the  tiredness efforts and passionate concern of dedicated people who feel compassion, in  which all ethics must take root. Compassion only can meet its full breadth and depth if  it embraces all living people at the disadvantaged level of the human spectrum and  the fight against human trafficking is one of the corner stones of  respecting    human rights, – and international law enforcement on this issue should be at the corner of our international efforts as it is both right and a reflection of human justice.

Abolishing of human trafficking is at the heart of global civilisation as it will decide our approach on other issues affecting human rights, – both here and around the world!

–

Human activities during war-time may lead to war crimes against humanity.

From my perception human trafficking is a crime against humanity and needs to be dealt with accordingly, without mercy for those who commit them.

–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Related articles

• Modern Slavery Bill to be published: Human traffickers will receive life sentences under new draft legislation (independent.co.uk)
• Meet raises concern over human trafficking (assamtribune.com)
• Maine joins anti-human trafficking effort (wgme.com)
• Scottish government want tough anti-slavery law (scotsman.com)
• Sex Trafficking (sexpornandjesus.wordpress.com)
• The Link – Porn and Human Trafficking (lindasummerslinked.wordpress.com)
• Human Trafficking: I’m Not Liam Neeson, What Can I Do? (urbantimes.co)
• Sudanese parliament discusses draft bill containing death penalty against human traffickers (sudantribune.com)
• Human trafficking victims must be supported (christiantoday.com)
• Modern slavery bill to be published (theguardian.com)

 

“Lass sie nach Berlin kommen” – Berlin 2012 takes a proactive lead!

Chancelor of the Federal Republic of Germany Dr. Angela Merkel on the open door day at the Bundeskanzleramt in Berlin, Germany Français : Dr Angela Merkel, chancelière de la République Fédérale d’Allemagne, lors de la journée portes ouvertes de la Bundeskanzleramt à Berlin, en Allemagne. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Angela Merkel

“Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was civis Romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen“). Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner!”… All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner!” – John F Kennedy

“Lass sie nach Berlin kommen”

On the 26th of June 1963 at the Berlin Wall, President John F Kennedy was emphasising the support of the United States in the above quoted way to West Germany, 22 months after a Soviet controlled  East Germany established the Berlin Wall as a barrier between East and West.
–
 The message was aimed both at the Soviets and the Berliners, and was an obvious statement of U.S. policy in the aftermath of the construction of the Berlin Wall.

–
Many years past and the world faced many changes and dangers!

–
 Now,  for almost half a century after this speech – after the agony from the past, after the agony of war – Germany may assist in keeping Europe together in the way it was intended to work in the positive.

 

Efforts this time not only in Europe as a whole, but in the United States as well, – apart from other countries.

From the streets of Amsterdam to the halls of power in Paris the eyes are in part again on Berlin.

Not this time Berlin being the victim or an aggressor, but Germany being a major financial power in Europe to lead this continent out of the biggest financial crisis since World War II.

European leaders are close to panic over a debt situation that could take down the entire global economy. An other recession in the US could even bring President Obama’s re-election in 2012 at risk.

The leaders of both France and Germany this week agreed on a new fiscal pact that  will assist and prevent another debt crisis.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy outlined the basic elements of the plan to increase an essential budget discipline, after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris.

During the entire crisis, Angela Merkel has worked diligently and closely with the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other nations which share the Euro. Sarkozy however, the other strong leader in Europe, is not performing as expected in the polls for the pending elections next year and proved in the weeks past to be willing and follow the German Chancellor’s perceptions and example on the European crisis.

Sarkozy is happy with the concept of German’s idea of countries ceasing control of significant part of their budgets to a central authority if so required, at the cost of some national sovereignty.

It is true that more stability is required with sanctions if EU countries allow or commit to spending not in their budget at a final cost for other countries.

Much of this crisis has been inflicted by irresponsible financial behaviour. Government leaders from the 17 euro zone nations should meet at least monthly to discuss ways to boost economic growth as the Euro needs to be saved including the European Union.

The last being required as otherwise the repercussions could be most dramatic with social unrest in various countries being the result.

“The crisis requires an extra commitment towards unity and a Europe that will not repeat the mistakes of the past,” – said Sarkozy, speaking with Merkel at a press conference.

The unity in the US was once an issue for different reasons but where unity in Europe can’t be maintained for other reasons it would open the door to potential chaos and possibly violence.

The Berlin-engineered action plan for tackling Europe’s crisis, including vigorous rules to keep national budgets under control is vital to be implemented and accepted at the next European Union summit, as it reflects a valuable strategy to keep both the Union and the Euro intact, – learning from reckless financial behaviour in the past for which citizens can’t be held responsible.

Governments have an obligation to meet the commitments to voters and looking both after welfare of State and citizens. The current situation requires as well an incentive on greater consumer spending, increasing taxes for the higher income groups and keeping interest rates low.

As the difference between rich and poor is increasing in some European states, those states are at risk of more social unrest as e.g. reflected in the UK not too long ago, – the last for issues not related with the current EU situation.

However if the EU and the Euro do collapse as a result of past political and financial failures, the social dynamics in various European countries will change for the worst.

Hence the courage of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel at this time of crisis in Europe being applauded for taking a leading role, with significant financial experts in Germany.

The EU leaders are having to debate revising EU treaties and other measures to strengthen both the economical and political integration in Europe and I am sure they will get there over the hurdles in the years to come, as the problem resolving ability from both France and in particular Germany in this attempt with the leadership being shown – reflects favourably on the qualities being available,  despite the crisis not being resolved as yet.

–
 It shows that in an interdependent world both recourses and leadership requirements are vital for sustaining major crisis, – and let’s be happy that Germany now is at the forefront of one of the most positive post-war endeavours, – which might turn out this time to be a blessing for both Europe, the US and possibly all financial markets.

 As can be seen dynamics do change with positive engagement, a lesson to be learnt and so valuable for international dynamics.

–
 This does not take away that times can be difficult and complex, but nobody could have crossed the Ocean if they would have been able to escape the ship in the storm.
–
 Escaping the ship by storm is still a risk in the years ahead, but the dangers in an international economy with potential new recession in the US round about 2013 is an issue where all parties being involved need to weather the storm and eliminate the internal risks to destabilise the boat.

 

Not doing this could have “Titanic proportions” for the Western hemisphere. Our problems are made by man and can be resolved by man, willing to take this vital task on board and willing to counteract the obstacles, – with a united will to weather the storm. Reason and spirit have done this in the past, – reason and spirit may do this in the future.
–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• Germany’s Merkel urges patience on NSA answers (bigstory.ap.org)
• Hajo Funke| Offener Brief an die Bundeskanzlerin in Sache 5+1-Verhandlungen (hajofunke.wordpress.com)
• Can Obama’s Berlin Speech Match John F. Kennedy’s and Ronald Reagan’s? (usnews.com)
• Germany’s Schaeuble eyes new term as finance chief (bigstory.ap.org)
• Wednesday, June 26, 1963: JFK in West Berlin (the60sat50.blogspot.com)
• ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’: 50 years on from that JFK speech (georgesjournal.org)
• JFK, Berlin, 1963: The right time. The right place. The right message (theglobeandmail.com)
• “The impact of The Kissinger Peace Project that Crooks Stopped” (whitecolorcopiesonly.wordpress.com)
• Ich bin ein Berliner (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)
• Reagan’s GOP is Erecting its Own Caste System Berlin Wall (LiberalBeef.com)

 

2013 – 2014 Genocide in the Pacific or even worse?

Hiroshima model (before the bomb) (Photo credit: JaviC)

“It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

 

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy.

 

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

 

It works the same in every country.”  – Herman Goering

 

 

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”  – ?Julius Caesar 

 

 

 

With the US more and more involved in  the Asia-Pacific region as part of a “China containment strategy” and securing trade, a potential pending conflict between the US and China should first be an issue between the US and China in which no other countries should be involved. However reality shows that the US is creating strategic strongholds from which they intend to operate, if required, with all available nuclear power abilities and other advanced weapon systems getting increasingly in place. The nuclear power availability may reach up to half a million the strength of what has been dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Both US citizens and Chinese citizens apart from all those countries within this region don’t deserve a fate at least 100 times worse than what happened in Hiroshima, either by calculation or by error. It is up to US citizens as well to accept or not accept this as war in this region will reach the US as well.

 

Secondly it would be wise for the super powers to start straightaway high level negotiations about bilateral “fear reduction”, reduction of arms and further more a detailed mutual cooperation to keep both the Asia-Pacific area and the world free of a potential and devastating conflict, besides improving the means by which this world is still able to provide a margin for itself. The last is a healthy economic trade environment, not based on isolation and preparing for war but based on an inclusive “all party approach” with fair principles at its core. Besides this tackling the roots of poverty and improve education at all corners around the globe. This is what I would call taking the “high road” of constructive risk reduction for the benefit of people around the world, as the concept of a potential conflict between the above superpowers and the preparations for this in place already, are not within the spirit and reasoning being required for our times to control risk and prevent war.

 

Military power being allowed to drive at different intervals and grades a country’s foreign policy has been allowed to use the fear part among people to take wide-range steps to defend and attack if so required, with the development of an excessive war machinery. This trend is quite clear in the US. The military industrial complex is complex in its motives. It is an advanced industry on its own and with no exception a powerful force in each country. In earlier history more often Soviet leaders were guided by the military forces, like the US was often guided by it’s own military forces. So is and will be the Chinese leadership guided by their own military forces. In some occasions the roles of those forces may get quite dominant as often they will prove with whatever intelligence that they are “right”. Intelligence of this nature has not always been evidence based and if it was evidence based not rarely this evidence was created by actions provoking the other party to act in a particular desired way, confirming the justification of distrust and escalating the steps for itself feeding perceptions. Those perceptions in the past started with the perceived impression of opponents and reached at different times the perception of potential and real enemies. Sometimes those perceptions were right, sometimes those perceptions were wrong.

 

Both in this and future generations however we can’t afford the potential paranoia of some military representatives guiding governments on actions being proper, as whichever country is guided by the wrong intelligence in the hour of greatest danger, – all out war will be inevitably the result at a scale never seen before.

 

The dynamics are complex and leaders of countries may at some extend realise the complexities of their own war departments so to say. However the influence is often significant if we watch the patterns at various countries. Those power dynamics between the civilian representatives of a country weather democratic or having the format of a “Committee” and the military are different and obvious for most countries, the super powers in particular included. They are what we call the realities of this world. Expensive realities though as a significant amount of the national budget is devoted to improve and maintain military forces and it’s intelligence to detect the actions and wrongdoings of the other party, the opponent or the enemy if worse. Sometimes history did create enemies to provide an excuse to go to war, sometimes there was a real enemy which was never stopped at an early stage. The last creating war of a different kind, what we call a justified war. But even a just war is not justified in its implications if prevention was not the early tool of choice to change the dynamics leading up to such a war. Again not always possible as there have been and there will be always people seeking power to embrace conflict and war and they always find support within the domain of their military forces. Neither the nature of military forces is bad nor the people filling the positions, but often they are the prisoners of their own restricted “target” perceptions as there is little grace under military rule once the full force of military  power finds its way in either a controlled war or a non-controlled war. An order to fight is simply an order to kill the enemy as vigorous as possible.

 

History provides us millions of stories about people who died in conflict or war and many countries have their ways to remind those who died for their country. On those days  the brief memory on the agony of war and the sadness and pain it inflicted, but every time through the generations there have been new wars and new genocides and the intentions to prevent those things reoccurring have never been strong enough in the history of man kind because if the spirit to change things really for the better was strong enough, we would not face the challenges we have today.

 

The point is not who is to blame for this, the point is leading nations to take responsibility to give examples and ripples of hope to turn the tide in history. Change it we must because only this way we will find the eternal blessing of being caretakers of this world. If not we will face uncontrolled destruction as when the powers of war are escalating no leaders will be able to control those powers anymore, – as no country with nuclear powers will be prepared to surrender once attacked with the devastating impact of the destruction inflicted.

 

It is pointless to play games with this warfare or playing the wrong card to provide evidence of superiority as such gesture could easily be miscalculated and war could start by error, –  people including generals being in place at the wrong time. Such a war will come at a cost larger than ever before and lack of responsibility for taking the right direction would be to blame for this. Hence we need to stop this process as the signs and warnings are eminent on both sides of the Pacific.

 

Evidently the US did start this process with high gear and still silent preparations for the Pacific with not unlikely an escalation in 2012 – 2013. A nuclear error within the context of the current “build up” in the Pacific will never be considered as an error but will be responded with a full nuclear reply, – hence the reason to be proactive in efforts to reverse the reciprocal perception of both countries that each of them could be a danger for their national security as within those perceptions the build up to conflict and potential error will be eminent.

This is what responsible superpowers need to prevent as winning such a potential conflict is an illusion whilst preparing for it is not the same as prevention, – not anymore in a scenario like this.

 

How grave are the dangers? 

Consider the following:

China’s military capacity has been changed in so far that it’s defence budget is focussed to get widespread Anti-Access/Area Denial strategies (A2/AD.), which is a concern for the US.

“Sea denial” in case of conflict would seem to be China’s military strategy in case of conflict to inflict both significant costs and erode enemy forces by targeting the weakness of the enemy in battle.

 

The Chinese forces are able to attack from both the air, main land China, but also from the surface of the sea and below.

 

Submarines play a key role in the Chinese defence systems, if attacked a hard job for anti-submarine warfare if enemy’s would take China on board in battle.

 

Those submarines are both conventional and nuclear and if the US would contemplate to attack China, both US forces at sea including aircraft carriers would sustain likely much losses.

 

Like the US made it pointless for any country to attack US homeland with missiles from both the sea and the air, China made it pointless for any country to do similar.

 

Advanced weapons systems on both submarines and land based missile and air forces would meet China’s aim to deny the waters near the Chinese coast to any combat forces if so required.

 

Whilst  the antisubmarine warfare capabilities (AWS) of the United States are not that ideal anymore after the Cold War with the Soviet Union stopped, the U.S. has remained a qualitative unmatched technology on their existing submarines.

 

The problem for the US is that their numbers on superior submarines are down which is not likely to improve dramatically as due to US the budget deficit.

 

With the U.S. Navy having problems in the AWS domain, it has placed a renewed focus on ASW training and detection in the Pacific.

 

At present there are US submarines in both Hawaii, Guam and California with a base to be planned in both Singapore and Australia.

 

If U.S. submarines containing nuclear cruise missiles would strike against targets in mainland China this would provoke an immediate escalation into a 3rd world war, affecting both homeland China and the Us as well.

 

US submarines as due existing technology may sustain the Chinese A2/AD defence force. Most likely the US will increase it’s acquisition of well advanced submarines, including unmanned equipment and the application of fixed sensors in the seas near China to detect and destroy Chinese submarines in time of war. Hence now US coöperation being sought in both the Philippines and Vietnam to use equivalent equipment at the junction between the Chinese Sea and the Western Pacific to the early detection and destruction of Chinese submarines, again at times of war.

 

The incidents at the Chinese Sea lately played the US in it’s favour to get the coöperation being required from both those countries and Australia.  

 

Whilst the US does not admit, their increased activities in the Pacific are of a potential first strike nature, with the Chinese only now increasing both their defence and target range if any country would contemplate to compromise their borders and security at a large-scale.

 

If the Chinese would build a first strike capability in and above the seas close to the US the US would see this as a provocation, like Cuba in the past inflicted provocation to the US with Soviet missiles being able to attack the US.

 

The difference is that the Soviets inflicted this at the time and the US is inflicting this now in the Pacific, trying even to build up relations with controversial states like Burma at the border of China. Hillary Clinton will visit Burma tomorrow the 30th of November 2011 to assess the situation with a view to turn the leaders to a place more favourable to public opinion, but crimes and torture and human trafficking have never been (properly) addressed.

 

The reasoning for the US is to secure vital Sea Lanes in the Pacific, both for the purpose of trade and military access if so required. Apart from this the containment policy towards China aims to affect  both China’s trade ability as a faster growing economic power than the US, and apart from this to “tighten” the perceived “Tiger in its cage”.

 

Chinese wisdom will dictate its leaders to respond slow, but perhaps with more leadership than the US demonstrates at this point in time.

 

China has different trading partners and till so far demonstrated to play win-win in business dealings, providing the US even with excessive loans to help their war’s in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Their advised stance in matters is not to move within the changes as created by the US now, within an US context of lack of economic growth and perhaps reduced long-term sustainability, as the US like Europe “played with money” not even existing, paying towards program’s of various nature whilst the deficits increased – the last causing chaos on international markets, including recession at home.

 

“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”  

 

This is what President John F Kennedy said in 1963, not too long before he was assassinated by the representatives of Pentagon and CIA hardliners. Hardliners who wanted to pursue the Vietnam war at all cost.

 

How just is current US policy in the Pacific region if it does take part in the “silent” preparation for war, with such forces being increasingly concentrated, – and relatively so close to China, whilst North Korea could trigger potentially this conflict among the 2 super powers. 

The last 2 powers which failed to contain North Korea as a more profound threat than either China or the US could be to each other, as reason still dominates the last direction of those 2 countries with the highest nuclear and other potential of total destruction.

North Korea could trigger however a conflict where even for the 2 major super powers on earth there might be a point of no return with any small error of calculation.

–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Netanyahu’s insanity is getting worse “Iran must change ‘genocidal policy’ (uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com)
• America, Genocide, And The ‘National Interest’ – OpEd (albanytribune.com)
• South Sudan: Another Rwanda in the making (sudantribune.com)
• The Chinese Military Will Be Knocking At Your Door (thesurvivalplaceblog.com)
• [Newsmaker] Abe’s gamble falters under criticism (koreaherald.com)
• America, Genocide, And The ‘National Interest’ – OpEd (eurasiareview.com)
• Savills Asia Pacific Launches New Residential Search Engine (savills.co.uk)
• Savills triumphs at Asia Pacific Property Awards 2012 (savills.co.uk)
• Happy new year – but what exactly will make the news in 2014? (theguardian.com)
• US Rebalancing To Asia-Pacific: Implications For West Asia – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)

Australia’s role in the Asia – Pacific Region

English: Paul Keating in 2007 – crop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“In  my  time  I  have  seen  truth  that  was  anything  under  the  sun  but  just,  and  I  have  seen  justice  using  tools  and  instruments  I  wouldn’t  want  to  touch  with  a  ten-foot  fence  rail”      – William  Faulkner  (Knight’s Gambit 1949)

Justice, balance of power and peace

 

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating said the other day that China must be welcomed into the world as a shared partner and a vital economic power, not a military or political challenge to be contained. He made a speech in November 2004 in Beijing in which he stated that he believed that China would become an economic competitor of the United States, but not a strategic competitor, and its military growth was unlikely to be about force projection.

Keating still thinks “the rise of China is one of the great events of all economic and human history and I think this will be overwhelmingly a positive thing for the region and the world”.

Whilst the White House and the Pentagon have different views, Australia seems now verbally part of the US containment policy as part of a well prepared Presidential visit to Australia.

 

The US perception is that the model from China based on communism and the ruling of a committee is doomed to fail and President Obama is speaking about this in the Australian Parliament. President Obama says: “With our new focus on this region …. We’re here to stay. … History’s on the side of the free. … By upholding core principles, we partner with democracies.”

The speech is basically saying that the United States is back and some would say we can’t help  thinking that the commentary was somehow about the old Soviet Union.

 

It should be clear that China is not the old Soviet Union and trying to contain China with new military alliances could well prove to be an error of judgement. This speech should have been held in Washington and not in the Australian Parliament.

 

Like the US needs space and being ready to defend it, China is entitled on space as well as long as the occupation of this space is not based on domination. China proves already in Africa to increase space and to make sure there is a supply of recourses for China, but all this is based on sound economic principles and a win win situation for countries being involved. As long it continues this way other countries have the benefit of China s as well, which is positive.

 

Containment of China unprovoked could lead to conflict. China need to be able to emerge, not as a dominating power but as a power contributing to both its own welfare and the welfare of other nations. Similar the US needs to play a role in the Asia-Pacific area, but based on the same principles and in concert with other powers, to watch and maintain stability and coöperation in this vital area.

 

The US position should not be based on inflated cold war sentiments being dominant some decades ago, within their stance against Communism in the former Soviet Union.

 

Let’s face it, apart from human rights issues which will be addressed in China for the better in the future, China never exposed real threat in foreign policy and their issues with the Chinese Sea are not much different from what the US feel as their entitlements close to their borders. Like the US, China is not free from injustice but on foreign policy “let’s not sweat the small stuff” as was once reflected in an interesting booklet, and let us “seek to understand first”.

 

The world and the US are justified concerned about the movements from both Iran and North Korea and allowing those countries getting away with nuclear military expansion would be the same mistake as was allowing Germany to rearm itself after the 1st world war. In a broader sense the US itself after the second world war has been involved in various conflicts until recently where the legitimate question could be raised why matters were not dealt with differently as those conflicts did cost millions of lives, – all for some part due to CIA and Pentagon driven policy. The freedom in the US goes that far that when a US President is not alignment with Pentagon and/or CIA policy he may be assassinated like happened with President John F Kennedy in November 1963. The result was a dramatic escalation of US military involvement in Vietnam at a cost of millions of lives and like Australia followed US footsteps in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it followed US footsteps in Vietnam without ever realising that those choices in essence were ill contemplated, based on dependence and not interdependence.

 

The Pentagon at the time of former President G.W.Bush has been working on a new China war plan with the most advanced weapons being ready for use in case of conflict. The US announced only this week the creation of “the Air Sea Battle Office”, which is precisely designed how to work out how to counteract China’s growing missile dominance, its dominance in the region with fighter aircraft, new versions of fighter aircraft and warships.

Some realism is right. Whilst not being in favour for any arms race, any country is running a defence policy. The US is doing the same. What we see evolving requires the need to prevent domination of any country, the Pentagon policies included. Hence we need a region accommodating China without building a military structure around it. The US would not like it when other countries would do this at the disadvantage of the US. China likewise does not like this at the disadvantage of China. Australia again without much realistic consideration is again following the footsteps of the US-based on dependence. “Australia’s dependence on a major power lies deep in our national psyche” said Malcolm Fraser once.

Within context countries like Iran and North Korea impose a far greater danger than China and trying to contain China will only improve the chance on conflict among superpowers on those potential dangerous nations,- which is simply stupidity in the worst possible way. China has enormous leverage on those countries and seeking support and coöperation from China as an ally and not a country requiring to be contained in the dogmatic views of the Pentagon, would make the world a safer place.

If we look at history we may hope that any US President is fully in charge of the Pentagon and it’s generals and President Obama’s message in the Australian Parliament is considerably coated with Pentagon policy, brilliantly delivered however but to be watched carefully on the implications for the region. Australia did swallow the rhetoric against China without taking the long-term view.The point is that there is already the 7th US fleet in the Pacific with bases in Okinawa and Guam, but the new message is that the US is getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that they are coming here. There are many Republicans in the US talking about “knocking China over” and whilst President Obama is far more moderate he represents a country showing extreme dynamics. US Congress is a reflection of at times dysfunctional Republican behaviour and taking the long view I don’t think Australia should be dragged into policies of the Pentagon which were not always that fruitful in the past. On foreign policy matters we can’t complain about China till so far where as US foreign policy could have been dealt with clearly differently on various occasions. There was once a Pacific war and we don’t need a new one! China is Australia’s biggest trading partner and China reflects an emerging power with no evidence of desiring to dominate the world as they know history. They represent a country where despite human rights issues some one and a half billion of people have been dragged out of poverty and by no means should this country be compared with the former USSR. Obviously nothing is fool-proof in history but this applies to the US as well and whilst Australia is an important ally of the US, good intentions in this area are always subject to proof and if Obama’s rhetoric will be followed by strongly driven Pentagon policies in the Asian Pacific region we may need to be perhaps on our guard of the US as well because an increase of US military activity in history was not rarely followed by US inflicted war down the line, – at times.

Pentagon and CIA policies are stronger than US Presidents at times, even in the US as a democracy. Whilst President Johnson could not coop anymore with his own inflicted escalation of the Vietnam war, he resigned in 1968. The most succesful Presidential candidate opposing the Vietnam war (Robert Kennedy) was assassinated by the military wing of the Pentagon (the CIA)  and this provided a more Pentagon friendly candidate, Richard Nixon, the chance to be elected US President and continue Pentagon driven policy.

The reflections of Australian foreign minister Kevin Rudd on the recent 7.30 News report were more of a hardline response to China and for a person with such a claimed insight knowledge of China this was not a demonstration of wise and insightful diplomacy as Australia as a middle power did change position after Obama’s visit, as it would seem.

 

As a middle power Australia should be more independent in it’s role in the Pacific as the “core values” of the US did not always seem what it could and should have been, and foreign policy of China till so far did show greater stability than what the US did if we count the wars over the last decades and the millions of deaths in military conflict. Democracy can be the core value but history did prove that democracy was neither perfect nor always carried by people who had high standards of integrity and a broader view.

 

Kevin Rudd said: “We’re not going to have any national security policy dictated by any other external power.” However the exemption seems the US and the Pentagon. Kevin Rudd represents Australian policy when he later says: “That’s a sovereign matter for Australia. We don’t seek to dictate what the Chinese about their national security policy.”

–

Australia would be wise not to allow their own national security to be dictated by either the US or China. The difference is that China till so far made no efforts to instruct Australia on issues of national security but the US did.

For the region applies that Australia as a middle power needs to play in concert with other powers and not co creating an alliance to contain a super power like China, which neither provoked Australia in any way nor provoked any other country in any significant way.

This means that it is in Australia’s interest to have both productive and friendly relations with the US and China, providing leverage and an example in better communication when those 2 super powers may get carried away with different opinions.

Whilst safe with President Obama, the US under some Republican Presidents was not always the country defending the core values of both Democracy and human rights. It would seem that there are too many ideas what the core values of a democracy should be. The majority vote at a particular time in history is not always the right choice and does not always show the right action as being clearly demonstrated in US Congress.

The development of Australia as a great middle power continuing to play the role being required, as happened in the 1980s and ’90s did include foreign policy like APEC and it’s leaders’ meeting, the ASEAN regional forum, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Canberra Commission for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, the Cairns Group etc. This should not be thrown away by a Pentagon dominated foreign policy in Australia.

Neither that we have foresight in how power will evolve in the United States Government in the years lying ahead, nor do we have foresight how power will evolve in China, but as a great middle power Australia has an obligation to maintain a pleasant and peaceful co-existence with surrounding states and a close military alliance with the US to contain China whilst not being provoked as a nation will not pay any dividend to Australia and is compromising the role Australia could play as a middle power, and as such the foreign policy of Australia at present (if not revised) could prove to be a floored one by principle and on principle with little insight in historical dynamics.

The policy of containment of China at this stage in history is wrong and without proper base, guided actually by US rhetoric and Australia should have known better. Former US Vice President Al Gore did describe in his book “The Assault On Reason” the US dynamics when George W Bush ordered forces to invade Iraq, the damage being done to the US as a democracy as Bush played the public with a fear of terrorism campaign whilst the US Senate stand mute then, like it stayed mute on various other occasions including political assassinations.

Australia should not allow “assault on reason” within the Asia-Pacific area and whilst the dynamics in Australian Parliament may show at times doubt on reason both in terms of style and quality, as a country we need to be stronger than this.

The answer to this problem is that what could have been done differently yesterday can be corrected tomorrow and only fools don’t change their mind in the course of history. New beginnings depend on endings and to make them in the right way the right time and for the right reason!

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Australia’s integration into US war plans against China (wsws.org)
• Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”: Australia Central to American War Plans Against China (rinf.com)
• US Rebalancing To Asia-Pacific: Implications For West Asia – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
• Deal to Move Okinawa Base Wins Approval (nytimes.com)
• Australia’s Integration Into US War Plans Against China (libya360.wordpress.com)
• Savills appoints new Head of Hotels for Asia Pacific (savills.co.uk)
• Too Close for Comfort? The U.S. Pacific Presence (wallstreetpit.com)
• Deal to Move Okinawa Base Wins Approval – New York Times (nytimes.com)
• Vice President Biden Comes to China (chinaglobalimpact.com)
• Power plays How long will China tolerate US’s military role in Asia? (thenewstribune.com)

The Asia – Pacific Challenge

http://cdn.theguardian.tv/brightcove/2012/3/26/120326ObamaHu-16×9.mp4

“Tact is the ability to describe others as they see
themselves.” – Abraham Lincoln 

–

Speaking about  an increasing shift in US troops from the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region.

–

It would seem that the 21st century will be America’s Pacific century with promoting trade and economic ties, but also enhancing security of sea lanes for trade and regional stability with increasing capacity of deterring provocations. The response however to unavoidable provocations is as important as the provocations themselves and in the response lies the road as how to balance the world into the right direction and avoid war, – the last being the most significant obligation of civilization.

I guess this is the crux of President Obama’s visit to some countries in the Pacific, however the last statement not as clearly expressed as Kennedy did on June 10th 1963 during his “Peace Speech” for the American University, – where he reached beyond the cold war sentiments of his time and of the US establishment in those years

The response to either errors or provocations is a responsibility of both superpowers and the Pacific might be an area of provocation and confrontation if both superpowers are not careful in their approach.

We may understand the concerns from China about the “sudden” shift of US foreign policy and renewed interest in the Pacific. The US considers itself a key player in the Pacific as well, with a focus on productive and fruitful economic relationships, – however prepared to defend security interest of both the US and allies if provoked. The last is not new, but signifying a renewed affirmation following perceived provocations in the Chinese Sea by China, – creating a sense of discomfort at the Pentagon. However not being discussed face to face with the Chinese leadership and still pending, or only briefly discussed in the last couple of days.

Obama made clear that the military expansion is a top priority whilst tailing down US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority,” Obama said. “As a result, reductions in U.S. defence spending will not — I repeat, will not — come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific.”

This is not particular a laid back and wait and see policy but a clear message to friends and potential opponents, a message to China as well. However balancing the world into the right direction and avoid war is still the most significant obligation of civilization. US President John F Kennedy in his “Peace Speech” for the American University on June 10th 1963, made this more clear to the world than President Obama ever did.

 

No reason for China to worry if their intentions are peaceful on the long-term without wish to dominate, but the Pacific area is a concern as there are more players causing potential conflict, – last but not least North Korea as well. The mixture of support treaties are quite complex and both India and the US are working towards more coöperation to counteract concerns about China. China has both close connections with North Korea and a business interest in Iran. Hence the increasing complexity of the Pacific scenario, with more military deals in the make.

“Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in this region,” Obama told the Australian Parliament. “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay.” There will be an agreement with Australia which will enhance the military coöperation between the 2 countries. While U.S. officials cited the need to respond to regional natural disasters as a reason for the agreement, concern over China’s military expansion is widely acknowledged as the driving factor. The United States has based some of its most advanced weapons in the Pacific, including squadrons of F-22 fighters and C-17 transport planes, – equipment suitable for cyber – and electronic warfare.

It can’t be denied that this new element of strategic power being implemented in the region has been received with mixed observations in China and Obama failed in his diplomacy to visit China at the same time. Nelson Mandela (most likely!) would have done this, because it is most important not to create misunderstandings in the communication with the major superpowers as it is vital to have close and constructive working relations with China.

 

Whilst this is perhaps not a choice by principle by the Pentagon, this should be a choice by principle of the US President after various shortcomings in US foreign policy and inflicted war’s under his predecessors.

In April 2007 Obama said about China: “China is rising and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitor’s.”  Meanwhile the Chines government owns many hundreds of billions of dollars of US Treasury bills, assisting to fund America’s budget and trade deficits. In a speech to the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in September 1982, Deng Xiaoping said: “No foreign country can expect China to be its vassal, nor can it expect China to accept anything harmful to China’s interests”.

 

This is still the situation, even though this was said in 1982. It is for China important that there is no interference from outside with internal dynamics, for sure not in the public domain with people being opinionated out of proportions perhaps.

My suggested approach would have been different to China, and the most significant notation I missed in any of the speeches was something along the lines  like this:

“To the Chinese, our overseas neighbours, I would like to say this. – Whilst being different by tradition and history, both our countries have much in common through our mutual interest and endeavours  towards an enduring peace and stability in this region, the last so important for both economic growth and our people. Whilst history often shows evidence of conflict, let’s embrace the opportunity walking the road to a persistent peace, knowing that every man-made problem can be discussed, – preferably before an issue gets a problem. The Chinese have a culture rich in history and far older than ours and we respect this culture, though we have differences in the way we perceive eg human rights and fair trading… The people of China living across the borders of this at one time most advanced civilization on earth live both in fear and hope,  both for the future of their country and the right balance of requiring natural recourses and increasing consumer demand. Likewise, the people of our country sustaining the agony of economic recession and various war’s do live both in fear and hope as well. The people of both China, the US and other countries  have in common that they all want to earn a living -to live- and look after their families and loved ones. They have in common that they want to learn in live to create meaning for the future and we all have problems with balancing resources and consumer demand, with at this stage in the US a demand for intensified job creation and increased productivity. The people’s of both our countries and all countries are far more important than our government’s today, and for the sake of humanity let’s never give up on peace, – a concept so often ignored but at the same time so important… Knowing that our own history as well has not always been perfect perhaps, errors are made in other countries as well,-  and let’s try to resolve our differences for the sake of an enduring stability in this area, –  like differences at other places in the world have been resolved in a good spirit of hope. We owe this to our people, to your people, – knowing that war can’t be an answer anymore to conflict, for certain not in conflict between superpowers. It’s pointless to prepare for the last as preparing for the last is preparing for self-destruction. The more we put realistically into our efforts for mutual understanding and agreement on the major issues and challenges , caused at times by countries less responsible perhaps by seeking military adventure and domination , – the more we are able to offer to this world. If we are able to agree on this concept, we have already the blessing of the children of this generation who have to build the future after we have gone. We have the blessing of old Chinese wisdom then as well. So let us work together and live in peace; – not only for the sake of the countries in this Asia-Pacific region but for the countries who are dependent on stability at this part of the world.”

I guess such a message to the Chinese would have been well received, and would have been able to reduce both reservations and distrust. It is part of the language to be used, language being important to build bridges and avoid the seeds of conflict. It is the intention so often reflected in old Chinese wisdom, not always valued perhaps by past leaders, – like the wisdom of Lincoln or Kennedy often seemed to have been forgotten by some of the US President’s in later US history. Both cultures have imperfections, but responding to each other with wisdom and restraint will avoid situations like those e.g. happened in Vietnam, where millions of people died in conflict. A conflict later on by historian’s considered as a lack of judgement, even by participants of US Administrations at the time, – regretfully in retrospect many years later.

Within the current strategic decision-making, prepared at least for two years already within the US military establishment and pushed from a different angle as well by former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, – the US President’s visit to Australia has been well prepared and his speeches were well-timed, more as tactics of the US military establishment than a leadership acknowledgement how important it is to keep world peace.

We need to realise that in the US President’s do come and go and whilst US President Obama might be well able to make the right choices to support peace, his change of military tactic is causing serious digestion issues in China, – and the concerns reflected by Indonesia are realistic.

We don’t need a new cold war scenario, the times are too dangerous and too unpredictable in case of any miscalculation. China may have as much distrust in the US as the US has in China and Australia is following  closely in the footsteps of the US, – footsteps not always been that fortunate in the past. Any new Republican (?tea party) President might change the nature and intend of an agreement as the Pentagon sees fit, based on CIA information not always being complete. The reality proves that both China and the US will avoid at all cost a war on their own soil and as proved in the past, all US war’s were fought outside their borders, – often far away.

President Obama’s Australian visit follows last weekend’s 19-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which highlighted the need for new measures supporting job growth in the US. Needless to say succesful. During the Hawaiian summit, Obama emphasised the importance of the Pacific being an area of global economic security, and he requested China to do more to help strengthen the world economy with fair trade and sticking to international rules. However he did not reach out far enough to ease tensions.

Again, – to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world (as the Greeks) wrote so long ago, requires a shift in modern thinking where traditional thinking does include the option of excessive and more brutal force than ever before, against the will and the interest of the majority of people. This type of shift in thinking and perception is simply progress in the way we see the world and change is the motivator of this progress in non violent change for the better, and looking for mutual stability in an area of potential tension. However this type of change has enemies not to be underestimated. Those enemies  again are usually the extremists being extreme in their intolerance and in their accusations. It is paramount to give them no grounded base for their accusations. Those enemies can be found in both the US military force and the Chinese military force (actually in any military force), and as leaders of major super powers it would be better to learn the lessons from some predecessors. The Cold War between the US and Russia (USSR at the time) ended because of the intervention of leaders reaching out eventually, beyond the military background powers. The personal approach is vital to end and prevent conflict and Obama’s mission being applauded widely in Australia was more personal and warm here than what it could have been in China.

Inclusive leadership which breaks the ice in economic endeavours, emphasising what we have in common as a people (despite differences), is more helpful than straight on showing strength by increasing miliary capacity and creating alliances within the domain of potential force. It could have been a second step if all communication failed. The Chinese might be far more rigid in dynamics of government, but this does not take away that their culture endured over time and sustained over time and will change over time through different principles than both being familiar in the US and Australia. Mutual respect and friendship facilitates a mutual learning experience with positive outcomes for those countries realising the importance of this and refusing to repeat cold war dynamics as we had in the past.

The wisdom of Chinese leaders is perhaps not going that far that they realise it would be wise to help domestic reforms in the direction of a democracy, – however despite shortcomings in human rights their intend is both stability at home and stability within the domain of economic growth, recognising that change is inevitable as generations and values do change. The Chinese leadership however wants to be in control of this change as uncontrolled change may have undesired side effects. At the end of the day this is up to the Chinese and the dynamics of their society.

There is a rule in international diplomacy and Nelson Mandela did stick to this rule in South Africa to overcome differences. The rule is to visit your potential opponent and sort matters out before they blow out of proportions. The incidents in the Chinese Sea did give the US an excuse to increase their military presence without resolving the issue straight on with the Chinese leadership. It seems a move which could have been dealt with differently and the concerns of Indonesia about potential escalation are justified.

Let’s put it this way: communication is the cornerstone of international diplomacy at the level between the US and China, and where one party fails, the other party does not need to take a robust example of increasing (quietly) a very significant military presence which in US history often led to war far outside their borders. There is something to say at times in favour for face to face discussion and delaying a response allowing the other party to correct itself. US Generals (eg Air Force Maj.Gen. Michael Keltz) did only add to the military mission with a reflection on the nature of the most advanced weapons being around (shortly) in the Pacific.

Whilst the US budget perhaps does not come at the expense of the Asia Pacific, a military confrontation will come at the cost of the Asia Pacific. Where indeed the Chinese made apparently new claims on the Chinese Sea, the American’s traditionally different communicator’s failed to discuss this straight on face to face with the Chinese leadership and President Obama reflected a response both in line with US military strategy and the importance of increasing jobs and economic activity at home in the US. It’s a smart move before the US Presidential elections in 2012 and perhaps this move is required to help his re-election in the interest of the free world, as long as he keeps the bigger picture in mind.

Democracy is not always perfect, neither is the way for an enduring and lasting peace. However it is better to have an imperfect peace rather than a devastating war at a cost not measurable anymore in human dimensions.

For this reason “The Indian talking stick” should be right at the centre of the Asia – Pacific relations, as only this will offer creatively better scenario’s based on “win – win”, as Stephen Covey would say. It means listening talking and reasoning along the line of acceptable alternatives for all parties being involved.

This is the only way forward.

It requires a shift in strategy and thought process.

It is the only way forward as we are living on the edge of the sword of Damocles, – this century with both such a potential dangerous future and outcome, but also this century with the opportunity to make the right choices the avoid the most dangerous dynamics on earth.

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

 

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Savills triumphs at Asia Pacific property awards 2012 (savills.co.uk)
• US Rebalancing To Asia-Pacific: Implications For West Asia – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
• Savills triumphs at Asia Pacific property awards 2012 (savills.co.uk)
• South China Sea And The United States – Analysis (albanytribune.com)
• Asia/Pacific (Excluding Japan) 2014 Top 10 ICT Predictions (virtual-strategy.com)
• [Newsmaker] Abe’s gamble falters under criticism (koreaherald.com)
• Rice Re-emphasizes Importance of U.S. Shift to Pacific (defense.gov)
• Abe’s Yasukuni visit isolates Japan (eastasiaforum.org)
• Savills Asia Pacific Launches New Residential Search Engine (savills.co.uk)
• Ready to Be Southeast Asia’s Peacekeeper (thejakartaglobe.com)
• National Security Advisor Rice: America’s Future in Asia and the Transcendent Role of Climate Change (climateandsecurity.org)

To sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression against human rights and injustice, and create the biggest movement on earth

 

–

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal or act to improve the lot of others, or strikes against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”    – Robert F Kennedy,  former US Senator and Presidential candidate in 1968

Like words can move and guide people as part of proper leadership, so is principle centred and strategic non violent action able to remove the power base of oppressive regimes, – those regimes with no respect for human rights. Needless to say the movement of non violent action will endure and the force if well-balanced on all core principles, may outmanoeuvre dictators to make free the people who lost their freedom and dignity under often ruthless powers.

It works. It proved in India at the times of Gandhi, it proved in Tunisia and Egypt with people at the forefront of action and strengthened with the literature of eg Gene Sharp, the last being a scholar in nonviolent social change and still alive today in East Boston, USA.   Gene Sharp is a graduate from Oxford and has held positions at Harvard University, besides Massachusetts Dartmouth. His books “The Politics of Nonviolent Action” and “Waging Nonviolent Struggle” have inspired many movements across the globe. Iran did accuse him of working for the CIA, which is not true. A reflection however that the non violent movement if well prepared is feared by those countries who have reason to fear, Iran and Syria included. Needless to say that in some Middle East countries real discussions are going as how to break the force of non violent action. However if well-developed, like Robert Kennedy from a distance once indicated, it can “sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression”, as happened eg in South Africa.

Obviously the road of non violence action is not without risk and people engaging in non violent action will be killed regardless their good intentions. Often the struggle is a hard one with loss of friends to be endured, not to speak about the risk of very potential torture. However non-violence by principle and guided with superior talent is the only way, as violence will be responded with greater violence by forces far stronger than yourself and it will give opponents an argument to fight to the bitter end. Non violence includes the choice of specific tactics, often to break the violence of opposing policing and military force.

There have been misconceptions about nonviolent action. Many people used to think that it was not a strong force and that only the violence of war could remove extreme dictators. It is not true. Foreign countries do not need to occupy countries where human rights are abused or where dictator’s have the reigns. It needs to come from the people themselves, at times with support like in Libya. However the last one was not an example of non violent struggle and where violent struggle obtains a victory the likelihood of violence to be sustained has increased, – whatever party did win the struggle. Only if the principles of non violent action are at the centre of the struggle, those groups sustaining and winning the battle this way are more likely to continue to stick to those principles.

If people are disciplined and courageous, they can do it with the proper concepts of non violent action. When people lose the understandable element of fear of an oppressor’s regime, the oppressive regime is facing deep trouble. Maintaining a nonviolent discipline is crucial. If a highly oppressive regime has various troops and effective weapons, it is foolish to try fighting them on their own ground You can’t win from their weapons and if you use the same tactics you will be branded as terrorists. So you must choose something else. Violence is usually not the answer, it creates more often greater disasters.

Highly regarded Us exVietnam war officials initially being sceptic about the concept of “non violent action”, – changed their mind after the war as they were confronted with evidence that it worked,  – more effective than they ever thought!  The power base of people does not involve a foreign occupation of any country if such country lives in gross contradiction of essential human rights, – it does not even involve the requirement of using ugly force. It only requires to empower people with the principles of non violent obstruction and non coöperation in the specific context of their country and such a movement is able the get a victory on principle and start on the same principles a sustainable democracy with proper law enforcement, – the last requiring force of the law on the real offenders and criminals.

Military-Industrial Complex Conduct Invites Nonviolent Direct Action

–

Some may say throwing stones are fine as long as you don’t hit people. It is simply not true. The gesture is violent in itself and will be responded with physical and all other violence. In biblical terms the fall of Jericho was neither caused by violence nor stones. The walls representing the barrier were of such nature that violence would not bring it down. Oppression and dictators are based on certain systems of power and undermining those systems to make them fall apart is one of the aims to get rid of oppression. With faith!

 

This concept can be developed into a smart and highly effective technology using the human spirit in all it’s positive and creative dimensions for those who suffer an enduring and violent injustice against the basics of human rights. It requires a sound knowledge of the nature and dynamics of the oppressing regime, answering the question as well in which areas they are both strong and weak. Modern communication technology will  aid such movement of positive change.

–

 

–

It is not always true that every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves, what is true that every community may get the sort of law enforcement it insists on. To tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world (as the Greeks) wrote so long ago, requires a shift in modern thinking where this modern thinking traditionally did include the option of excessive and more brutal force than ever before, against the will and the interest of the people. This type of  shift in thinking and perception is simply progress in the way we see the world and change is the motivator of progress into non violent ways to meet worthy goals and show respect for life.

However this type of change has enemies not to be underestimated. Those enemies are usually the extremists being extreme in their intolerance and in their accusations and it is paramount to provide them no grounded base for their accusations. Hence being in debt familiar with the principles of non violent struggle being the baseline to start a strategic sound and well prepared campaign against the oppressors, whoever the oppressors are and wherever they may be.

It is within this context that the intellectual work of Gene Sharp deserves recognition as within the context of an increasing friction between the interests of the people and the interests of Governments who seek confrontation rather than peace,  whilst the people they represent say:”Never ever again!”, – it provides a blueprint to do what Senator Robert F Kennedy once said in the above quote about “ripples of hope” and “million centres of energy and daring”.

The power of one can make or break the world where it comes to critical decisions about war and peace, and where the power of one directs into the direction of war the power of people’s have a right to say:”Not again, – never again!”, – as all out war on this planet not being able to controlled anymore is not a rational alternative. People  have  a right even to sweep down democratic governments if those governments take it one step too far in the direction of major war, and not keep the peace where  the option is to preserve the peace. Too many wars in the past were pointless, without real gain and with too many losses.

Any future major war may escalate into global disaster and as global citizens we have an obligation to watch our governments on the best possible intentions to protect our human right to live on this planet and cultivate the positive potential of life, – industry, – liberty and cut inequalities among race, cultures and individual opportunities. The last just  to be able to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy!

The use of violence is only the very last option when nuclear powers try to dominate the world with both the use of nuclear force and international blackmail, –  after it proved all efforts of proper international diplomacy guided by the UN failed.

To sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression against human rights and injustice, against the mightiest walls in favour of an increasing arms race and both nuclear and biochemical threat, –  requires nearly half a billion centres of energy and daring.  As only this current can change the tide in human history!

–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Related articles

• Where Gene Sharp departed from Gandhi – and where it leaves us (wagingnonviolence.org)
• The Polytechnic Uprising of Nov 1973: A Greek Nonviolent Movement against the Greek Junta (transcend.org)
• Kerry Kennedy: We Mourn the Loss of Global Human Rights Icon, Nelson Mandela (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Reprehensible Use of Mandela’s Legacy to Support Oppression (mitchellplitnick.com)
• Mandela and the Question of Violence – Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic (theatlantic.com)
• Gandhianism and the Darker Nations[1] (docilefiber.wordpress.com)
• Why won’t the west call out Saudi Arabia for persecution of democratic activists? | Andy Fitzgerald (theguardian.com)
• Queer Politics (tanejamahima.wordpress.com)
• Bernice A. King: Honoring Mandela: A Better Man, Not a Bitter Man (huffingtonpost.com)
• Apple CEO Tim Cook: ‘Today we have an opportunity to eliminate discrimination of the LGBT community’ (pinknews.co.uk)

The Art of Leadership and Lessons from the Past – Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela (Photo credit: Festival Karsh Ottawa)

NELSON MANDELA

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”          – Nelson Mandela  

–

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the
only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is
great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what
you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t
settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you
find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better
and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you
find it. Don’t settle.”       – Steve Jobs

–

“Now if you are going to win any battle you have to do one
thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the
body tell the mind what to do. The body will always give up.
It is always tired morning, noon, and night. But the body is
never tired if the mind is not tired. When you were younger
the mind could make you dance all night, and the body was
never tired… You’ve always got to make the mind take over
and keep going.” – George S. Patton

–

 

 

The last quote applies to “the body” of a country as well, and disciplined as Mandela was he showed this already at a personal level, – last but not least during his years on Robben Island where he continued to inspire the movement for change against the odds. Mandela has been imprisoned for 27 years as a political prisoner. It neither changed his spirit nor did it stop him from continuing his struggle to make South Africa free of Apartheid.

When he entered Robben Island in 1964 he was emotionally headstrong and easily stung. The man however who emerged from this imprisoned island was far more balanced and disciplined. At some stage he said: “I came out mature.” He smiled like he often smiled, not showing fear despite going through fear at times, not showing the internal struggle he often experienced. His life has been always at the centre of struggle. In 1994, 4 years after his release from Robben Island , he became the first democratically elected “black” president of South Africa at the age of 75. He embraced at this stage both black and white in his efforts to create unity in the damaged “soul” of South Africa. He devoted his life to the fight against domination and gave it the very best performance, an enduring example for many generations to come. An example as well that regardless of age the course may endure and the dream will never die, if we have one being large enough to add value to life.

–

Life only is a brief expression of the universe with endless possibilities and ideas, both in the positive and the negative. Mandela tuned into the irreversible idea for justice to be achieved for South Africa and made it his lives work, neither only justice for the blacks but denied justice as well for the whites who were prisoners of being tuned into the wrong ideology. Once a country is tuned into the wrong stuff many citizens unfortunately do resonate with the same wrong stuff, whatever it is. We did see this in Germany in the 1940ties. We did see this more recently in Syria and Libya and there is a whole list of countries without true compass, neither with justice nor with law enforcement to enforce this justice if people lack self-control. 

–

Whilst being influenced by the Gandhi principles on non-violence and initially committed to non violent resistance. Mandela and 150 others were arrested on 5 December 1956 and charged with treason. This slowly changed the consensus over the years within the ANC. It could prove that nonviolent resistance did not work. Whilst Mandela intended to prevent bloodshed even where opponents were the culprits of bloodshed, he could not commit himself to the principle of non-violence anymore as the Government in place allowed the (secret) police to abuse human rights in all dimensions, including all sorts of torture. Being on Robben Island and Mandela seeking obviously freedom, President Botha offered Mandela in 1985 this freedom on condition that he ‘unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon’. Mandela released however a statement via his daughter Zindzi saying “What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts.”

–

Mandela added to value of life and to the culture of ideas which makes nations an enduring entity if they stick to the same principles. If the manifestation of a non dominant multiracial culture would have been achieved before the agony of apartheid the struggle now perhaps would be more in the nature of perfecting the “Union” of people in South Africa, – working in peaceful harmony together, with South Africa being a powerful reflection of a well-integrated society maintaining a strong economy for the benefit of all, with proper law enforcement being the protection for all it’s citizens.

–

From this point of view South Africa has still a long way to go, with “the culture of heart” from Mandela to be maintained and cherished as an ongoing example and “Compass”, long even after he has gone.

It’s an obligation by principle for the new leaders in South Africa, to resist the various temptations as Mandela did. He did not cut corners in his approach and whilst President of South Africa, with an inclusive wisdom and both a sense of justice he did facilitate via his government a range of progressive social reforms, for reducing long entrenched social and economic inequalities in South Africa. 

–

His views on the world were not always free of controversies. He strongly opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and criticised the foreign policy US president George W. Bush in a number of speeches, criticising the lack of UN involvement in the decision to begin the War in Iraq. He said, “It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations.”

Mandela stated he would support action against Iraq only if it is ordered by the UN. Mandela urged the people of the US to join massive protests against Bush and called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the UN Security Council, to oppose him. ” What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.” Nelson Mandela also harshly condemned British Prime Minister Tony Blair and referred to him as the “foreign minister of the United States”.

Whilst correct in his assessment on the war in Iraq, on the other hand Mandela was uncommonly loyal to Muhammad Gaddafi and Fidel Castro. They had helped the ANC when the U.S. still branded Mandela as a terrorist.

Mandela has received over 200 rewards during four decades and in 1993 the Nobel Peace Price. The United Nations General Assembly announced in November 2009 that Mandela’s birthday, 18 July, is to be known as ‘Mandela Day’ to mark his contribution to world freedom, a reflection not only of his meaning to South Africa but to the world in what has been achieved through his lifelong struggle on the road to freedom.

–

What can we learn about leadership from Nelson Mandela?

 

1. A particular purpose adding value to the lives of people at a certain time and a certain place.

–

 “The struggle is my life’,  Nelson Mandela once said. Obviously this was not his goal or meaning but it was the reflections of his endeavours to reach his mission to irradiate social injustice in South Africa, racial segregation involving apartheid, discrimination which involved black and coloured people. His life was centred around his goal of creating racial equality. It is clear this was a meaningful purpose affecting many in the positive, resonating positively in the wider context and principle of justice, considering what South Africa has gone through over various decades. As the injustice of “Apartheid” was widely felt both national and international, he did link into an overwhelming majority who felt similar and in his passion for his goal to end this injustice as peaceful as possible did attract an immense support on the road to freedom. Besides this he had the unique characteristics to embody and represent the movement for change, despite intermittent frictions about the right approach. However obviously a leader needs to be able to articulate a wider felt purpose to improve the conditions of others and the more this is tuned or aligned with wider values on the issues at the time, the more support he or she is able to create. Nelson Mandela fits this requirement in full, however this is a very general requirement and there are “Mandela specifics” adding extensively to the leadership lessons from Nelson Mandela. The true worth of Nelson Mandela was not found in himself, but in the changes, the textures and colours that came alive in South Africa as a result of what he added to the history of the people in South Africa.

–

2. Don’t quit, – “stick-to-itiveness.”

–

What dies in people while they are alive by not even attempting to give their once felt dreams the required efforts (even at the risk of not achieving them) is a sad thing. Some start their pathway with good efforts but when they meet strong resistance and times get tough they give up. They tried at least and find perhaps something else. Some would give it the extra inch being required and come on top, but even this is not fool-proof to be successful. How far to take matters is an individual choice and sometimes some soul-searching is required in the question how far to take the desired outcome and at which costs. If the goal is not a self-serving one and is able to stretch to the interests and justice for the many rather than the few who can serve themselves, there is a power in the words: “Stick – to – itiviness and don’t quit!” Even if we don’t succeed to see “the promised land” ourselves. Obviously we speak here about life changing goals and major changes as being faced with eg people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, apart from various others. For the majority of people the goals are different and may change, but nevertheless there is a fair point to stick it out if there is something you dearly want to achieve. Don’t give up , don’t give in and grow into those goals so that life can’t rob you from it.

–

Mandela did face many challenges and set backs but in the face of a most powerful government he persisted. His life was his argument by setting an example. Even sentenced to a long stay on Robben Island with freedom taken away, his reputation grew as the most significant black leader of South Africa. He still however had freedom, the last freedom, – the freedom of choice how to take his predicament. “You have to make the mind run the body”, tells the quote at the start of this article. This is what Mandela did. Obviously he was tired at times. Obviously he did ask the question:”Is it still possible?”. Obviously there have been times of despair. He was just a human being and who would not feel lost occasionally in the circumstances he faced. However he persistently continued certain habits. In prison, Mandela kept habits that were already in place. He did stick eg to the disciplined eating regime of an athlete, his early morning exercise and not allowing his spirit to get crushed. He performed hard labour in a lime quarry and needless to say the prison conditions were most basic. Political and black prisoners were kept separate and received the lowest level of privileges. Mandela was allowed one letter and one visitor each 6 months. With the restrictions he had he undertook a distance learning program with the University of London by correspondence and obtained a bachelor degree of Laws. He inspired young black activists imprisoned on Robben Island until authorities tried to break the what was called “The Mandela University” by separating senior ANC leaders like him, Walter Sisulu, Mlaba,Kathrada and Mlangeni from the ANC junior’s. This was in a nutshell Mandela’s response to adversity. It did not leave him unchanged, he became better rather than bitter. This adversity did cultivate both patience and maturity, both planning and timing. It was a creative response, the last choice we have. He created even meaning during his time as a black prisoner, with no real prospect in the beginning that he would ever set foot alive on mainland South Africa.

3. Dare to lead from the front but don’t leave your base behind.

After Mandela was treated for his prostate in 1985 he was separated from his his senior friends and colleagues. Sisulu and the others protested against this but Kathrada considered that perhaps something good may come out of this. What Mandela did was perhaps the most daring thing only a leader can do who keeps the broader picture in mind. He started negotiations  with the apartheid government after stating initially that prisoners can’t negotiate and that armed struggle would bring the government down. The risk of total escalating violence was such a grave perspective that he decided to negotiate with a willing apartheid government at the time, oppressors who had the same perception that thing could get totally out of control. Mandela took an immense risk at the time and with his reputation on the line within the ANC he explained to his base that the refusal to negotiate was only a tacticle move, not a move by principle. He proved to be most pragmatic as the climate was right to negotiate and he had to arrive at this position first, with his base following. Easier said than done as within the ANC there were people convinced he totally lost it. However Mandela made it. He took the long view as matters were unavoidable to change in the decade ahead. This was a most risky move which could have cost his live. Within a different context US President John F Kennedy took the long view on peace to be far more important than war, with a base being radical anti-communist. He went out of his way to avoid an all out nuclear war on Cuba and he was ahead of his time to realise that the Vietnam war was a waste of American lives and American interests, which proved to be the case many years after his assassination. His “military base” at home, including the US establishment could neither take this broader long view nor this independent President, – hence he was killed. Daring to lead from the front requires to take the base with you. It is a principle in leadership, – stronger it is a principle to survive when times are tough. As a leader at times you have to take this risk and make a move for the better, with the full picture in mind. But don’t do it on your own. Make sure your base is involved and you have the support of the majority, provided there is not an immediate crisis where you have to trust your better instincts against those who may distrust you. In those situations only quick and positive results will take the resistance away. It can be however a real challenge, but Mandela had enough credit to take this calculated move and he proved to be right.

–
(How was he so sure?  He was a lawyer and in prison he discovered that the worst and most cruel prison guards were receptive to him whilst offering legal aid to them based on their needs, leaving them completely puzzled and surprised, – that a black man far more educated than them was prepared to do this. Mandela sensed that when you approached those people in the right way, you could do business and negotiate with them, even with the worst representatives of the apartheid regime.)

–
4. Compassion inclusive of differences.

–
Nelson Mandela became President (1994-1999) of a divided country with hatred at both sides of the spectrum. He persisted in taking the long view as hatred is not the way forward of building the foundations of a new South Africa. Mandela’s aim was a country with racial equality and justice to all parties being part of this new South Africa. Not an easy task, especially where it comes to national reconciliation. And here we might touch base on a few “Mandela specifics”, skills or attitudes not being new but used with integrity to achieve desired results. Let’s face it, Mandela did express unique wisdom in his general approach:

–
During the 1994 Presidential election campaign on his way to Natal to speak to Zulu supporters, Mandela’s plane nearly crashed as due to engine failure. There was some panic indeed but Mandela calmly continued to read his news paper, which did reassure some. Was he scared?  He was terrified up there but did not show it because he felt as a leader you can’t show fear. Through the act of making the impression to have no fear, he was an example and inspiration for others in this specific situation. He learnt this at Robben Island as there was enough going on there to provide plenty of fear. However he learnt to master his fear, it’s part of being a good actor at times.The best performance is trying to be a model for others which can give strength, both to yourself and those others. Mandela knew it worked this way.*Part of best performance is to smile, rather than showing anger. There was enough to be angry about but it would not help one bit as often anger will be responded with anger. What you resonate to other people will often come back to you and Mandela knew that his relaxed smile was able to melt icy relationships. It is part of the performance understood by both Mandela and eg US President Barack Obama. Appearance like a smiling one is able to advance a message, in his case the message or symbol actually of lacking bitterness. Mandela knew the past. He knew the past of South Africa. He knew the past of being detained. He knew what happened in detention. But for the sake to achieve national unity you had to set those emotions aside. He often said to forget the past as he really meant to achieve the future, which he projected with an all-inclusive smile. It’s true, he not always felt like this. However it was not part of an empty show, –  it was his effort and struggle to embrace a modern South Africa and to move forward, building different dynamics by choice and not emotions. Compassion at a different level than we are used to, with the bigger picture being more important than personal emotions.*Mandela knew exactly when to take the next step in the transition of once being a warrior, a politician thereafter, a diplomat and finally a statesman. He was an excellent tactician and a smart politician. Obviously he did stick to his core principles and aims, but often – as he tended to say – issues were rarely a matter of principles, but far more often a matter of tactics. Gandhi as earlier discussed had a similar brilliant approach. In his case independence from Britten by the principle of non-violence to be achieved, but many other issues by the right choice of tactic. People with compassion and integrity allowing and being inclusive of differences need to use tactics as in this world you can’t do without it to get desired results, – in an environment often being hostile and not without danger.*Mandela knew what was important for white South Africans. He studied their language, their culture and was able to impress many with his knowledge and his respect being shown to them in Government. He “kept his allies close but his (potential) opponents even more close”, – as the saying goes. He had a remarkable talent to make people at ease, make them feel important with often showing interest in their personal circumstances. It was the best way to break potential “icy relationships” and setting the tune of dynamics. Many people (let’s say white people) changed their mind or opinion after meeting him, – even worst opponents from the past.
–

*Mandela managed to get black South Africans behind the previously hated South African national rugby team (Springboks) when South Africa hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup. After the Springboks did achieve to win from New Zealand, Mandela presented the trophy to the Afrikaner captain Francois Pienaar, wearing a Springbok shirt with Pienaar’s own number 6 on the back. This again was a major reflection of his efforts to get increased reconciliation of both white and black South Africans. Using such a popular sport at the time more within the “white” domain to unify the country in its achievement was superseding the terminology of good tactics, – it was simply a wise move.

–
One of the skills in various meetings Mandela used was “The Indian Talking Stick”. An effective tool from ancient Indian culture of listening respectfully to others when they speak and speak only when it is your turn.  Mandela after carefully listening to different opinions in various meetings often spoke as the last one, providing a distinct summary so that people felt understood but meanwhile as a leader directing the outcome of the discussion in the way he actually wanted. On the one hand being led but on the other hand leading so that people could buy into the outcome. It’s a way of creatively resolving differences and get an agreement which works at the point of bonding and trust.

Needless to say that in terms of leadership there is more to say about Nelson Mandela. Both his live and his goal were one in the struggle to get South Africa out of the agony of Apartheid and with his leadership he not only succeeded, but he provided an enduring example and direction. The symbol of the man speaks at times stronger than his own words could do, but the direction should be a “lighthouse” for South Africa to facilitate a more perfect union of people, – working together for shared interests in this beautiful country down south in Africa.

–

Thank you!

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

. 

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Related articles

• Former Robben Island Inmate Recalls Mandela’s Discipline, Courage (npr.org)
• Mandela Mourners Seek Closure at Robben Island (voanews.com)
• You: Robben Island: The place that changed Nelson Mandela (latimes.com)
• Nelson Mandela: a tour of Robben Island (telegraph.co.uk)
• RIP Nelson Mandela – Former President Of South Africa Dies, Age 95 (popdust.com)
• Former South African President Nelson Mandela Dies Aged 95 (besuccessfulnews.wordpress.com)
• Nelson Mandela’s One Big Lesson (stephendarorionverygreatpeople.wordpress.com)
• Long Walk To Freedom Film Further Shines Mandela (spyghana.com)
• Nelson Mandela’s Legacy of Couage (examiner.com)
• Historic Nelson Mandela Poster (indybay.org)

The Art of Leadership and Lessons from the Past – Edward M. Kennedy

Edward Moore Kennedy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Leadership lessons  (Edward M. Kennedy)

 

“Ted Kennedy’s life is a reminder that much can be achieved by late bloomers; that you don’t have to have your career all figured out by the time you’re   

   25, 35, or even over 45.”

             – Sarah Green in a post on Harvard Business Publishing.

–

His life was marked by tragedy and somehow recklessness perhaps in his early years, but change within himself  later in life  made him become one of the greatest Senators in US history. He went through personal lessons of resilience and agonising redemption, realising that he had to face his own shortcomings., – which he did.

We have to make sometimes very personal choices in life and whatever triggered his change,  he started to reshape his life in his late 50’s making him from the age of 59 until his death a most fascinating leader – showing that leadership starts with self-control and responsible decisions. However not only this.  If we are fortunate enough in life to find someone who loves us for what we are,  we may be able to multiply affection and love by giving of what we once received.

Good leaders are just human beings as well, the last at times forgotten by the public and media.

The assassination of his 2 older brothers contributed to his first years of struggle and (hidden) heartbreak, – “Teddy” now representing his  “legendary” family following events in 1968.  However he really found a new voice whilst standing up for those not too well off in American society, showing to be a key figure amidst liberal principles.

Edward Moore Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009) was the Democratic US  Senator for Massachusetts, serving almost 47 years. He was the second most senior US Senator when he died and the third or fourth longest-serving member of this college, being perhaps one of the most positive and powerful legislator’s in American history.

 

He was the last surviving son of Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr; the youngest brother of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (both assassinated in public service)  and Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., the last being killed in action in World War II; and the father of Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy. After the assassination of his brother John an Robert he was for many years the most important living member of  the Kennedy family.

Kennedy’s New York Times obituary described him: “He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.”

Following his failed presidential bid, Kennedy became one of the most influential members of the Democratic Party, and was later in the 1990’s called a “Democratic icon”as well as “The Lion of the Senate“.  Kennedy and his Senate staff wrote more than 2000 bills and more than 300 were enacted into law. Kennedy supported another 550 bills  becoming  law after 1973. Kennedy was most effective in dealing with Republican senators and administrations, sometimes even at the irritation of some Democrats. During the G.W. Bush administration, almost every bipartisan bill being signed had significant involvement from Kennedy. A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship, which should be an example for the Republicans (in 2011). Kennedy was committed to  the principle “never let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” and would agree to pass legislation he viewed as incomplete or imperfect with the goal of improving it down the road. Somehow different we see this with President Barack Obama as well. As long as it works for the better progress, often a good compromise is required. In April 2006, Kennedy was selected by Time as one of “America’s 10 Best Senators”; the magazine discussed that he had “amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of almost every man, woman and child in the country” and that “by the late 1990s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him”.Even the Republican presidential nominee John McCain said in May 2008: …”[Kennedy] is a legendary lawmaker and I have the highest respect for him. When we have worked together, he has been a skillful, fair and generous partner.” At the time of Kennedy’s death, sociologist and Nation board member Norman Birnbaum wrote that Kennedy had come to be viewed as the “voice” and “conscience” of progressive America ( American progressivism). He worked on major issues of our time including civil rights, healthcare, the war in Vietnam, Watergate, and the quest for peace in Northern Ireland.

Kennedy’s passion was at times most powerful and contagious.  Besides this he was able to disagree on issues without making it personal. He was therefore greatly admired across the political spectrum.

What can we learn from him in terms of leadership, – without subdividing the issues too much?

1. “Stick- to – itiveness” and give it the very best performance.

Whilst his performance at the start of his political career was a learning curve and subject for improvement he won his Senate seat for the first time during the Presidency of his brother, Jack Kennedy. He was perhaps in a fortunate position but for certain was he not “a celebrity Senator”.  He proved this after each re-election, especially when he began performing for his constituents and collaborating with his colleagues.

He had an unwavering tenacity and perseverance which did include in a steady pace mastering the details, studying and learning amidst changing issues.Kennedy rolled up his sleeves and earned his place, even through rough and threatening times. He continued planning , timing and cultivating a degree of patience. The reward for his “stick-to-itiveness” was that he knew he stayed the course by following “True Compass”

When Mitt Romney challenged Kennedy for his Senate seat in 1994, the crucial moment of their debate — which probably made  Kennedy win the re-election — involved Kennedy pressing Romney for the specifics on his health care plan, with Romney forced to  admit that he hadn’t worked out all the details. “Well that’s what you have to do with legislation,” the Senator replied. Kennedy knew the job. His career rewards followed from his service and perseverance to master the details to be required for progressive change.

Ted Kennedy faced various public crises which could have destroyed him, yet he proved to be resilient and able to learn.  He restored confidence in his leadership. The still-mysterious incident at Chappaquiddick where a young woman drowned nearly ended his career. Whilst showing at that particular time no courage and ducking accountability he bounced back by redoubling his efforts to do his job well. Even fumbling during an important interview during his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1980, he recovered by applying more energy and passion to his work in the Senate.  He was not perfect but he learned from his mistakes and became a better human being, persistent and committed as he was.  Besides this he never claimed victory for himself but was generously able to share credit

2.Find a purpose recognised by yourself as a very strong one.

Kennedy reached a stage of mind  to feel that his live belonged to the community and his newly found values did suspend part of his ego. He rejoiced in burning up for the values he stood for before handing the responsibility for his course to the next generation. Ted Kennedy believed in public service as the best profession and in government to help all citizens getting their chance for a better quality of life. Once he found his voice and his core mission after overcoming some misery from the past his position and “Compass” were clear and often he spoke for the people who could not speak for themselves.  The goals were so important that he was willing to work with political opponents in the Senate to reach agreement on measures that served the people.He supported President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind legislation” for school reform.  The cause of children less privileged was that important to him that he rather would compromise and get a bit done whilst the alternative was no action at all. He took action by calling on higher principles which did resonate with principle centred members of the other party. He proved that his ability to compromise for a better outcome was a strength rather a weakness, the last based on ongoing efforts to build strong relations across the political spectrum. With at times an emotional appeal for what he thought to be right he was able to get the more intellectual minded on board from the other party. His emotional bank account on the Senate floor had a large surplus, he was well liked and well trusted on his views.

–
3.Never forget family & friends.

The hard-working Ted Kennedy was at heart a family man. After the assassination of his brothers he was the stronghold and the father for many amidst the larger Kennedy family, keeping people together, encouraging close to lost children, playing touch-football at the family compound in Hyannis Port and arranging  family outings to historic sites,-  apart from sailing away from the pier in Hyannis Port through the waters of Nantucket at the Cape. In spirit his late brother President John F Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy were always close to him and the love for his extended family guided him through tough times in his life. He was a role model for some of the Kennedy children and helped them with their own belief system and the power of the words: “I can” and “I will”.

He did neither always agree with family nor friends but he was able to agree to disagree without losing his affection or staying amicable. Whilst being able to continue to be friendly and loving he was able to work together with a range of people, based on trust. He understood the power of being considerate  and friendly.

In summary:

Did Ted Kennedy add value to life? Yes he did! He stood for the people who had no voice, trying through legislation to improve the living conditions of fellow citizens for many in his country. He made no major paradigm shift as eg Gandhi did with the perception of “non violence ” (under all circumstances). However Teddy Kennedy tried to mobilise the available recourses in the US Senate to help change at various levels. He stood by his principles but was prepared to listen and seek compromise for the better. He was a trustworthy icon in the US Senate working with an excellent team supporting him to work the required changes for the better. He was not free of mistakes and made a few but made good on them by getting a better person and sticking to his compass, which always directed him back to the original course of action. He had a mission, imagination and was both persistent and committed to give it the best performance, – at some stage not for his ego anymore but for the benefit of others. He did own up to his mistakes and learnt from them with a faith to allow eventually the higher power in himself taking over.

With his belief system Involving the will of giving and with his own trials and errors in life, he showed us: “Together we can, together we will!”

And that’s enough, –  good enough!

Thank you!

–

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

 

Related articles

• “Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s office issued a paper stating that the literacy rate in Massachusetts…” (basedheisenberg.tumblr.com)
• US Envoy Caroline Kennedy Visits Nagasaki (abcnews.go.com)
• JFK’s Echoes Still Heard In U.S. Senate (huffingtonpost.com)
• John F. Kennedy and the National Library of Medicine (circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov)
• US remembers Kennedy 50 years on (bbc.co.uk)
• Obama awards Medal of Freedom to Clinton, Oprah, others (usatoday.com)
• Remembering JFK (droninglawyer.com)
• Rose Elizabeth Kennedy (pyrokin.wordpress.com)
• New Kennedys: 4 Members of Clan Who Could Carry Political Torch (abcnews.go.com)
• Obama, Clinton unite at JFK’s grave – Ninemsn (news.ninemsn.com.au)

The Art of Leadership and lessons from the Past – some general features

Organization clears your path (Photo credit: nist6ss)

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow”.

“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

– Albert Einstein. 

Countries and organisations at whatever level are the combination of all-around “living” and existing dynamics and the art of leadership is based on the concept that it is important to mobilise the existing recourses of available people in the right direction, – at all levels if possible.

–

–

Not always do people change that easy, not always are existing structures at certain parts of the organisation or the country due to be changed despite being desirable to have change.  Timing is sometimes crucial and dealing with people at various sections and levels is the domain of the greatest challenge of leadership.

Our level of influence is largely dependent, not only on the vision we have and the ability to articulate this, – but both as well on our ability to  build  fundamental  trustworthy relationships, empowering others and get people in alignment with the bigger picture: the vision we emphasise.

–

–

Trust is essential but not easy. People often have different agenda’s and where other’s are not always to be trusted, leaders in essence need to be trustworthy. Integrity fires off, integrity is like a lighthouse which does not move by the principle of light, – which does not disappear and gives direction, regardless the circumstances.

–

–

So vision, direction, a way to articulate this vision, and trustworthiness are all fundamentals of sound leadership, – besides an ability to deal with people in such a way that it gives enough empowerment and leverage to work eventually at the same page of the agenda, – where eg agenda’s have been different.

–

–

Again the level of influence to achieve this needs to be able to mobilise and energize the recourses of  management levels at all existing creative and intellectual abilities, – to work things out as they should be.

–

–

We all know that leadership and management are  not the same. Where leadership gives direction or a vision, management is the agreed strategic to meet this vision or goal. Where the leader has the insight which direction is best for either country, organisation or any other movement, – the ability to get the workers in place and organise the work to be done in such a way that the goal is achievable is a management issue. Even at management level it is important that people are led in the right direction of things to be done according to plan, and both at the level of leadership and management effective communication is the cornerstone to resolve issues as they arise, – at times conflict as well.

Integrity at all those levels is a principle issue where corners are not cut at the benefit of the cheapest option and the  loss of values or principles.

–

–

Hitler started a war based on the most effective army being organised at the time and was from this point of view initially successful. His leaders at the various divisions of the “Third Reich” were highly efficient and able to communicate their vision at nearly all levels of society with passion and consideration of those who followed; – but the failure of Hitler’s “Third Reich” was that the concept of both integrity and value for life was totally lost and that the goal setting and vision of the man was deeply floored from the beginning.

–

–

For every endeavour in society at the organisational level is the fundamental question whether the vision or goal setting adds value and respect for life, – besides financial gain to support the mission. If there is no margin there is no mission. We see already in the US after the Bush Administration how hard it is to create a mission with little margins as all the previous existing margins were wasted in often pointless war’s being dominated by powerful elements in society pushing their agenda, – not rarely against the wishes of many people, and not rarely in contradiction with basic respect for life.

The world is very complex now as the traditions of securing the power base of each country with enhanced military development, based on the often ill-defined principle of “national security”, are getting worldwide more and more out of control. Strong and value based leadership is required to avoid a world eventually being totally filled up with mass grave yards as such grave yards are often not more than a reflection that conflict could have been dealt with differently, – with more leadership, integrity and respect for life.

–

–

History will always have areas of conflict but the means by which those conflicts should be resolved can’t be the means by which we have been able to inflict destruction at a large-scale.

Leadership deals with the future, with the way valuable aims and goals can be achieved through the power of the human spirit, the last often being required to be coached and energised in the right direction. Not by the increasing power of distinct evil being much prevalent all over the word, but by the power of trust, respect for life and differences, – besides mutual distinct coöperation to cut those evils which could put us all at risk if we don’t value the future for what it really could be. Values, ethics and principles are  at the heart of real leadership as it protects the immune system of an organisation or country from the undermining elements being always present anyway.  In physical terms the “Third Reich” of Hitler was a well-developed cancer being able to grow as this country had no proper functioning immune system based on principles values and ethics. If it had been present or more powerful at the time, the forces of a proper immune system would have been able to eradicate Hitler at an early stage as he would have been never an electable person with the level of influence he had. The level or lack of principles ethics and values being developed in a country or organisation, may attract the sort of leader which fits the type of country or organisation at some extend. It may accelerate change for the better or change for the worst. Hence by proper law enforcement each country or organisation would benefit from protecting the best in values being present, at all levels. Leaders come and go, in the best scenario they push forward to the next level. However, never allow them to compromise the values and principles on which the organisation or country is based. Allow them to reach the next level of the endeavour at a certain time and place, as pioneers for a  future we all need to embrace with compassion and courage.

–

–

The value of society of any democratic or non-democratic country can be assessed by the law enforcement on both terror ( to protect life) in general and eg  the terror of human trafficking (= the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of reproductive slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, forced labor, or a modern-day form of slavery) more specific.  Some 27-28 million people are eg held in slavery all over the world in countries least expected, many of them being children.  After drug trafficking and illegal arms trade, human trafficking is the fasted growing criminal industry not being tackled with the same efforts as eg “the war on terror” in Afghanistan. How countries respond to this is only one of the assessment tools to check whether our world is a world where human life is getting more respected or not, where countries are indifferent or not where it come to proper law enforcement to cut with passion and energy the crime rate at this level and let “the slaves go free”, – support them and punish the criminals who make eg human trafficking their business.

–

–

Like Hitler and his movement was a cancer not being eradicated before it became a worldwide disease, the metastatic cancer of various other injustice against all forms of human rights needs the power of relentless law enforcement in favour of  the universal rights of people, where ever they may live, where ever they are born, –  and regardless who the criminals are.

In more practical terms on leadership and values, with accepting  the above as the baseline for leadership, the following can be said:

–

Places of leadership:

They are everywhere. In any organisation, large or small. Leadership is neither restricted to the young nor the old. Some have more to it due to circumstances in life, others have less to it due to misfortune and/or ill health. However within the group of the less advantaged the greatest leaders did evolve by motivation and choice, by desire and both by skill and ability to learn the lessons life has to learn a keen spirit. Sometimes people were placed in a position to take this role on board, not by choice perhaps (the circumstances itself), – but by choice to go ahead with what crossed their pathway unintended. It was the challenge they took willingly or unwillingly on board, often when times were tough, – where they could not afford it to be indifferent in times of hardship and uncertainty. Times of adversity and crisis made great leaders in history, by choice.  The last regardless the level of wealth or first status.

–

–
Inspire vision:

Vision can bring the best of ourselves forward in the endeavours we have to face. But let us note that there are no strict rules for this. Every time when a leader stands up we may recognise some features, but the patterns following which the new leader develops are always different. For each person the background is different and each time requires a different vision as the circumstances through life do change. The needs do change as well and the way “vision” does evolve during the trials and tribulations of life is each time again different. However one of the features of a leader is that he or she is able to inspire a broader picture which does resonate at various levels. This is however a place by choice and sometimes it takes a long way to reach this position. It is not the end but often it is the beginning with various hurdles, – but the hurdles do need faith, determination, imagination, coaching teaching and involvement. In other words this vision comes from deep inside, it is a driving force requiring commitment and getting commitment in what people want to know about their own aspirations, want to hear about their own hopes and dreams in a particular set of circumstances. Inspiring vision is a shared thing.

–

–

The matter to be trustworthy is essential:

Whatever comes to the surface in retrospect about some leaders,  people in general want leaders to be credible as this makes it possible to follow a leader. If you don’t trust the leader it is hard to trust what he or she has to say about your hopes and dreams. Leaders show in word and deed what they believe in. They are trustworthy – as Stephen Covey once put it – “at the personal level and the interpersonal level”.
Leaders are able to articulate their own deep felt values very well and the level of their integrity is in line with what they say and do. Part of being trustworthy is caring. Leaders do care of what lies ahead and they show it open and honest, at times affectionate. They speak to the heart of people and mobilise at times the best in people, whilst learning from their needs with an integrity of action to carry out what is required. The broader context of this trustworthiness’ is felt in a wider relationship with people.

–

–

The matter of being proactive:
Leaders have a great capacity to anticipate and take charge of situations. They act in advance of a future situation, and not just reacting. They take control and make things happen and not just adjusting to a situation or waiting for something to happen. It has to do with the importance of courage, perseverance, personal responsibility and being aware that there are choices, regardless of the situation or context. Leaders have a sense of direction and look forward to this direction whilst applying at the same time their action of choice to reach this direction, with imagination. As such making people more capable to follow and manage their own actions in line with this direction. This being proactive may well be at the personal level, but it needs to transpire at the “team level” to get sustained results in a broader spectrum. It takes both proactivity and a team to bring people to the top of the mountain, – to become a CEO or President.

–

–

Leaders don’t work on their own, but whilst doing their own work they work in collaboration and connection.

–

This is the focus of getting things done.

–

Thank you!

–

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

->>>>>>>>>>>

Interesting might be: Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

->>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The  Art  of  Leadership  and  Lessons  from  the  Past – Edward M. Kennedy on October 29, 2011

->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The  Art  of  Leadership  and  Lessons  from  the  Past  – Gandhi. on October 27, 2011

->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-art-of-leadership-and-lessons-from-the-past-nelson-mandela/

Related articles

• Lessons on Leadership from the Nonprofit Sector (benchmarkemail.com)
• Lessons in leadership and change (slideshare.net)
• What Leadership Was and What Leadership Has Become (shoretelsky.com)
• Crucial Transition in business between yesterday and Today – Part 2 (adeposiokupe.wordpress.com)
• Leadership And Management (cheapassignmentwritingservice.wordpress.com)
• Leadership + People x Culture= BRAND SUSTAINABILITY (benefitpoint.wordpress.com)
• Why should they follow you? How do you get them to follow? (derrickvenningblog.wordpress.com)
• What’s Your Plan for Leadership Development? (leadershipmatters1213.wordpress.com)
• Star Parker Says a New Generation of Principled Conservative Leaders Are Needed (blackchristiannews.com)
• Applying the Leadership Into Your Thinking: Eight Archetypes (landsdssustainable.com)

The Art of Leadership and lessons from the Past – introduction.

Photograph of Ralph Waldo Emerson House, Concord, Massachusetts, USA. This National Historic Landmark was the longtime home of philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Where there is no vision, the people perish”  -(Proverbs 29:18)

–

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

–

“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” – (Mark Twain)

–

INTRODUCTION

–

Yes, it’s all about choices in life, – choices being so important as it determines where we will be in 3 to 5 to 10 years down the line. We did not realise this when we were kids or young adults, but after developing some corner stones in our own lives, – we all do realise it is important to make good choices as choices do find our outcomes, – not only at personal level but also at collective level.

–

–

Most of those choices we have to make on our own, – guided by instinct or values. Guided by what we have seen in the past and hope for in the future. Sometimes it is 2 step’s forward and one step backwards. Sometimes we don’t know where to go or how to take it further, — but what we choose can make – at times – the difference between life and death, – between winning or losing, – between a bad marriage or a good marriage.

This means as well that if we are going to lose “inches”, we have the freedom of choice how we are going to lose those inches, – with dignity and respect or with non-civilised behaviour – the last we know has its extremes.

–

–

The future is there where your dreams are, when you are prepared to take the first steps to get you there, – whether it is in art or politics or any other attempt.

We have all unique talents, to be used neither only for ourselves nor in the outcome of bad decisions, – neither only for the past but for the sake of our future, and those who will be part of this future.

When we have some sort of peace with ourselves amidst any trouble hardship or hard work, being able to apply certain rules of self-leadership, – we may be well on our way to attract what we need to attract to become good leaders in whatever endeavour in life, which means to connect in a broader sense with people helping our ideas to resonate in others, to bring movement or action where this is required.

–

–

There have been many books written about leadership and good leadership is like a diamond with various aspects and different ways of viewing it, – like a beautiful stone which you can see from different angles. We will discuss this further but in this introduction I only want to touch base on a few basics. For sure a strong valuable vision for the future and obedience to your own well developed (God-given) conscious are important ingredients to influence people in the positive, – which if well articulated may it mobilize the talents, the capacities of the people within the domain of your influence. Hence clear direction being required, – direction which helps to realise this vision in a practical way.

–

–

Real leaders have influence in the positive as they add value.  Hitler eg was an effective leader, – however without adding value to life in whatsoever way, without respect for life in whatsoever way. He may have had a vision, but he had no conscious. The difference with eg a mother Theresa was that she had apart from both passion, vision and direction, – conscious as well. And she obeyed this conscious.

–

–

Conscious and integrity are people orientated, based on connection with values and principles, based on respect for life, – and the outcome is neither concentration camps nor major self-inflicted war. The outcome is always directed in the positive, in adding value to productivity, business management or government.

With some people in history their importance was recognised in retrospect, as at the time the establishment was against them. Their influence appeared to be small at the start perhaps, but after they died it grew. Not always be the real image as it was then, but sometimes with the image history gave it, with the first image being perhaps more powerful. Death in those circumstances is not always the real end and on occasions it signifies a new beginning. This applies eg to Jesus from Nazareth. He was rejected and despised by the existing establishment, the world at the time, – despite his followers in those days. However his impact was of such a nature that after he was killed his influence continued, often misunderstood among Christianity and Church doctrines. But for his believers he may seem as an “unknown”, asking the question to follow him.

Great leaders have followers.

The agenda of good leaders is to motivate people to do what is right, with an influence greater than existing resistance, – even in the hours of risks and danger. Often it has to do with prompt action by choice, with faith, with a strong belief in what lies ahead, – as action without belief of what lies may prove to be often empty action.

–

–

This flow of action in the positive requires both courage and commitment, both partnership and integrity, both trials and tribulations to strengthen the efforts, – but besides this humility, wisdom and shared vision.

Neither defeat where right is valued over what is popular, nor any adversity in the midst of struggle, – will be a deterrent for the true leader to get the required seasoning to be eventually effective.

Even faced with death we may be assured that nothing is terminal and that everything is transitional.

Leadership on its own is not a goal, the vision and the process are the goal. And if the last is strong enough, at some stage there may be the harvest of our actions, – sometimes long  after we have gone.

–

–

 

For most of us leadership will be neither dramatic nor often seen in the public eye. We have leaders on the street and leaders in government. It does not make any difference. What makes a difference is that our creative expressions in life meet the needs of our fellow humans beings, that our unique talents may serve  humanity in the smaller and greater deeds, – and the art of leadership in all of this is a valuable tool in the right hands.

–

–

There are many lessons from the past, and this small introduction will be followed a number of articles and examples.

–

–

If interested keep reading on those examples and find them in your own life.

–

Thank you!

–

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

More results from wordpress.com »

–

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Interesting might be: Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

–

The  Art  of  Leadership  and  Lessons  from  the  Past – Edward M. Kennedy on October 29, 2011

–

The  Art  of  Leadership  and  Lessons  from  the  Past  – Gandhi. on October 27, 2011

->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-art-of-leadership-and-lessons-from-the-past-nelson-mandela/

Related articles

• NSW Art of Hosting opportunity (artofhostingqld.wordpress.com)
• Leadership lessons from the art world (holykaw.alltop.com)
• The Vedic Art of Leadership (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
• RALLY CRY: THE ART OF LEADERSHIP, Part 2 (metaversemodsquad.com)
• Developing Leadership Competencies: Play Sports to Hone Your ‘Art’ Skill Set (ironmommyfitness.wordpress.com)
• Leadership And The Art Of Communication (lalitaraman.com)
• The Art of Leadership and Lessons from the Past – Gandhi. (asgoped.wordpress.com)
• The Art of Leadership: 2 Lessons You Can’t Lead Without (benchmarkemail.com)
• The Art of Leadership Lies in Communicating Like One (benchmarkemail.com)
• Rally Cry: The Art of Leadership (metaversemodsquad.com)

Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice (Part 11 – Epilogue & Summary)

   –

–

–                                                                                                                          

If this is the first article you read in this series about “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice”, you might be interested to read first about the 8 Presidents being discussed in the 10 earlier chapters . Start in this case at Part 1 or 2 and work your way up to Chapter 10. Perhaps one at the time. Those chapters  can be found in “Recent Posts” at the right upper area of this page in the July/August 2011 editions. Other articles can be found in different monthly sections….Whilst not everybody agrees, – it is my opinion that with the arrival of President Obama in 2009, a new chapter started with various and valuable dimensions, leaving for the US a dark past behind since the assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963.

–

–

The US is a country with wide spectrum divisions and dangers but still now more civilised than in the way certain things have been dealt with in the past at the level of the Executive Branch. Let’s hope it stay this way in the years ahead

–

–

>Epilogue<

 

 “I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world, not only for its strength, but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.”

–

 

 –

–

“With all the history of war, and the human race’s history unfortunately has been a good deal more war than peace, with nuclear weapons distributed all through the world, and available, and the strong reluctance of any people to accept defeat, I see the possibility in the 1970’s of the President of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons.”

–

–

“My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us…step back from the shadow of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step.”    

–

–                                                

“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”   – John F Kennedy, the 35th US President.

–

 –>>

–

The beauty of a democracy is that systems of government are far more flexible than an autocracy, provided that voters use their right to vote with wisdom and commitment to select the people who are able to represent them with the required integrity and courage to work those systems for the better welfare of the people they represent. “Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice” has neither been an example of excellence in US Government systems in the domain of the Executive branch, nor has it been able to give the worst examples at the background of the past operating powers in the process of their actions.   The justice violations as part of Presidential powers or extended powers at the Executive branch of the US have been quite clear at certain areas and the US  both as a Republic and a Democracy has been quite damaged since the assassination on the 35th US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It is fair to say that there has been an increasing level of disconnection between citizens and their government, in part at least as due to the lack of transparency, the various cover up’s, the number of illegal and criminal covert operations, the massive increase and difficult to control intelligence units. Apart from the contribution to unrest in the world and sacrificing people on pointless battlefields.

–

-[

Whilst most people working in US Agencies including those of the Military and the CIA are most valuable and do a good job in the interest of their country, the dangers of the Pentagon and the CIA being overpowering and misleading the US President to help long-term US military strategy, including the future US direction, are the most prominent dangers of the US as a democracy. As earlier reflected, a general will do most of the times an excellent job at war, the preparation, the logistics etc. Once they are ordered to go to war they will do it right and the army will do it right and if such a war has a real purpose as the last possible option after all other options did not work, there are occasions this could be a justified war. The first direction however should be always to prevent either war or terror. The military presence in US policy making and/or direction has always been more than much. Some earlier US Presidents did warn for the potential dangers in retrospect.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

After the JFK  assassination most US Presidents were at some level marionettes of those major background powers and with President Obama it is still wait and see how matters will evolve as he needs to balance with extreme caution amidst various dynamics.

Regarding the latest full Presidency of G.W. Bush and the 9/11 Commission it is worth to make the added notations:

The “Sept. 11 Commission”  did investigate  a claim that U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the 2001 hijackings but did not send the information to law enforcement. Republican Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said that the men were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger.” An earlier link to al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta is correct. “The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell,”  co-Chairman of the “September 11 Commission”  Lee H. Hamilton said.  This is correct as well.

Many of the 9/11 family reactions on this late information is not surprising as it would seem some significant issues have not been properly investigated.  The question is about why  didn’t “Able Danger” report their finding to the FBI?  Why wasn’t Atta and other 9/11 terrorists put on a watch list even though there was evidence of their terrorist ties?  Have there been profound failures or were there other reasons which needed to be concealed at all cost?

The truth is that “Able Danger” was banned from sharing information with the FBI. One of the members of  the “9/11 Commission” herself was  deeply involved  in some Clinton scandals, including “Chinagate”. Jamie Gorelick was Janet Reno’s right hand “man” in the Justice Department.

The answer to the question about why this new information came that late, being banned from the Commission, is because Jamie Gorelick was on the Commission for the purpose to hide information, as such to protect the position of former President Clinton, – as it would seem. There have been never proper investigations in the the intelligence failures of the Clinton era. John Deutch, former Director of Central Intelligence, had signed a criminal plea agreement in connection with his mishandling of national secrets the day before being pardoned by the outgoing President Clinton.

During Clinton’s Presidency  in 1997 the Taliban was  invited in Texas to meet with former US President G.H.W. Bush.. They had their meeting.

Current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H.Bush (Bush,sr) quite some time ago and there have been close longstanding Taliban connections  between former President Bush and the CIA at the time. The CIA supported the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets many years ago, as we did see in the earlier chapters. Within this context Osama bin Laden did visit the US for support and weapons to be distributed to the Taliban. It was within this context that there has been meetings between Taliban representatives and G.H Bush in Texas, at the invitation of the former US President. Whilst the CIA used Massoud (a famous Mujahideen leader)  for a while to help the US force, – during the meeting however between Bush and the Taliban arrangements were made to assassinate Massoud. Other issues, including money oil and drugs profits, were discussed as well. In the  Taliban’s rise to power there was very much fighting and complex dynamics. Ahmad Shah Massoud  tried to start a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections, also inviting the Taliban to join the process and to contribute to stability. The last really so much required in Afghanistan.  Ahmad Shah Massoud had defeated the Soviet Red Army nine times in his home region of Panjshir, in north-eastern Afghanistan. He was highly regarded. However the Taliban declined to join such a political process. Osama bin Laden and Massoud were in essence enemies of each other. In the case of the Massoud assassination Karzai did act for Bush, and ordered as requested by Bush the assassination of Massoud. Two day before 9/11 he was killed.  Massoud had his own intelligence network and knew too much of what was going to happen. Massoud was aware of the Bush Karzai connections and the Taliban visit to  Texas and him blowing the whistle about 9/11 was obviously not allowed. He warned before 9/11 about pending terror attacks.

There have been various occasions that the US could have disposed Osama bin Laden but always at the last-minute there was a stand down. Osama bin Laden had to help first a secret and well prepared mission supported by the US Government, despite the existing tensions. He was a culprit used for a mission to help US foreign policy and to help the US to prepare for war with enough public support.  Bin Laden did not know that al-Qaeda would have “free access” to the US at the time of 9/11, and that the damage would be of such extended level.

Recordings from Rumsfeld before 9/11 did show that the only way America would be able to retaliate was a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack would give an excuse to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing else would support such an agenda in the eyes of the world and the US. A terrorist attack would be the justification for plans being in place already. The CIA was well prepared to add to the damage on that fateful day in New York. On the night Bush gave his “Axis of Evil” designation to Afghanistan US forces were less than four hours from acquiring Osama Bin Laden. As requested by G.W.Bush Bill Richardson  intervened and the US missed deliberately a chance to get bin-Laden.

The time was not ready to dispose Osama bin Laden. Richardson was earlier the designated man to negotiate with the Taliban as part  of secret US policies in 1996 of a failed UNOCAL deal (Unocal Corporation) about the proposed building of an oil pipeline through the country. It failed, hence the US wanted to retaliate against the Taliban down the track. The Taliban and al-Qaeda (bin-Laden) were not always that friendly with each other. There have been various discussion to dispose bin-Laden but the US wanted to wait and allow Osama bin-Laden to execute his plan to attack the US. Massoud was aware of some part of the 9/11 plan, hence Karzai and his Taliban carried out the assassination for G.W. Bush  2 days before 9/11. Massoud would have blown the whistle in retrospect.

The Massoud assassination was however the biggest mistake ever made in terms of the US Afghanistan policy. The course of the Afghan unrest could have ended in favor of Massoud as he was both highly regarded and had most of the support for a different more fruitful direction in this troubled country, but it didn’t happen.  Massoud had intelligence information on 9/11 and 9/11 was supposed to go ahead as the G.W.Bush Administrattion with Cheney and Rumsfeld had prepared for it because (as mentioned) a trigger was required to start a war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, apart from the fact that it would give an excuse to attack Iraq as well if evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” being around could be created.  We know that there were no weapons of “mass destruction” in Iraq, but for attacking Iraq and disposing Saddam Hussein such required evidence could be fabricated in such a way that allies to join this mission would believe in a legitimate war against Iraq, and so it happened….

Massoud – in Afghanistan – had enough influence in retrospect to solve the problem in Afghanistan, to stop eventually the violence in a natural way. He had actually more influence than Osama bin-Laden and was of an entirely different nature.  He would have solved the problems eventually without any need for the US to intervene. However the US had mixed agenda’s and different interests.

Both Clinton and G.W.Bush had secrets to keep for the 9/11 Commission. Bush wanted to have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and provided deliberately Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda the opportunity for the 9/11 attacks with a stand down in security systems (different but similar with the JFK assassination, however this time with Rumsfeld & Cheney support), meanwhile organising before the attack the CIA (?) to plant bombs underneath the WTC buildings facilitating a controlled demolition.  WTC7 was involved as well  as there was a lot of Intelligence information re 9/11 (on purpose stored there). This would be all destroyed when WTC 7 would come down. WTC7 did however not endure the impact of a plane. The Pentagon attack was inflicted by missiles and not by the impact of a plane, despite the Government report. The last was an attack not inflicted by al-Qaeda, neither were the explosives bringing down the WTC buildings related with al-Qaeda. Those additions were ordered by the Executive branch of the US Government.

There was no wisdom at all in US policy at the time of the G.W. Bush Administration. Subject to further Senate and court hearings, the actions of former US President G.W.Bush were both criminal within and outside the US. Traveling to Switzerland he would have to stand trial as part of human right abuses as part of Swiss legislation in line with the Convention from Geneva. In the US he is a free man, protected by legislation, – the wrong legislation in his case.

Former US President G.W.Bush was responsible for both the preventable 9/11 implications and 2 most expensive wars for which the US is still paying the price. If Massoud would have had US protection and support at the time  the problems in Afghanistan would have been resolved without any intervention and President Obama would not have faced the problems as they are now.  The 9/11 drama was a calculated and criminal decision in the White House to mislead both the US and the world at the time to facilitate a reason to go to a war being acceptable to the world. However it came at a cost for those living in New York, it came at a cost for all people being involved in the war’s which followed and it came at a cost of human rights, the last being violated at all dimensions. The Kennedy assassination in 1963 was the start of a trend to be continued in various Administrations,  – covert operations being continued, – but 9/11 was the worst.

We know Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US as was the President’s Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to President George W. Bush on the 6th of August, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda  36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.  CBS Evening News reported on this leaked memo document on the 15th of May 2002. The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has important classified information on national security. The last collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies and given to the president and a select group of senior officials.  The PDB was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report on the 22nd of July 2004. The Phoenix Memo from the 10th of July 2001 reflects on FBI awareness. The recommendations were ignored and the person ignoring those recommendations was promoted after the 9/11 attacks by G.W.Bush.  Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice  are only a few groups as part of “the 9/11 Truth movement”, rejecting the outcome of the government facilitated “9/11 Commission Report”. As mentioned in the chapter about former US President G.W. Bush, – previous US President Carter did indicate the need for new investigations as well. It never happened.

Like the Government did stick in 1964 to the outcome of the Warren Commission report for many years, US Administrations will stick to the 9/11 Commission conclusions and do not and will not contest the outcome of this Commission due to the darker secrets being the foundation of ill selected wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only this, there was a hidden crime against US citizens in New York, allowed to be happening by the US Government at the time,  as mentioned to facilitate a reason to go to war.

It is this element of decision making in the White House which is so dangerous, –  if allowed to happen in the US without implications for those being responsible. I will come back on this. The US has a very poor record in the criminal justice systems when it applies to the US establishment.

–

–

For the purpose of this epilogue let’s just summarise the US Presidents from Lyndon Johnson until G.Bush, based on the information in the past chapters:

The 36th US President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

–

–

After the JFK assassination on the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas (Texas)  Johnson (LBJ) became the new US President. The June edition of this web blog on the JFK assassination provides more detail. Whilst Kennedy declared to withdraw from Vietnam, after the JFK  assassination Johnson increased the forces in Vietnam almost immediately and with the Civil Rights Act being pushed through Congress he did win the 1965 elections easily. He ordered in 1965 the Airmobile Division and various CIA forces to go to Vietnam to enhance the fighting strength in this region, followed by an increased military fighting strength from 75000 to 125000 man. As often happens in history there needs to be a trigger to get public opinion on board when it applies to extending or starting war. We did see this on various occasions, 9/11 included. LBJ used a surprise Vietcong attack at Pleiku in which 6 American military advisers were killed and 116 wounded on the 6th of February 1965.  LBJ’s aides assisted him with a 2 stage and premeditated contingencies plan , prepared several months before the attack. The first step was a retaliation airstrike in North Vietnam and the second step was to intensify the air war as implemented in 1965. It proved that LBJ decided on this level of intervention without really considering the costs and implications. This happened later as well when G.W Bush decided to go to 2 different wars. LBJ was pushed by both the CIA and the Pentagon not to change direction and as both the CIA and Pentagon were the background powers playing a part in the JFK’s assassination with full LBJ’s approval  beforehand, he had likely not much choice to continue the way it was to get an US military victory. This was the military aim. Lyndon Johnson was a most compromised and controversial man. By the end of August 1966 only 47% in the US did approve Johnson’s Presidency. The war became increasingly unpopular. By 1968 more than 500000 US military troops were concentrated in Vietnam. The war was costing some 2 billion dollars a month and meanwhile more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than during the second world war. LBJ did fully support the JFK assassination cover up with  the installation of the Warren Commission and “highly favourable” CIA representatives running the historical show this Commission provided to mislead the US people and Congress. Whilst LBJ deciding not to be reelected anymore in 1968 this did not mean that the CIA and Pentagon’s directions about Vietnam had changed. LBJ did serve a purpose, as other US Presidents served a military purpose. Issues around the JFK assassination as a matter of “national security”were still neither to be disclosed  nor the direction of Vietnam after 1968 to be  discontinued.  LBJ not being a Presidential candidate anymore in 1968 opened the way for new background dynamics.

Both the CIA, the FBI with Hoover and  the Pentagon were profoundly against a potential Robert Francis Kennedy being US President in 1968.  RFK would have been neither an US President being compromised by the military establishment nor by the CIA or Hoover. With RFK  winning the California primaries in June 1968 he became the person who would likely defeat Nixon in 1968. Nixon was aware of this, like FBI Chief Hoover. Nixon was from CIA perspective “100% save for US military policy” and the anti-war movement needed to be broken. First by taking Martin Luther King,jr out of the picture and when Robert Kennedy increased in popularity and became the likely candidate to win the elections after the primaries in California,  the premeditated strategy was to assassinate Kennedy as he was considered to be at this stage the main obstacle for the CIA’s defined “national security”, – like his brother ( the former US President) was in 1963. The implications would be horrendous if  Kennedy would be elected President in 1968.  He was perhaps even more determined than his brother “Jack”.  Both the FBI (with Hoover still being the Chief) and the CIA could not face this prospect as with RFK being President the withdrawal from Vietnam would become a fact. Hoover would likely lose his job with everything he inflicted at the background of the various scenes in which he played a role.  However, last but not least the JFK assassination with a floored Warren Commission report would be vigorously investigated and CIA involvement with Lyndon Johnson’s part would be disclosed to the public. As such Kennedy would likely get both Congressional and public support to reorganise the CIA and  bring LBJ to justice, – besides Nixon. Nixon was involved as well in the JFK assassination and in particular ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. No, Nixon was not happy either with facing a second Kennedy in a Presidential contest as with RFK potentially winning he could forget his political future as well.

RFK became a security risk. As a US Senator of New York he was of no harm but being the potential next US President in 1968 after Johnson would open all the past corruptions from the LBJ US Government, including  various other people being involved in the assassination of his brother (the 35th US President) and “Bobby” for certain would not take any nonsense.  He did not make it.  The cover up was smart and well swallowed by the American public. Americans tend to swallow easily what the Government tells them and the media control has helped a fair bit. The question is who gave the order to take him as a second Kennedy out of the picture. Days before the JFK assassination Robert Kennedy was in the process of leaking most damaging information to Life Magazine about the Bobby Baker scandal in which Johnson was clearly involved, with an earlier political assassination in which LBJ was reportedly involved. LBJ did order that particular assassination. If this would leak with the other corruption issues, it would blow his political career for once and for all. However the 22nd of November 1963 did change history for once and for all. FBI Chief Hoover assisted LBJ to prevent the Bobby Baker scandal leaking to the press after LBJ’s inauguration. Hoover was always so helpful.

Both the combination of LBJ being unpopular, the riots in Chicago and the discouragement of both African – Americans and liberals after the assassinations of both MLK and RFK contributed to the fact that former Vice President Nixon (under Eisenhower) did win the Presidential elections  from Hubert Humphrey (LBJ’s Vice President). Robert Kennedy’s assassination did  not only play Nixon  in his favour, but it played his close ally Hoover and the CIA/military establishment in their favour as well.  LBJ likewise did not need to worry about RFK anymore. The secrets regarding the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas would be even more secured with Richard Nixon than with Hubert Humphrey. The background powers in the US proved to be succesful in their strategic approach with impact on public opinion as well. Richard Nixon did win the Presidential elections carrying  32  States and 301 Electoral votes. Richard Nixon was an old close ally of both Hoover and the “old” military establishment, and they had the man in the White House they needed.

The 37th US President Richard Milhouse Nixon.

–

–

Nixon mentioned in the 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan  for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. It could not be disclosed as yet. With the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King the main obstacles for escalating the war in Vietnam were however eliminated with the anti-war movement in part being crushed, and once Nixon became US President the war in Vietnam went to full gear. Regarding the assassinations in the US on prominent people, drop by drop new revelations were allowed. Many years later Coretta Scot King (MLK’s wife) did win a wrongful death civil trial against Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators in 1999.  Jowers received $100000,- to arrange the assassination on MLK and the Jury was convinced that Government Agencies were parties to the assassination plot. It would seem that the LBJ government was involved at setting the stage of this assassination, using James Earl Ray as a scapegoat, as publicly on TV confirmed by Jowers on ABC’ Prime Time Life.  Jowers stated that both the mafia and the US Government were involved in the MLK assassination.  Reportedly Memphis police officer Lieutenant Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. The conspiracy did include J Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, the CIA, the Memphis Police Department(MPD), Army intelligence and organised crime.  A very key person within the civil right movement was on the government payroll, responsible for infiltration and sabotage. A Jury in Memphis,TN, in November 1999 came to above conclusion after seventy witnesses testified under oath with 4000 pages of evidence, much of it was it new. The news of one of the most national security trials was suppressed by the US Government. It was clear that the 1997 reports of the House Select Committee on Assassinations re James Earl Ray justified verdict were wrong, besides other findings. Nixon’s Administration from 1974 sustained remarkable controversy over the Vietnam war. The invasion in 1970 of Cambodia and his approval of heavy bombardments on North Vietnam took his toll in the public opinion and he signed in 1973 a cease-fire. After Nixon returned from the Soviet Union, four men were arrested at the Watergate complex as due to burglary into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. After his reelection in 1972 the Watergate burglars were convicted and several of them implicated Nixon’s closest associates. It proved that the Watergate-break-in was only one of the several acts of both sabotage and political espionage carried out by the Nixon Administration. Nixon tried to keep away secret tapes from hearings by the “principal of separation of powers”. He had however to give many of the required tapes but not everything. The unravelling of the Nixon Presidency was unstoppable now and in 1974 the “House Judiciary Committee”started to discuss Nixon’s impeachment. It proved that Nixon had engaged in extensive domestic wiretapping apart from his questionable tax deductions through which he paid almost no federal income tax in 1973. On the 24th of July 1974 the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to give the tapes he had withheld. Those tapes were supposed to contain evidence of Nixon’s personal involvement in the Watergate operations including reflections about Watergate burglars being engaged in CIA operations. E.Howard Hunt was involved. This name will come back. The verdict was that if Nixon would not leave office on his own decision, he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office. On the 8th of August 1974 Nixon announced his resignation and Vice-President Ford was administered the Presidential oath on the 9th of August.

The 38th US President Gerald Ford. 

–

–

Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon in in 1974, only 1 month in office. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon completely, avoiding as such further investigations in the Watergate burglary as this would have far more implications than the public would be allowed to know. Gerald Ford has been part of the Warren Commission with the task to investigate the JFK assassination. Gerald Ford “the CIA man in Congress” had very close links with Allen Dulles, ex CIA Director who was fired by John F Kennedy.   Gerald Ford had close links with Nixon as well, in part as he became his Vice-President at a time when there was the potential that Richard Nixon could run in trouble over Watergate. However he knew Nixon before. Not only at the time of the Warren Commission, but both were for some time Republicans being on friendly terms with each other. Nixon knew that the Warren Commission was a hoax. Ford knew this as well. Both had their involvements. As mentioned Nixon reportedly ordered Ruby to kill Oswald just after the Kennedy assassination as it was clear that further hearings of Oswald would prove that Oswald was not involved at all. Jack Ruby had close connections with Nixon as he worked for him when Nixon was a fresh Congressman. Both Nixon and Ruby had close connections with the mafia and the FBI. However Ruby had to pay for it in prison, fearful for his life as he knew that Johnson and others who did orchestrate the JFK assassination were still in power and would not shy away to kill him if there was a risk that he would speak out. Ford was fully aware.Fully aware as well about the CIA/military involvement in the JFK assassination.FBI Chief Hoover was still alive at the time. We know that Spiro Agnew had to resign but his succession was for strategic reasons vital. Gerald Ford was  very close with FBI Chief Hoover. In his memoirs just before his death he revealed besides his relationship with Hoover, that the CIA was involved in the assassination on President John F Kennedy. It should be noted that Richard Nixon and George Herbert Bush (the latter US Vice-President and US President) have been integral to the Bay of Pigs operations, which became a failure under the Kennedy Administration as Kennedy based on the utterly poor intelligence information being provided, misleading actually, did not want an escalating war on Cuba.  As Vice-President, Nixon worked under President Eisenhower, together with Allen Dulles from the CIA and other senior CIA staff on the strategic planning of the Bay of Pigs. The bestselling book “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane in 1991 reflects on both CIA involvement in JFK’s death, as part of Kennedy ignoring CIA advise to deploy American troops in Cuba. The later President Bush  was at the time of the Pay of Pigs a CIA  operative and the FBI confirmed in documents being released many years later that Bush sr was involved in the CIA briefing the day after the JFK assassination.The role of FBI Chief Hoover in the JFK assassination is most controversial as well. Gerald Ford as member of the Warren Commission leaked all confidential information to FBI Chief Hoover. The general picture is that key CIA people were involved in both the JFK and RFK assassination with Bay of Pigs links, besides Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, FBI Chief Hoover and at the background H.W.Bush being involved as part of his CIA deployment at the time of the covert operation on Kennedy. Gerald Ford became US President after Richard Nixon had to resign.  Ford always defended the lone gunman theory within the identified cause of death by the Warren Commission. As reflected he had excellent relations with the FBI Chief Hoover at the time.  Deliberately and against all usual protocol he did help FBI Chief Hoover by providing him all the in’s and out’s of the Warren Commission  in private and “confidential”, as such allowing Hoover to keep an eye on those members who would perhaps not follow Allen Dulles verdict on the “lone gunman theory”. There were clearly 2 members of the Warren Commission having some reservations on both the process and the verdict and even though not all evidence reached the Warren Commission (Allen Dulles was in a position to avoid at least some part to reach the Commission), it was clear from the beginning that the CIA played a most controversial role.  Some people within the Warren Commission knew more than others and Gerald Ford  together with  FBI Chief Hoover were in full agreement that the truth should never allowed to become public. The truth was that it was an inside job from the CIA, authorised by the highest levels of the Executive branch of the US Government  (like 9/11 was a fully supported covert operation by the US Government). Hence the lone gunman theory was supposed to be the only possible allowed verdict for both the US and Congress. A hard lie to be swallowed. However Gerald Ford went on national television to defend the findings of the Warren Commission in a most convincing way. If the broader involvement of the Executive branch would be public knowledge with the people who had knowledge of the pending events on the 22rd of November 1963, this would have caused the most dramatic Constitutional crisis ever in US history at the time. The same applies to 9/11.The US would not accept one of its most popular Presidents being killed with gross government involvement. With Ford’s insight in the CIA and his “absolute pardon” for Richard Nixon, he wanted to avoid further damaging investigations in which the CIA would be exposed. Even 10 years after the Warren Commission report. The point is that the  “Watergate” burglars played a role in the Kennedy assassination as well and the CIA played a role in the Watergate break in as it was assumed that the Democratic Party had access to some top-secret documents and photographs related to the JFK assassination. Especially imaging from a police helicopter could slash the Lee Harvey Oswald theory on his involvement, besides this the later fully revealed Zapruder film ruled out the lone gunman theory.  The FBI facilitated payments meanwhile to the burglars via “the Committee to Reelect President Nixon” in 1972. H. W. Bush (the later President) was the head of this Committee and claimed until the last Nixon tapes being released that Richard Nixon was innocent, obviously not without a purpose. Bush as well had more background information about the JFK assassination and those who were involved.

FBI Chief Edward Hoover died meanwhile on the 2nd of May 1972. The acting Head of the FBI then L Patrick Gray was ordered to save the situation for Nixon and had to destroy evidence from the safe of E. Howard Hunt on his assignments and working schedule for the CIA. Hunt was both involved in Watergate and the assassination of JFK.  Because of this destruction of evidence after taking those documents from Howard Hunt’s safe,  L Patrick Gray had to resign from the FBI.   E. Howard Hunt then made claims at the White House as he wanted to avoid conviction, but after the suspicious death of his wife he did plead guilty to the Watergate burglary, being concerned about the rest of his family.

If Watergate would be reopened Howard Hunt’s case would be likely first investigated.  If he would tell everything he knew,  including all the connections he had with people connected to “The Bay of Pig crisis”, the CIA  and others, –  the JFK assassination would likely be far more important then the real Watergate burglary itself.  The RFK assassination could be well involved in this as well. Gerald Ford was fully aware of the potential implications as he was already a compromised person before he even became Vice President. Donald Kendell , President of Pepsi – Cola, was considered to be “the eyes and ears” of the CIA in Cuba. The day before the JFK assassination he was meeting with Nixon. The Watergate burglars were tied up with both the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs. At least one of the Watergate burglars was on the CIA payroll on the 17th of June 1972 (Eugenio Martinez). The other Watergate conspirators included ex- FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, ex – CIA agents james McCord and E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and Virggilo Gonzales. Hunt being deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs operations retired later from the CIA . Several reports do show that Hunt was in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963 when JFK was assassinated. Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she observed him paying off an assassination team in Dallas the night before the JFK murder.The latest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions, especially discussions about Hunt, the Bay of Pigs and JFK.  In May 1972 Nixon disclosed on tape to his 2 top aides that the Warren Commission was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”  Hunt later did admit on CIA involvement in the JFK assassination and he fingered CIA officers Cord Meyer, David Phillips, William Harvey and David Morales. See article about the 2011 assessment on the JFK assassination on the web blog.

Once becoming US President, Gerald Ford did promote Donald Rumsfeld (discussed in the chapter about G.W.Bush) to help him to set the priorities for his Presidential direction. His Nixon pardon was neither an act of courage nor an act to protect the law and the US Constitution. He was part of the club of Presidents to keep the Coupe d’Etat as it took place in 1963 secret and as we will see the military powers affecting US policy did gain the most from this. The culture in the CIA with all sorts of secret covert operations was more established now and the background powers were so strong that even with the election of a US president not fitting the picture of the CIA and the military background powers, there was a way out as we did see with Carter.

The 39th US President James Earl Carter.  

–

–    

Carter  did win with a narrow victory from the sitting President Gerald Ford. Obviously disappointing for the military background powers. It’s the problem of a Republic based on democratic principles. Sometimes there is a President not fitting the picture. However the CIA knows this and apart from the good people working in the CIA, there are people ready to help to play the game in such a way that democratic principles can be managed at the benefit of the military background powers, as we did see with Nixon. As President, Carter  balanced actually very well between  things being allowed or required and those matters not being desired or required. President Carter was however behind an Anglo-CIA conspiracy in Iran installing Khomeini and the Nullahs, based on intelligence information being provided on Khomeini staying in France at the time. Considering the outcome with Khomeini’s regime and the predicaments it caused in Iran and for the US eventually as well, in retrospect this decision may be considered as an error of judgement, however again based on  intelligence information at the time. A genuine error. There are error’s with some US President’s less genuine than they are presented. The seizure of US embassy hostages by Islāmic fundamentalists in Iran with hardly any progression in the resolution of this predicament was a major problem. CIA Director in President Carter’s time was his old class mate at the Naval Academy Stansfield Turner. Turner ceased 800 operational positions and he testified for US Congress revealing many covert CIA operations’ between late 1950ties and late 1960ties. He became very unpopular within the CIA itself.  His reform initiatives did not produce results as they were largely obstructed within the CIA.The frictions within the CIA with Turner/Carter made powerful background dynamics planning a strategy to get Carter not reelected. As it appeared the  Reagan – Bush campaign was worried that President Carter would reach a deal with Iran resulting in the release of the hostages before the elections and therefore Carter winning a second term in office. The CIA was worried as well. This would not be favourable for the military establishment. Bush had good CIA connections, based on old traditions.Hence they made their own (most compromising) deal with a close relative of Khomeini during various meetings in both Paris and Madrid. The deal did include to accept fully the Islāmic Republic and non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs. In other words whist not being in power they made a deal with Iran (with no involvement of the Carter Administration) on the terms of Iran, hence the hostage crisis deliberately delayed to allow Carter being defeated and Reagan being elected. Part of the deal was to engage later in an Iran arms deal under President Reagan, which became the Iran Contra affair. US political history and the possible dynamics are most interesting, – as we see.

The 40th US President Ronald  Reagan.

–

–

Reagan became US President after winning the Presidential elections from Carter, via illegal backdoor dealings  at the cost of hostages in Iran and at the cost of long-term security interests of the US. The Iran-Contra scandal in which the Mena Airport in Arkansas was used for illegal cocaine trafficking  with full awareness of the Federal Government and the Governor at the time in Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was part of the legacy of the pre-election arrangement with Iran.

Reportedly both George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush were involved in various cover up’s. Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon was convicted of various felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997. He was released from prison in 2006 for helping prosecutors in a murder case. The allegations have been disputed, however former President Clinton failed in his duty to reveal the activities of the Reagan/Bush Administration to Congress.  The Iran Contra Affair during 1986/1987 became a dark issue involving illegal arms for hostage deals with Iran by Reagan’s senior staff, with his knowledge. It proved that Pointdexter and Oliver North (all part of Reagan’sNational Security Advisers) were involved in secretly facilitating the sale of arms to Iran which became into an arms – for – hostages scheme, where a portion of the profits from the sales were diverted to fund anti-sandinista and anti-communist rebels (the “Contras”), in Nicaragua.  As a result of the controversy Ronald Reagan’s  White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan and his National Security Adviser John Poindexter had to resign but it did however not affect Reagan himself.  However both he and in particular Vice-President G.W. Bush were fully aware.Interestingly some people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal  -who (nearly) convicted initially and afterwards pardoned   –  became then prominent members within the Administration of eg George W. Bush.  Elliot Abrams e.g.gained notoriety as due to most controversial decisions on foreign policy issues during the Reagan Administration on Nicaragua and El Salvador. Convicted in 1991 on 2 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress in connection with the Iran Contra Affair investigation, he was appointed on February 2, 2005, by President George W. Bush to Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy. In this new position, Abrams became responsible for overseeing the National Security Council’s directorate of Democracy, “Human Rights” (we will discuss the human rights records of the former President G.W.Bush later), and International Organization Affairs and its directorate of Near East and North African Affairs. It is just one example that people owe each other in Government and the rules of justice are dealt with differently at this level.. There is still however secrecy around the Iran Contra scandal. An other example eg is Robert Michael Gates who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. Prior to this, Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence.  Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra Scandal, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates “was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/Contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.  Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment. In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. should start a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. would do everything in its power apart from direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government. Gates was however a very knowledgable man and despite some errors in retrospect it appeared he evolved quite well in his profession, at least it would seem he learnt from his mistakes.

An other important issue for later Presidential dynamics (under the Reagan Administration) was the military support of the Taliban being provided in the early 1980s. The CIA and the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and “by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.” There have been meetings in the White House.

The 41st US President George H.W. Bush. 

–

–     

Bush,sr became elected US President after Reagan served his term for 8 years in the White House. He was faced with the Iran Contra scandal which was of a highly criminal and controversial nature, Reagan’s Vice President was George H.W.Bush. Needless to say Bush had immense experience and was generally spoken “a decent man”. However there are a few things which could have been dealt with differently. We discussed Watergate already with Bush as well. Opening Watergate investigations would open the link to Howard Hunt and if Hunt would speak about the Kennedy assassination, Nixon and all the others, – all the complexities of corrupted US governments after the JFK assassination would come to daylight. Hence  George H.W Bush’s closest business partner Bill Liedtke paid Hunt the requested $1000000,- to keep his mouth shut. Hunt got the message after his wife was killed in a mysterious plane crash. Bush had close connections with Liedtke via the Zapata Corporation. As reflected both former President Bush, Nixon and Johnson had joint interest and involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Those connections have been always there. Bush and the CIA had close links in the “Bay of Pigs” association. President Herbert Walker Bush as Vice President under President Reagan had an important role at the background and he was perhaps the smarter guy, not necessarily the better man.. There were many private sessions like his son the later President George W bush had with Vice President Cheney , the last presenting his arguments and whisper in the President’s ear.   So had Reagan H W. Bush the Vice President presenting arguments and whisper in his ear. Interestingly the later Vice-President Cheney’s firm Halliburton, Brown & Root in part financed Permindex. The last is the Corporate Front which operated the assassination on John F Kennedy. Like Bush, Ford was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity – a secret society.

Bush was a member of Skull and Bones as well, again a different secret organisation. “I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House,” says Rosenbaum..

On August 1, 1990, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invaded  Kuwait. Bush “unhappy” with the invasion despite clearly favouring Iraq above Iran, began rallying opposition to Iraq in the US and among European, Asian, and Middle Eastern allies. Secretary of Defense Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Fahd. Fahd clearly fearing a possible invasion of his country by Iraq as well, requested US military aid. The request was met in the affirmative and Air Force fighter jets arrived. Iraq tried to negotiate a deal allowing its country to take control of half of Kuwait. Bush rejected this proposal and wanted a complete withdrawal of Iraqi forces. The planning of a ground operation by US-led coalition forces started in September 1990.  General Norman Schwarzkopf was nominated to lead those forces.  At a joint session of  US Congress on the authorization of air and land attacks, Bush spelled out the immediate goals: “Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected.” A  fifth  long-term goal was the following: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – free from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony…. A world where the rule of law is stronger than  the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.” With the United Nations Security Council opposed to Iraq’s violence, Congress authorized the Use of Military force with a set goal of returning control of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti government, and protecting America’s interests abroad.

In retrospect Bush gave himself an A- for Desert Storm, allowing that “there are certain things that I could have done better.” In truth, Desert Storm merits far less than this.The cease-fire ending the war was poorly managed.The slaughter on the “Highway of Death,” along which the Iraqis retreating from Kuwait, simply decided Bush to stop the war. Before the Iraq war, Bush’s ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, agreed with the President’s wish to “moderate” Saddam Hussein with incentives to get an ally in him against Iran. Secretary of State Baker dropped a line in July 1990 indicated “to take no position on the border delineation issue raised by Iraq with respect to Kuwait.” Saddam was threatening Kuwait with war if the Emir did not surrender (oil-producing) territory on his border with Iraq and forgive $14 billion in Iraqi debt. Bush and Baker’s failure to deliver a firm and clear warning to Baghdad may have been a sign to Saddam that he could go ahead. He saw an opportunity in Baker’s apparent indifference on the border issue. If he left Kuwait largely intact, but annexed Kuwaiti oil fields and one or two of Kuwait’s islands, perhaps the Bush administration would permit this. It is this profound lack of clarity in the Middle East which contributed to the first Iraq war. Bush stopped all military activity in Iraq at once and did not pursue deposing Saddam Hussein, as part of a well known policy of duplicity. Saddam Hussein in the US perception could still be a potential ally against Iran, but this was a serious error of judgement, becoming more clear during the Clinton Administration. Likewise the support being provided in Afghanistan was very dubious and provided the seeds for all sorts of dynamics being difficult to control, apart from increasing the risk of terror due to self-inflicted foreign policy not being principle centred.   Regarding the 2011 situation in Afghanistan note that current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H Bush and there were longstanding Taliban connections.

The 42nd US President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton.

–

–

Clinton took over from G.H Bush as US President. There is no point in discussing the Lewinsky matter as within the bigger picture of his Presidency this is profound trivial. There was however one thing to be noted in this matter. He could lie until the bitter end, and he seemed to be very convincing in his lies. Compromised already over the Iran-Contra scandal in which an airport in Arkansas (Mena) was used for a large illegal CIA operation, involving large quantities of drugs to be sold with the profits to be transferred to a fund to support the Contras. – Clinton always argued that this has been a federal issue and that he was not involved. However as reflected he failed to report, he failed to respond to both requests from the public and attorneys to facilitate proper investigations.The controversy is quite clear and the incriminating reason is that he did neither act in terms of facilitating Congress to make formal enquiries and investigations, nor did he support the legal system to do its work once this was requested in his own State where he was the Governor of State.

The way the Clinton Administration dealt with the terror threat in the face of the 9/11 attack due to be happening  at the beginning of the Bush,jr Administration is an interesting question. We touched on this subject at the beginning.

Did this attack came totally out of the blue?  – – Clinton always defended the Government’s position, including the outcome of the 9/11 Commission and the way information was provided to Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor under President G.W Bush). On the 19th of July 2004 it was announced that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Sandy Berger (US National Security Adviser &  Foreign Policy Adviser during the Bill Clinton Administration) for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room before testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned by Richard Clarke,  detailing various internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said that Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003^. After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of material stored on hard drives from  the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.  Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on the 1st of April 2005. We need to consider that those issues have been discussed between Clinton and Berger, and that Berger was prepared to do this on behalf of the former US President.  There are however mixed story’s whether all material returned and that nothing, not even a fraction  did not return.Vital information was at stake.The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals.The House Government Reform Committee however later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of originals, not copied, not inventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.” According to the House report, Clinton “designated Berger in 2002 as his representative to check NSC documents” to the 9/11 inquiry. Berger made four trips to the National Archives.  He did so likely to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003. He was allowed to have unprotected access and it is not clear who did approve this. We know that part of the 9/11 investigations  took place behind strict closed doors and that the “behind closed doors conversations” with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton and al Gore were all “private and confidential”, touching base on national security. Reportedly Berger destroyed some documents during his four visits.  “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” reports the House Committee, “is not known and never can be known.” Brachfeld met with DOJ attorney Howard Sklamberg. Obviously concerned that Berger had obstructed the 9/11 Commission’s work, Brachfeld wanted assurance that the Commission knew of Berger’s crime and the potential ramifications of it. The 9/11 Commission was not informed. On the 22nd of March, two days before Berger’s public testimony, senior DOJ attorneys John Dion and Bruce Swartz got back to Brachfeld. They told him that the DOJ was not going to tell the 9/11 Commission of the Berger investigation before Berger’s appearance. It would seem somebody ordered the DOJ not to tell the 9/11 Commission on purpose. It is not clear who ordered the DOJ. We can’t help it to think that to keep Clinton’s version of events leading up to 9/11, (for which he had to testify privately) he had dispatched Sandy Berger to the National Archives, at the risk of Berger’s career and reputation, and to edit the official record. If we look at the broader context of Clinton being a person trying to hide vital matters becoming public (like he did with the Iran Contra scandal and the CIA activities at Mena airport in Arkansas), –  this is a reasonable assumption.

There are matters to be searched, revealing however that there were  reasons to have those discussions behind closed doors as it was felt that the public should not know. It is good that the “freedom of information act” provides via the internet various links for those being interested to do serious research, accepting however that some matters however will not be known. It proves however that the American public has been fooled on various matters the last 50 years.

The 43rd US President George W Bush.

–

–

“Bush, jr”  took over from Bill Clinton as US President. Only 3 months in office in 2001 a terrorist attack took place on New York and Washington which implicated a dramatic change on US foreign policy. I touched base on this issue at the beginning of this “epilogue”.  G.W. Bush was surrounded by former aides and veterans including Cheney, Powell, Card, Rice and a few more. Bush, sr did influence his son’s administration from behind the scenes. The Bushes “have a long memory”, as Dick Cheney liked to remind people privately.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cheney was vital in providing the primary justification for entering into a second war with Iraq. Cheney assisted to shape Bush’s approach to the “War on Terrorism“, alleging in various public statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He made many personal visits to CIA headquarters, where he questioned mid-level agency analysts on their conclusions. Cheney insisted to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, even though classified President’s Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 reflected that the U.S. intelligence community had neither evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks nor  “scant credible evidence” that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Cheney has been characterized as the most powerful and influential Vice President in history. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rumsfeld provided the military planning and implementation of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld highly favoured to send both the smallest and effective force as possible for both conflicts, a concept called “the Rumsfeld Doctrine.”

The G.W Bush Presidency was dominated by the war against terrorism, including both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld spoke at a Pentagon breakfast meeting. According to his later description to Larry King, he stated at the meeting that “sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to… that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.” It sounds too good to be true. The day before Rumsfeld declared officially that over 2.4 trillion dollars could not be accounted for in the US military budget. It “disappeared”  and 9/11 prevented further investigations in this.  A loss of  2.4 trillion dollar in the military budget  (not being accounted for) does not reflect the best accounting system at the Defence Department. The issue has not been raised in the Senate at the required level of investigations till so far. However a 2,4 trillion loss in the military budget should raise more than only a few eyebrows.

Less than 3 hours after the start of the first hijacking and two hours after American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld increased the US defense condition to DEFCON 3; the highest it had ever been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. On September 11, Rumsfeld was at 2:40 pm issuing rapid orders to his associates to find for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush announced a global War on Terror after the 11 September attacks. The Afghan Taliban regime was unable to get Osama bin Laden, which provided Bush a reason to order the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime. As reflected at the beginning  G.W.Bush deliberately missed his chance to get bin-Laden at an earlier stage and with the assassination on Massoud,  on purpose he messed up things in Afghanistan, – just to facilitate the pending attack from al-Qaeda to provide his Administration a reason to go to war against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Bombs were well positioned at the base of all WTC buildings before the al-Qaeda attack, to make the impact worse (at the cost of many American lives!).

It shows that nothing has changed since the JFK assassination. It would seem in such covert operations nearly anything is allowed as long as “the cover up systems” work properly, which they did. The 9/11 Commission conclusions were misleading.   In his 2002 State of the Union Address, at the end of January, Bush asserted that an “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq was “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. The Bush Administration proclaimed to have a right and an obligation to engage in preëmptive war, also called preventive war, in response to all those perceived threats. This would  become the Bush Doctrine. It should be noted however that the general Bush doctrine proved to be a greater danger to peace in the world. Allies have been misled and are still fighting in a war which could have been prevented, as illustrated earlier.

Reportedly later, cities subjected to allied bombing had uranium concentrations at 400% to 2000% above normal, with birth defects sharply increasing. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US and British forces used an estimated 1,100-2,200 tons of depleted uranium weaponry, with unimaginable future health implications for both Iraqi and coalition military forces. Despite the Cold War’s being finished, the Bush administration has spent at least 12 times more on developing nuclear weapons than on securing/reducing existing stockpiles or on non-proliferation efforts. The Bush Administration has also repealed the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, rejected international non-proliferation agreements, and pushed stockpiles of the so-called “bunker buster” which in fact is a nuclear weapon. Not to speak about extensive chemical warfare programs in preparation and exercised already at various locations.

We know the history. Mid-1979, at about the same time as the Soviet Union had their war in Afghanistan, the United States gave several hundred million dollars a year to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and against  the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs.

Various warnings of a pending attack were ignored.  The September 11 attacks was not an intelligence “failure”. Intelligence deliberately allowed it to happen.  As some would say: “The actors may have been foreign. But the stage directors seem to have been all along here in the U.S.”   The purpose was to try and get both public and Senate approval to go to war.

For many years before the CIA supported the Mujahideen by spending the taxpayers’ money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan’s policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan^“. Interesting was the earlier mentioned Osama bin Laden, who had a leading role with mutual support from the US. However the war with the Soviets neared its end, with a CIA build up of activity in this area and more CIA demands on the bin Laden network. After he felt likely betrayed and profoundly intimidated, Bin Laden organized  al-Qaeda to carry out jihad, mainly against the United States this time— the country that had helped fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Many commentators have described Al-Qaeda attacks as blowback or an unintended consequence of American aid to the Mujahideen. In response, the US Government,the CIA and Pakistani intelligence officials involved in the operation, and at least one journalist (Peter Bergen) have denied this theory. It was said that the aid was given out by the Pakistan government, and that it went to Afghan not foreign Mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs and the CIA or other American officials. Perhaps we need to take such statements with a pinch of salt. The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that Bin Laden “received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.” In a 2004 BBC article entitled “al-Qaeda’s origins and links”, the BBC wrote: “During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA^“. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published in 2006 that: “Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors – the mujahedeen – who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan”. An article in Der Spiegel, entitled “Arming the Middle East”, Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden in 2007″one of the CIA’s best weapons customers”.The CIA and the US Government til so far denied any connections. The UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.

Let’s face it, the US Government should have never opted to support Bin Laden with his support network against the Soviets at the time. The US and the Soviet Union were just in the process of reaching the most positive developments since decades, and the US Government and CIA supporting Bin Laden and his network against the Soviet Union was part of a policy full of duplicity and undermining activity. The US Government has been responsible for this and the terror from al Qaeda was as such self-inflicted terror. The US should have never been there in the first instance. US Presidents who would have acted with wisdom and restraint should have never allowed to get the CIA with covert operations supporting a foreign policy full of duplicity and deception. The management on those issues under various President’s has been profound repugnant considering all the implications. However it was G.W.Bush’s choice to take Massoud out of the picture and give “the green light” to 9/11. He was aware that this was going to happen and as Rumsfeld reflected in an interview, if America was under attack from terrorists, this would change the perception of the American public. The question could be raised: who were the real terrorists?

The 9/11 Commission was as much a farce as the Warren Commission was at the time of the Kennedy assassination. There has been compelling evidence that controlled demolition brought down buildings 1,2 and 7, based on thorough research and analysis. Bush, Ashcroft, FBI director said that the 9/11 attacks were not preventable, but the reality was that both those attacks and the controlled demolitions were preventable. FBI Director Bob Mueller allowed crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Centre to be destroyed as part of a criminal conspiracy at the Department of Justice to destroy evidence that could expose people behind the “false – flag terrorism of 9/11”. TIME Magazine did raise serious questions about the dealings of Bob Mueller. There are at least 11 remarkable facts about 9/11 in contrast with the outcome from the 9/11 Commission. It would need a full article to reflect on this but “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth did elaborate in detail on this.The mysterious collapse of WTC 7 has never been answered for. It was this building being loaded with Intelligence information going down without any impact of either projectile or plane. 48 % of New Yorker’s support investigation of WTC7. Many many US Military Officers did join a request  apart of millions of other US citizens to reopen thorough,impartial, open and transparent investigations. Those requests have been ignored till so far. Even President Barack Obama does not want to have any controversy about the outcome of the 9/11 Commission, as the base of going to war in Afghanistan would fall flat on its face in the eyes of the world with all those allies and soldiers from different countries being involved already. As due to the Bush Administration a problem was created there, and the Bush doctrine did not do anything else than increasing the risk of terror, with Pakistan even being ready to sell nuclear information elsewhere. It’s a potential minefield which requires a solution, but let’s put it (again!) in this way:  The war in Afghanistan was an ill selected war, based on criminal acts in which the US Government was involved. The way dynamics were both constructed and in part fabricated are a reflection of the worst possible foreign policy of the US as a superpower. Like the Kennedy assassination has never been resolved,  – 10 years after 9/11  it  would seem to be still acceptable what Bush, Cheney and Romsfeld inflicted on the US and other countries. They simply could walk away from it with prolonged government protection. Despite many people at the highest level of military service and it various other levels of society requesting 9/11 to be again investigated, it simply did not happen. The secrets of the real background of the 9/11 drama being the cause for 2 pointless wars, based on various criminal activity are still due to be revealed, perhaps after 50 years. History is repeating itself in different identities because the main problem has not been resolved and this is the US Government, – insufficient controlled by the legislative powers with insufficient law enforcement.

We know about the defining moments of the post 9/11 era. We know about the testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission leaving compelling questions about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s actions on the day of 9/11 in terms of a “stand down in security.” His testimony was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Chair at least concluded that the attack was preventable. We know as well that apart from many others former FBI Director Louis J.Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission conclusions as well. But let’s for a moment forget about the 9/11 Commission. 

Major top people of the military intelligence confirm 2009 Bio-WMD Genocide. Bush did admit to illegal concentration camps. Widespread abuses of human rights.  During his Administration under the guise of national security there have been wide-spread dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations. Chemtrails and terror in the age of potential nuclear war.

 

People and Governments can refuse to face the truth as long as they want, but at some stage the truth and justice hopefully will catch up on them. There are enough US citizens unhappy about the undercurrents of their Government, the lack of transparency of wars eg in Afghanistan and the real reasoning for this based on pure historical facts, the last being different from the facts presented by the CIA.

Truman warned for the CIA and the power of the military establishment, so did Eisenhower and so did Kennedy. There is a major US budget deficit at present, largely based on the legacy of an unbelievable foreign policy for various decades. Even politicians tend to look only at short-term solutions, the cut corners strategy, without realising how much impact the self-inflicted past had on the US as a credible nation. What was left, G.W.Bush destroyed it. 

Both the wars in Vietnam  and Iraq and Afghanistan were not required and could have been prevented. It did cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and did not give real security for the US.

Many Germans during the second world war did not know about the secret concentration camps. “We did not know”, was what you heard after the second world war. The US did work at the right end of the moral spectrum at the time, did act at the right end of the moral spectrum many times. However if you look at the horror inflicted by various Administrations after the JFK assassination there is no easy way to say that the US with an “over established military establishment” seems as much at risk for creating major war’s as some other countries. The problem lies at the Executive Branch and the background powers.

Where airplane crashes get enough investigations, failed and corrupt US Presidents are able to escape with everything they inflicted. This system of US Presidents not being accountable in retrospect is wrong and as long as the US opts not to change it, it is responsible for the implications in the future.

With President Barack Obama being elected US President in November 2008,  there appeared to be a new beginning as he has his roots in the movement for change and social justice, but he will be  perceived by the establishment as a potential danger if he is not in line with the military strategic direction. Both parties are still able to reason and Obama is well positioned for some change. Sometimes it takes 2 terms as US President to turn the tide as due to past failures under earlier Administrations, but the road to justice is slow and full of obstacles. With an economy in recession again and a world full of dangers it is vital to have adequate intelligence from existing Agencies, but besides this a fair degree of common sense and value systems as part of principle centred leadership are important. Even though the economic prospects are not great at present the US is best served with its current leadership at present. We may not always understand why President Obama  is managing certain areas in the way he does, why he awards eg former US President George H.W.Bush with the “Presidential medal of Freedom”, but his position does involve a lot of protocol to avoid enemies and he knows the art of politics. However when it comes to real principles to protect the country from senseless war’s or criminal covert operations he will neither hesitate nor compromise his intentions to keep the bigger picture in mind. His perceptions and expectations on the US Presidency have been perhaps not always realistic, but working with “the circles” in Washington is complex business after people have been able to digest the material discussed in the above in more sustained ways. We did see this with the 35th US President, who had too many enemies at once, who should have selected a different Vice President at an earlier stage. If Kennedy would not have had risky liaisons with various women he could have replaced Hoover, as Kennedy was vulnerable to the blackmail of Hoover. Integrity is a big thing, both at the personal level and the  level of business. Kennedy was a great President but he was not without failures. The difference between Kennedy,Obama and Carter despite their differences is that none of them had criminal intends or criminal backgrounds, whilst this can’t be said about some other US Presidents in the past.

–

–

The sad thing is that the Executive Branch of the US can have at times profound criminal infestation and that legislation is required to protect the US against itself from this point of view, besides legislation to keep the powers of both the Pentagon and the CIA in place by proper law enforcement, with the application of justice systems  for all and not injustice being tolerated for the few who support the establishment. The US Executive Branch as a whole needs to protect both the law and the Constitution, not by means of lip service, but as an ongoing effort of principle centred leadership to bring its own house “the United States of America” in order. There is both too much at stake in America and the world and the unfortunate legacy of the past needs to be a learning curve for the future. It means that the past should not repeat itself, should not allowed to repeat itself, as the operating business of the United States Government in the world as we face it to-day needs to contribute to the survival of human race, stability and economic recovery.

Like Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 saved the world somehow from a nuclear holocaust by ignoring aggressive proposals from his generals, Nixon would have taken those proposals on board and Cuba would have been attacked with nuclear retaliation from the Russian commanders in Cuba who were under instruction to fire nuclear missiles to all major cities in the US if  the US would attack Cuba.

The wrong US President when the dangers are really near and grave can even make a just war an unjust holocaust, and then we don’t speak about some unjust wars from the past. The US until Obama has been really very poorly prepared on a more positive contribution to a world with less violence, as the systems of government despite the glamour did not match the reality of the problems. The problems are far more grave because the US did contribute to those problems in sustained ways.  This epilogue is a summary of lessons from Presidential Administrations and the average score is not high as leadership at this level was neither principle centred nor in particular based on values.  At the point as where to exercise the available freedom of the world’s most powerful democracy in the more positive when this was possible to do so in the positive, a better example of the US  could have been reasonably expected, – as such an example proved not always to be possible in countries with different systems of government. Democracy in the US worked neither perfect nor optimal with even significant media control.

US Administrations “have slept” with dictators, feeding them with military intelligence including nuclear energy. The Clinton appeasement program e.g.for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. The agreement was however flawed and lacked even the most basic means of verification. In 2010 North Korea reportedly was/is using companies to export nuclear and missile technology to Burma, Syria and Iran. China is a significant culprit as well in exporting nuclear technology. More countries are culprits for exporting such technology which will lead to a menace of uncontrolled violence, if the most powerful nations do not get their act together and stop this build up of explosives destroying the world eventually.

A policy of duplicity based on secrecy and the criminal use of  Covert operation‘s will add to the risks of our global community if the aim of any US covert operation is not the prevention of either war or terror.

There is no protection, for any nation on earth against the massacre of a nuclear and biochemical holocaust and preparing for this does not mean a survival of the fittest, but destruction of even the strongest. The wrong US President at the most unfortunate time could contribute to the event of such a holocaust, whilst at the same time such a holocaust could have been prevented by a longstanding and consistent US foreign policy history, inspiring a world-wide principle centred example of “risk reduction”. With some variations it never happened as such, as US foreign policy was largely based on short-term gain and often creating long-term pain at a cost of trillions of dollars, – some trillions not even accounted for.

The vital issue at the Executive branch of the US is that decisions being made are based on sound principles, that foreign policy is based on integrity, and that the US President has the ability to keep the bigger picture in mind, and acts with wisdom and restraint. Only a few US Presidents  have being able to act with both this wisdom, integrity and restraint,  and in the world of today we need this more than ever before.

“Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” did give an insight in some US President’s  between the 22nd of November 1963 and the 20th of January 2009. The facts are sobering and offer some history on vital Presidential choices which could have been exercised differently at the time.  Those choices do show on the character and integrity of those being in power, they do reflect as well on the rare application of courage to offer resistance against undermining elements in democracies.

Some US leaders did allow or even order assassinations  (both in the US as elsewhere)  to protect their cause of action, not being a noble cause to prevent war, – but a cause to mislead and secure the position of those who desired this to hold on to power. The last not being deserved. Sometimes the only aim was to protect the very own position of the US President himself. Democracy proved not to offer protection against this sort of injustice as the justice systems itself proved to be infiltrated and violated by those supposed to protect them. Media control did help to mislead the public.

Justice should not be “the cut corner strategy” from the past at the cost of millions who died in vain, without compassion and wisdom of their leaders. Leaders who did use the military arm of US powers to infiltrate by night and kill by day, either by war, by terror inflicted, -or covert operations being endured by far too many.

The greatest injustice is the potential of  a collective  Nuclear holocaust being created by various leaders around the globe.Those who do represent us in government are neither entitled nor obligated to use this potential for self-destruction, either by choice, by error or by twisting the facts and provoke as such a self-destructive longstanding Nuclear winter where the prospect on the continuation of life on earth is nearly limited to zero.

As a people who do inhabit this globe, we are created as part of collective energies during a moment in time. We are just an impulse of this universe, during our time and all times, – coming and going, sharing our common humanity. We inhabit this planet with all the creative energies, with all the universal principles, to protect and to preserve.  The last with leadership, – and not the management of further break down and destruction – with an increasing amount of Weapons of mass destruction spreading across the globe, eventually to be used at a large unpredictable scale.

In a larger sense, it is for us the living to be meaningful dedicated to the unfinished task still remaining, to prevent the agony of war and improve the civil rights of others, –  with similar devotion as those who died in vain, for both the wrong purpose and the wrong means being used as part of the decisions of some of those US President’s who could have done differently. Some US Presidents did neither have the courage nor the devotion to lead by principle, – guided by intrinsic justice and compassion in the larger sense as part of our International Relations here on earth. The same can be said about various other countries with different systems of government. The difference however is that the US is a Republic based on democratic principles and a sound Constitution, which raised higher expectations.

–

Thank you!

–

 Paul 

–
Paul Alexander Wolf

–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h5-eNd6QEI&feature=player_detailpage      

 >   A  strategy  of  peace:  John  Fitzgerald  Kennedy,  the  35th  US  President <

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

–

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011