“It is the responsibility of those who know to tell the blind horse-man on a blind horse that he is heading towards the abyss”
This is why I became a peacemaker.
This series of blogs (2003-2025) has been a major investigation into the dark and the light. I have tended to focus more on the dark aspects given crimes against humanity and the breakdown of our socio-economic paradigms which has caused disruption around the world.
Including: organisations helping others, inspirational stories, poetry, blogs, videos, channellings of hope, positive scriptures, clowning, joy, fun, happiness, love, spirituality, faith, trust, visions, near death experiences, cures, free energy, empowerment, freedom, nonviolence, wisdom and peacemakers and way showers and many many more.
So I’ve been on a journey through the dark and light or Yin/Yang elements in a search for what is the truth aware I live in duality with momentary feelings of oneness.
Overtime, I can see the core issue is this perpetual war ‘against’ with the intent to destroy ‘what is not wanted’ reflective of the dark/light aspects within themselves most have not made peace with on all sides. A war can’t happen unless you turn up. It can be hard to put this into words as ‘fear’ has been so deeply embedded within the psyche of all of us, not as instinctive ‘fight or flight‘ for safety but deep and complex psychological fears based on perceived past and futures. Many do not question for their own truth as fears were programmed by our cult-ure. The influencers in our lives have been predominantly media, school -education, entertainments – competition, wars, violent films, gaming and social norms creating the conditions for more fear and uncertainty as pillars of control and dependency. It served economic/power interests over centuries.
Humanity has struggled with understanding this ‘dark side’ and how people can hurt each other and never learn. People turn to religion to feel there is some force for good working in their lives. They are told when bad things happen it is the work of the Devil and pray to a God to destroy this other or hellfire. Yet this darkness continues and amplifies and people believe the world has no hope and we are doomed. Some fear the ‘end times’ others fear ‘loss of control’ and these dynamics keeping playing out in the ignorance of who we really are fuelled by others thoughts. Anger and hate is fuelled by the war of ‘good versus evil’ as righteous and just to destroy the evil other or disrupt the peace to install a Godless reality.
I recall George W. Bush describing terrorist killers. I found this video I feel is instructive.
This video shows how fear is instilled by what appears as reasoned statements, yet when you know language you can see how subtle ‘us against them’ is in generating hate. Imagine how the civilians in Iraq felt when Baghdad (Iraq) was bombed when there was no link to 911. They were not terrorists? Yet they died. Was the bombing about the ancient city of babalon? Were the twin towers the Tower in the Tarot, the Tower of Babel?
Iraq was the ancient city of Babylon. The cult of Thelema state: “…Babalon is a goddess found in the occult system of Thelema, which was established in 1904 with the writing of The Book of the Lawby English author andoccultist Aleister Crowley. The spelling of the name as “Babalon” was revealed to Crowley inThe Vision and the Voice…”
In the Bible‘s Book of Genesis, Babel (Babylon) is described as founded by Nimrod along with Uruk, Akkad, and perhaps Calneh. Another story is given in Genesis 11, which describes a united human race, speaking one language, migrating to Shinar to establish a city and tower—the Tower of Babel.Godhalts construction of the tower by scattering humanity across the earth and confusing their communication so they are unable to understand each other in the same language.
Babylon was an ancient city located on the lower Euphrates river in southern Mesopotamia, within modern-day Hillah, Iraq, about 85 kilometers (55 miles) south of modern day Baghdad. The town became part of a small independent city-state with the rise of the first Babylonian Empire, now known as the Old Babylonian Empire, in the 17th century BC. Prior to the heavy use of baked bricks in the reign of Neo-Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BC), construction at Babylon was primarily of unbaked brick, with the occasional use of baked bricks or bitumen.It has been estimated that Babylon was the largest city in the world from 1770 – 1670 BC, and again from 612 – 320 BC. It was perhaps the first city to reach a population above 200,000...Babalon’s consort is Chaos, called the “Father of Life” in the Gnostic Mass, being the male form of the creative principle. Separate from her relationship with her consort, Babalon is usually depicted as riding the Beast. She is often referred to as a sacred whore, and her primary symbol is the chalice or graal. She is considered to be a sacred whore because she denies no one, and yet she extracts a great price — the very blood of the adept and their ego-identity as an earthly individual...As Crowley wrote in The Book of Thoth, “she rides astride the Beast; in her left hand she holds the reins, representing the passion which unites them. In her right she holds aloft the cup, the Holy Grail aflame with love and death. In this cup are mingled the elements of the sacrament of the Aeon.”
The War on Terror was to fight terror (cause it) and usher in Chaos to justify more control called ‘Order out of Chaos’. The narrative created as a premise to justify violence ‘against’ which fed the fearful/negative thoughts of a nation into expecting a never ending war on evil. To be fearful and vigilant. Yet in reality you cannot fight evil you can only face it in yourself and it weakens. You give it no energy. War only happens when two fearful parties turn up believe they can kill that which is feared no matter the angel or devil. The act of seeking to kill the other (no defined target) is the very evil they say they want gone. Yet how does the murder of civilians stop evil when engaged in it for some marketed good?
My work has been to find a pathway out of mythological and historical confusion, hate and revenge based on unhappiness and all its masks. I am the fool who believes peace is not only possible but inevitable. I often say your ‘Happy Destiny is Unavoidable’ not as wishful thinking but as a felt truth.
I have chosen to learn from the highest way, how to move forward taking one step at a time without condoning violence but at the same time not adding fuel to the fire playing on ignorance expanding fears. Fear is false evidence appearing real.
This wise Zen teaching shows The Way. What are we feeding fear or love? War is not peace just as hate is not love. It is a cry for help. What do you choose in 2026?
The Way is to let go of labels, judgements, division and simple be with it as you walk. It is not about removing darkness, it is about noticing until it dissolves, as it was never real. I have come to understand when looking at nature, only love/unity is real.
In Conclusion
I conclude Peace for the World with Lao Tzu’s Life Lessons as a fellow traveller on my journey who looks on all with compassion no matter dark/light elements. I thank the wise sages for guiding my life and showing me The Way home. It is The Way of Masters, it is all about Self Mastery not changing the world. It is the hardest path as we all believe in action and fear what appears as a world falling apart, in truth, it is the Way and the Life.
This is not the version I found in London in 1994 baring in mind translation and interpretation. When I saw it, I knew I had come to the Philosophy course for this book. I found it on leaving. I experienced the western philosophy was too focused on political correctness and intellectual prowess, I didn’t resonate intuitively. As soon as I saw the book I was drawn. I felt a silent connection to the ancient Chinese sages. I still do today and the feeling is stronger. That was 21 years ago.
In 2026 I am choosing to focus on happiness, not knowing to with the objective of become nothing. That for me, is where peace is real.
You have to plant the right seeds, make your own choices and decisions. You have to decide in 2026 who you are and the part you play in this global drama. It matters not who you work for or your perceived role or believed outcomes. You make the decision and you create your reality based on where you focus arising from what you feel and then believe and then see. We each create the times we are moving through.
Good luck and peace on your journey to all those who have been watching this blog, may you have gained as it was written for you no matter your belief system, if you came you were meant to come. I was not seeking popularity, I was seeking to communicate to those who came.
When you are genuinely happy you know you have found peace within YOU, you have decided to no longer work against your inner truth as it feels negative and doesn’t work. The world doesn’t need to change to make you happy as it is perfectly imperfect. The good news is, your ONLY purpose is to discover your happiness and your world changes. That is the secret garden of peace.
Seymour Hersh has written his memoir ‘Reporter’. He is a well respected journalist, last of his calibre holding those in power to account. Today we see journalists like Australian Julian Assange publishing leaks verifying corruption, crimes an illegal activity whereby he is jailed without charge for up to 12 years, not the other parties who were the ‘wrong doers’. The public are waking up to the fact that the innocent whistleblowers, journalists, concerned members of the public are being smeared, injuried, jailed or killed for exposing unwelcome truths to power. When truth becomes the enemy we realise we are in times where we must investigate for ourselves to find the truth rather then be part of ‘the blind following the blind’ as we are experiencing a tyranny never known that is finally coming to the surface where each get to choose. Slavery or freedom is the line in the sand.
Journalists like Seymour Hersh give real hope to the world despite crimes against humanity continuing. Speaking up in ways that don’t enter the war, is wise and will enable healing of what is a massive divide in a era of social media reinforcing prejudices, paid fact checkers, organised PR spin and mind control operations to divide the public to digitally cause extremism.
He believes people have walked away from 911 and other issues. He looks for facts as he seeks out the truth. It is interesting watching the interview, the younger journalist ws very combative pushing his view as contrasted by the measured response by Seymour, it was a good contrast to show what an intention for truth looks like after 50 years of journalism. The other younger journalist breathed easier when he thought Seymour agreed with him, that in its essence is not journalism that is truth on the basis of ‘agreement’. One showed inner truth, the other adhered to outer truth. It was interesting to observe the dynamic.
Seymour Hersh, reporter
Where does the famed journalist fit into the American pantheon?
A shudder through the nation: Seymour Hersh in the year he won a Pulitzer Prize for his book My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
For many years Bob Woodward has been the most famous living print journalist, his name synonymous with Watergate and the style of reporting that features in his book-length, inside-the-Oval-Office accounts of American power. His latest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, is not out until 11 September but it is already an Amazon bestseller.
Woodward’s near contemporary, Seymour Hersh, has unearthed more scoops, of sharper bite, than his celebrity counterpart. In the best-known of these stories, he exposed the war crimes committed by American soldiers at My Lai during the Vietnam war, unearthed misdeeds of the Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1970s, and exposed the roots of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American prison guards at Abu Ghraib in 2004.
Why is Hersh less well known or lauded than Woodward? It’s a fascinating question. The two men may be in the twilight of their careers — Hersh is eighty-one, Woodward seventy-five — but their approach to journalism differs in crucial ways. And, in Donald Trump’s America, there is a strong argument that what is needed is more Hershes and fewer Woodwards.
This is not to say that Hersh’s journalism is without flaws. His reliance on confidential sources, for instance, has long attracted criticism. But his recently published memoir, Reporter, gives us an opportunity to recall, or find out, just how many major disclosures he has been responsible for over the past fifty years.
Reporter also highlights how much has changed in American political life, and how much hasn’t, and sets some of the febrile reporting of the Trump presidency in a cooler historical context. And it gives us Hersh’s own perspective on the value and the limits of his prodigious journalistic labours.
Born in 1931 one of the twin sons of Jewish immigrants, Hersh grew up on the south side of Chicago. From his early teens he was expected to help his father in the family’s dry cleaning business after school and on weekends. Isadore Hersh’s idea of a fun Sunday was to take Seymour (usually known as Sy) and brother Alan to the store to mop the floors and then to a Russian bathhouse on the West Side where the boys themselves would be scrubbed down with rough birch branches. The pay-off was fresh herring and root beer for lunch.
Hersh learnt only recently that in 1941 the entire Jewish population of his father’s birthplace, the village of Šeduva in Lithuania, had been executed by a German commando unit aided by Lithuanian collaborators. His father never discussed the war or the Nazis. “In his own way, Isadore Hersh was a Holocaust survivor as well as a Holocaust denier.”
It is a blunt declarative statement that Hersh, rather like his father, doesn’t take any further. Indeed, his family background and childhood occupies only the first four pages of this memoir. Then he is out in the world, finding his way.
A keen reader of literature and history from an early age, he graduated with a degree from the University of Chicago before moving on to law school, hating its dryness and moving out. Looking for work in 1959, he stumbled on to the City News Bureau, or CNB, a local agency that supplied stories, mostly about crime, to Chicago’s newspapers. There, he learnt the virtues of speed, accuracy and scepticism: as a senior editor used to tell reporters, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
The CNB had been the model for the play (and, later, film) The Front Page, and a biographer of Hersh, Robert Miraldi, writes that it was not uncommon for CNB reporters to impersonate a city official to induce people to provide information. Hersh used similar methods when he was tracking down Lieutenant William Calley, who had been charged over war crimes committed at My Lai in Vietnam.
Journalists should use subterfuge only as a last resort, not as an opening gambit, and only on stories genuinely in the public interest. Judging by his memoir, and checking it against Miraldi’s 2013 biography, Seymour Hersh: Scoop Artist, it is clear Hersh has deployed dubious news-gathering methods during his career. Sometimes — but not always — these methods are justified by the importance of the stories (the My Lai massacre clearly qualifies here) and the degree of difficulty Hersh faces in nailing them down.
Almost as important, Hersh learnt in his time at CNB about self-censorship and racism in the media. One night he overheard a police officer say to a fellow officer that he had shot and killed an unarmed robbery suspect in the back. Asked if the suspect had tried to run away, the officer said, “Naw. I told the nigger to beat it and then plugged him.”
Hersh took the story to his editor, who dissuaded him from writing it even after he obtained the coroner’s report showing the suspect had indeed been shot in the back. Hersh backed down, “full of despair at my weakness and at the weakness of a profession that dealt so easily with compromise and self-censorship.”
It’s fair to say that since then Hersh has hardly ever backed off from a story or been accused of self-censorship. He is notorious for browbeating sources to provoke a reaction, and he wears out editors in a similar way — even those lauded for their tough-mindedness, like Abe Rosenthal at the New York Times or David Remnick at the New Yorker. Editors tire of his belligerent advocacy for his stories — Hersh is an old-school newsroom typewriter-thrower and expletive-utterer — as well as his reliance on confidential sources for stories accusing those in power of lying, corruption or worse.
Equally, Hersh has earned a reputation for being a ferociously competitive, hard-working investigative journalist who is feared and intensely disliked by those he targets, from former secretary of state in the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger, to Richard Perle, a powerful business figure connected to the Bush administration, who once said, “Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.”
Hersh became internationally famous in 1969 when he broke the My Lai massacre story. American soldiers had killed up to 504 Vietnamese civilians; of them, 182 were women (seventeen of them pregnant), 173 were children and sixty were men over the age of sixty. Historian Kendrick Oliver describes it as a pivotal event not only in the Vietnam war but in American history.
Before My Lai, war crimes by American troops had rarely, if ever, been disclosed in the news media. A massacre of between 250 and 300 civilians, mostly women and children, had taken place during the Korean war, for instance, but was not disclosed until nearly half a century later by an Associated Press investigative team.
The atrocities at My Lai had taken place in March 1968, but they were not revealed until late the following year and not by the mainstream news media. Hersh, freelancing in Washington, followed up a public interest lawyer’s tip with a tenacity and resourcefulness that rivals Wilfred Burchett’s trip to Hiroshima after the atomic bomb in 1945, which I’ve written about for Inside Story. Hersh’s revelations about the events at My Lai were initially turned down by outlets such as Life magazine and the New York Times. Eventually, a small, independent, anti-war news agency run by a friend of Hersh managed to sell it to newspapers around the country, not including the New York Times.
On the same day as this initial, muted response to what were shocking revelations, President Nixon sent his vice-president, Spiro Agnew, out to deliver a speech criticising the “liberal eastern establishment” media’s coverage of the war. “The day when the network commentators and even the gentlemen of the New York Times enjoyed a diplomatic immunity from comment and criticism is over!” Agnew declared. His speech and its reception — it drew a standing ovation — are a marker of the hostility towards the press that has only intensified under President Trump’s relentless stoking.
The big television networks ignored the My Lai revelations until Hersh found a soldier in Calley’s company who could be persuaded to be interviewed by Mike Wallace on CBS. Paul Meadlo then admitted on national television that he had killed women and children. “It sent a shudder through the nation,” recalled Hersh’s publisher friend, David Obst.
The shudder became a seismic shift three years later, in 1972, when Woodward and his colleague at the Washington Post, Carl Bernstein, began reporting on the implications of the break-in at the Democratic Party’s headquarters at the Watergate hotel-office complex. The Watergate story, which begins with dirty tricks by low-level Republican Party political operatives and ends with president Richard Nixon’s forced resignation in August 1974, is well known; what is less well known is the role Seymour Hersh played in it.
By 1972, having won a Pulitzer Prize for his My Lai disclosures, Hersh was in the Washington bureau of the country’s most prestigious newspaper, the New York Times, covering national security issues. The Times, “a cathedral of quiet dignity,” according to Gay Talese’s history, The Kingdom and the Power, was slow to respond to Watergate. The problem, as one of its then editors, Bill Kovach, pithily put it, was that the Times “hated to be beaten but didn’t really want to be first” on stories that genuinely challenged power and authority. Spiro Agnew hated the newspaper for being liberal and eastern, but the third word of his description — establishment — is crucial: the Times was part of the establishment.
After numerous Woodward and Bernstein disclosures, the newspaper’s hatred of being beaten outweighed its reticence about being first, and managing editor Abe Rosenthal instructed Hersh to begin covering the story. Most of the key sources were already dealing with Woodward and Bernstein, including the most famous anonymous source in media history, “Deep Throat” (revealed three decades later to be deputy FBI director Mark Felt).
Even so, beginning in early 1973, Hersh broke several important stories about Watergate, including the key disclosure that those on trial for the Watergate break-in were being paid “hush money,” allegedly by the Committee to Re-elect the President. Woodward and Bernstein hated being scooped, but they liked seeing Hersh verify and amplify their revelations in the nation’s most powerful newspaper.
The three journalists competed as fiercely as they respected each other’s work ethic. The difference was that the Washington Post duo wrote a book about their Watergate coverage, All the President’s Men, that sold 2.7 million copies on its release in 1974 and was turned into an Oscar-winning Hollywood film starring Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein. No newspaper journalists had ever been as famous or glamorous.
Hersh has only good things to say in his memoir about Woodward (they played tennis on Sundays for many years, and occasionally shared notes about sources), but Miraldi documents Hersh’s envy of his better-known counterpart. “It’s a very crass materialistic thing to say, but it’s a fact,” Hersh once said drily. “I wouldn’t mind making a million dollars on a book. Having Robert Redford play me would not bother me at all.”
That mattered less than the extraordinary series of stories Hersh unearthed about national security during this period, including his revelation that the United States had illegally and secretly bombed neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam war. Just before Christmas 1974, Hersh revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of its charter, had “conducted a massive, illegal domestic intelligence operation during the Nixon Administration against the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States, according to well-placed government sources.”
The CIA story prompted Congress to set up a commission of inquiry, headed by Senator Frank Church, to investigate the legality of the CIA’s covert operations, drug-smuggling activities in the Golden Triangle, and attempts to interfere in other countries’ politics. The Church Commission’s work paved the way for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
If Hersh’s influence and reputation reached a peak in the mid 1970s, they fluctuated over the next three decades as he alternated between producing revelations (about Panamanian leader General Manuel Noriega’s corruption, for instance, and his dubious relationship with the American military and intelligence agencies) and becoming mired in controversy (as he was after he took a deep dive into the details of JFK’s extramarital affairs while he was president, in The Dark Side of Camelot).
Sometimes he experienced both at once, as when he alleged that duplicity was central to Henry Kissinger’s career, in his 1983 book The Price of Power, for which he interviewed more than 1000 people and spent a year on background reading. If, despite unremitting ferreting, Hersh failed to find the smoking gun that would have destroyed Kissinger’s career, the book has held up to scrutiny over time, and Kissinger’s reputation has been tarnished.
The combination of working with David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks prompted a series of significant stories, epitomised by Hersh’s reporting of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The CBS television program 60 Minutes II broke the story just before the New Yorker, but Hersh obtained a fifty-three-page internal army report on the events by Major-General Antonio Taguba, which enabled him to demolish the trope on conservative radio talk shows that Abu Ghraib was simply about a “few guys going nuts on the night-shift.”
Instead, Hersh wrote, the roots of Abu Ghraib could be found in defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to expand a highly secret program of interrogating Iraqi prisoners. The operation “embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of elite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.”
Hersh’s reporting after 9/11 culminated in his ninth book, Chain of Command, which won numerous awards but sold nowhere near as well as even one of Woodward’s quartet of books about George W. Bush’s presidency, Bush at War, Plan of Attack, State of Denial and The War Within.
If the lack of attention chafed Hersh, a comparison of these works shows Hersh hewing more closely to the promise of public interest journalism. “Bob has become the diarist of sitting administrations,” says Bill Kovach, a former editor at the New York Times, “and Sy has continued to be the muckraker. Sy continues his outrage.”
Or, as Mark Danner, himself a respected American investigative journalist, puts it, where Woodward relies for his disclosures on officials at the highest level of government, Hersh’s sources come from lower levels of the government and intelligence bureaucracy. Where Woodward provides the “deeper” version of what is, essentially, “the official story,” Hersh uncovers a version of events that “the government does not want public — which is to say, a version that contradicts the official story of what went on.”
Most of Woodward’s books, then, stay close to the moment’s conventional wisdom about any given administration. His first two Bush books, published in 2003 and 2004, show the president as commanding and decisive. It was only in late 2006, after State of Denial was released and it was apparent to even the least interested citizen that the war on terror had been poorly conceived and was being poorly executed, that Woodward began meting out criticism. As Slate editor Jacob Weisberg wrote, the state of denial applied as much to Woodward as it did to the Bush administration. For his part, within weeks of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Hersh was reporting in the New Yorker that the CIA and the FBI were ill-prepared to deal with al Qaeda and were riven by intra-agency rivalry and mistrust.
Over his long career Hersh has undoubtedly made errors. And some of his predictions have proved to be wrong. But he has acknowledged at least some of these lapses in his memoir — not something that comes easily to journalists, let alone investigative journalists.
As Steve Weinberg, a former director of Investigative Reporters and Editors in the United States, writes, “Any journalist who does that many high-stakes stories and has to depend on so many sources, whose truthfulness cannot always be determined, may be misled some of the time.” Hersh himself told his biographer, “I am a mouthpiece for people on the inside. You get a sense I am a vehicle for a certain form of dissent.”
That’s not what you get from Woodward, who says he persuades political leaders to talk because “essentially I write self-portraits.” Whether or not he has persuaded Donald Trump to speak on the record, it seems unlikely that Fear: Trump in the White House will provide a “vehicle for a certain form of dissent.”
Does Hersh have in him another searing exposé, or is his memoir a swan song? You’d hope the former, but it feels like the latter. He is still promising a book about former vice-president Dick Cheney, but Cheney hasn’t been in that job since 2009 and Barton Gellman thoroughly documented his malign influence on American politics a decade ago in Angler: The Shadow Presidency of Dick Cheney.
And as Alan Rusbridger, former long-time editor of the Guardian, notes, Hersh’s reliance on anonymous sources is being overtaken, or at the least offset, by new approaches to journalism that draw on myriad communication technologies to forensically investigate events and issues.
Regardless, Hersh has already given us a lifetime’s worth of disclosures in the public interest that even at the distance of several decades are as important to read as they are disturbing. •
Cover-Up Documentary
Tonight I saw a Netflix documentary which provided deep insights through the eyes of Seymour Hersh into the entire political-military cover-ups of US war crimes. For myself what stood out was the murder of civilians and the comment of a mother who said her son came back a murder. It discusses mass killings by the US military that were covered-up as they positioned themselves across the world as upholders of liberty.
4 days ago|By Seymour M. Hersh|Sri Lanka Guardian VerifiedBy now some readers of this column may be watching or planning to watch Cover-Up, the documentary on my career by Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus now playing in theaters and streaming beginning today on Netflix. One thing the documentary accomplishes is to bring back to light a horrific US Army massacre of close to five hundred Vietnamese civilians in a village called My Lai 4 in 1968. The atrocity was hushed up.
Cover-Up (now on Netflix) finds a stalwart journalist making a documentary about a stalwart journalist. Laura Poitras, Oscar winner for Citizenfour, co-directs (with Mark Obenhaus) a retrospective on the career of Seymour Hersh, the former Associated Press and New York Times-turned-freelance investigative reporter best known for piecing together damning exposés about horrific war crimes perpetrated by U.S. agencies during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. The film, already shortlisted for the 2026 Oscars, has essentially been in the works for 20 years due to Hersh’s reluctance to discuss his sources or talk about himself – qualms that Hersh isn’t afraid to address on camera in this fascinating profile.
The Gist: Seymour Hersh – or Sy, as many call him – could be the basis for a prefab Halloween costume: The Stereotypical Newspaper Journalist. Tie askew, tweed sportcoat, hair not quite neatly combed, surrounded by stacks of disheveled legal pads and newspapers and books. Steely glare, prickly personality, pragmatic demeanor, an admirable stubbornness. He’s 88 now, but you wouldn’t know it to hear him talk, either to Poitras behind the camera or to a source on the phone about the conflict in Gaza. He grew up with a father who owned a laundromat that Sy ran for a while because he liked to talk to people. That skill did him good after he stumbled into a journalism career that eventually put him in the Pentagon, forgoing the canned press conferences and lazy lunches other reporters attended; instead, he’d chat up officers in the halls, first about sports and then about things of consequence. He wasn’t content to follow the journalistic herd.
That’s how Hersh got a single name that he didn’t even know how to spell correctly, but eventually cracked open a major story published in 1969, about the My Lai massacre, where the U.S. Army ordered troops to murder hundreds of Vietnamese civilians, including children, apparently to inflate war-casualty numbers, which were a measure of “success.” Hersh became nationally famous for his reporting on the massacre, and kickstarted his career as one of the nation’s premier freelance investigative journalists. He was lauded and he was criticized but his entire demeanor then and now seemed to be, let the chips fall where they may. He speaks matter-of-factly – the way he almost always speaks – about the personal toll the work had on him as his reporting uncovered more and more atrocities, from rapes to the murder of babies who could barely walk. “You’re getting me to think about things I don’t want to think about,” he says to Poitras.
Eventually, he’ll share how he’d weep about such horrors to his wife as he called home from a phone booth. Without that humanity within him, there might not be the drive to expose the truth: Hersh reported on Watergate for The New York Times. On the CIA violating its credo and spying on fellow Americans. On the “Family Jewels,” a document detailing numerous CIA moral and legal malfeasances. On corporate corruption at Gulf and Western. On the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which was the second defining moment of his career. We hear others describe Hersh: “Always going where nobody wants you.” “Very complicated and unpredictable.” A “son of a bitch” (that was Richard Nixon). He calls himself “a high-octane person” – he argues with Poitras, and threatens to walk out on the documentary over concerns that his sources might be exposed. In archival audio from a radio interview discussing the Abu Ghraib story, he’s criticized for making the U.S. look bad during wartime. “Nobody likes the messenger,” is his reply. He seems to be just fine with that.
What Movies Will It Remind You Of? Maybe it’s time to rewatch All the President’s Men. Poitras’ other notable documentaries of similar social and political force include Edward Snowden piece Citizenfour and All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, about activist Nan Golden.
Performance Worth Watching: Nobody would ever accuse Hersh of “performing” in this film – but him simply being his verbally spiky, no-nonsense self is fascinating and revelatory.
Sex And Skin: None.
Photo: Netflix
Our Take: In profiling Hersh, Cover-Up is essentially a they-don’t-make-’em-like-they-used-to story with a rich subtext about the state of journalism. Hersh is a sharp, seasoned and irascible man who knows he has to be able to take it in order to dish it out. We get an idea of his tenacity just in the way he interacts with Poitras and Obenhaus, who aren’t afraid to push him into uncomfortable spaces – and maybe that’s why he didn’t flee the interview. Perhaps the documentarians and their subject see something of themselves in each other. The film doesn’t valorize Hersh directly, because that would smack of self-aggrandization, but there’s no getting around the importance of his work, and Poitras and Obenhaus skillfully walk that tonal tightrope.
On one hand, the story of Hersh spotlights some of modern America’s darkest, ugliest moments, balanced out by the need to hold power to account for such things. Within this is a subtextual indictment of modern journalism – access journalism, partisan journalism, journalism that’s afraid to risk the bottom line or long-held power structures. None of this is actual by-definition journalism, mind you, and that may be precisely the point.
That Hersh is willing to own his mistakes (he admits he was “snookered” by fake documents he had to cut from his 1997 book about John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot) and push back against Poitras’ criticism of a relatively recent piece that has one anonymous source (he defends it by saying that source hasn’t done him wrong during the last 20 years) illustrates the thorny complexities of a profession that not just anyone can do well, or even do at all. He’s on Substack now, fiercely independent. One can only imagine the criticism he has to filter out amidst the internet free-for-all. The film doesn’t address his survival in the modern day milieu, but the implication is, he’s far too tenacious and durable not to gut it out. He’s been gutting it out for decades. He’s got momentum. About his early days, he understates how he “got some moxie going,” and Cover-Up shows that his moxie well runs far deeper than most.
This video is from the UN Visual Library. It has been edited. This raises issues of corporate interests involved in public bodies who have vested interests not aligned with peace.
September 20, 1963: Address to the UN General Assembly
When you watch the video above you will notice it is different from the audio in the Audio and Transcript link. Watch carefully from 3.00 and you will notice that 3.02 mins the video jumps. When you compare this with the audio transcript it is evident the italicised audio content highlighted below has been removed. That has been done post speech as the audio in the link below shows it was intact. Not a technical error. I used to type audio transcripts. So, let’s examine what was removed as this is informative of how corruption works on a subtle level. Most won’t know that historical information has been edited.
Mr. President–as one who has taken some interest in the election of Presidents, I want to congratulate you on your election to this high office–Mr. Secretary General, delegates to the United Nations, ladies and gentlemen:
We meet again in the quest for peace.
Twenty-four months ago, when I last had the honor of addressing this body, the shadow of fear lay darkly across the world. The freedom of West Berlin was in immediate peril. Agreement on a neutral Laos seemed remote. The mandate of the United Nations in the Congo was under fire. The financial outlook for this organization was in doubt. Dag Hammarskjold was dead. The doctrine of troika was being pressed in his place, and atmospheric nuclear tests had been resumed by the Soviet Union.
Those were anxious days for mankind-and some men wondered aloud whether this organization could survive. But the 16th and 17th General Assemblies achieved not only survival but progress. Rising to its responsibility, the United Nations helped reduce the tensions and helped to hold back the darkness.
Today the clouds have lifted a little so that new rays of hope can break through. The pressures on West Berlin appear to be temporarily eased. Political unity in the Congo has been largely restored. A neutral coalition in Laos, while still in difficulty, is at least in being. The integrity of the United Nations Secretariat has been reaffirmed. A United Nations Decade of Development is under way. And, for the first time in 17 years of effort, a specific step has been taken to limit the nuclear arms race.
I refer, of course, to the treaty to ban nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water–concluded by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States–and already signed by nearly 100 countries. It has been hailed by people the world over who are thankful to be free from the fears of nuclear fallout, and I am confident that on next Tuesday at 10:30 o’clock in the morning it will receive the overwhelming endorsement of the Senate of the United States.
The world has not escaped from the darkness. The long shadows of conflict and crisis envelop us still. But we meet today in an atmosphere of rising hope, and at a moment of comparative calm. My presence here today is not a sign of crisis, but of confidence. I am not here to report on a new threat to the peace or new signs of war. I have come to salute the United Nations and to show the support of the American people for your daily deliberations. For the value of this body’s
(THIS SECTION DELETED FROM THE ABOVE VIDEO)
work is not dependent on the existence of emergencies–nor can the winning of peace consist only of dramatic victories. Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures. And however undramatic the pursuit of peace, that pursuit must go on.
Today we may have reached a pause in the cold war–but that is not a lasting peace. A test ban treaty is a milestone–but it is not the millennium. We have not been released from our obligations–we have been given an opportunity. And if we fail to make the most of this moment and this momentum-if we convert our new-found hopes and understandings into new walls and weapons of hostility–if this .pause in the cold war merely leads to its renewal and not to its end–then the indictment of posterity will rightly point its finger at us all. But if we can stretch this pause into a period of cooperation–if both sides can now gain new confidence and experience in concrete collaborations for peace–if we can now be as bold and farsighted in the control of deadly weapons as we have been in their creation-then surely this first small step can be the start of a long and fruitful journey.
The task of building the peace lies with the leaders of every nation, large and small. For the great powers have no monopoly on conflict or ambition. The cold war is not the only expression of tension in this world-and the nuclear race is not the only arms race. Even little wars are dangerous in a nuclear world. The long labor of peace is an undertaking for every nation–and in this effort none of us can remain unaligned. To this goal none can be uncommitted.
VIDEO CONTINUES…(3.04)
The reduction of global tension must not be an excuse for the narrow pursuit of self-interest. If the Soviet Union and the United States, with all of their global interests and clashing commitments of ideology, and with nuclear weapons still aimed at each other today, can find areas of common interest and agreement, then surely other nations can do the same–nations caught in regional conflicts, in racial issues, or in the death throes of old colonialism. Chronic disputes which divert precious resources from the needs of the people or drain the energies of both sides serve the interests of no one–and the badge of responsibility in the modern world is a willingness to seek peaceful solutions.
It is never too early to try; and it’s never too late to talk; and it’s high time that many disputes on the agenda of this Assembly were taken off the debating schedule and placed on the negotiating table.
The fact remains that the United States, as a major nuclear power, does have a special responsibility in the world. It is, in fact, a threefold responsibility–a responsibility to our own citizens; a responsibility to the people of the whole world who are affected by our decisions; and to the next generation of humanity. We believe the Soviet Union also has these special responsibilities–and that those responsibilities require our two nations to concentrate less on our differences and more on the means of resolving them peacefully. For too long both of us have increased our military budgets, our nuclear stockpiles, and our capacity to destroy all life on this hemisphere–human, animal, vegetable–without any corresponding increase in our security.
Our conflicts, to be sure, are real. Our concepts of the world are different. No service is performed by failing to make clear our disagreements. A central difference is the belief of the American people in self-determination for all people.
We believe that the people of Germany and Berlin must be free to reunite their capital and their country.
We believe that the people of Cuba must be free to secure the fruits of the revolution that have been betrayed from within and exploited from without.
In short, we believe that all the world–in Eastern Europe as well as Western, in Southern Africa as well as Northern, in old nations as well as new–that people must be free to choose their own future, without discrimination or dictation, without coercion or subversion.
These are the basic differences between the Soviet Union and the United States, and they cannot be concealed. So long as they exist, they set limits to agreement, and they forbid the relaxation of our vigilance. Our defense around the world will be maintained for the protection of freedom–and our determination to safeguard that freedom will measure up to any threat or challenge.
But I would say to the leaders of the Soviet Union, and to their people, that if either of our countries is to be fully secure, we need a much better weapon than the H-bomb–a weapon better than ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines–and that better weapon is peaceful cooperation.
We have, in recent years, agreed on a limited test ban treaty, on an emergency communications link between our capitals, on a statement of principles for disarmament, on an increase in cultural exchange, on cooperation in outer space, on the peaceful exploration of the Antarctic, and on tempering last year’s crisis over Cuba.
I believe, therefore, that the Soviet Union and the United States, together with their allies, can achieve further agreements-agreements which spring from our mutual interest in avoiding mutual destruction.
There can be no doubt about the agenda of further steps. We must continue to seek agreements on measures which prevent war by accident or miscalculation. We must continue to seek agreement on safeguards against surprise attack, including observation posts at key points. We must continue to seek agreement on further measures to curb the nuclear arms race, by controlling the transfer of nuclear weapons, converting fissionable materials to peaceful purposes, and banning underground testing, with adequate inspection and enforcement. We must continue to seek agreement on a freer flow of information and people from East to West and West to East.
We must continue to seek agreement, encouraged by yesterday’s affirmative response to this proposal by the Soviet Foreign Minister, on an arrangement to keep weapons of mass destruction out of outer space. Let us get our negotiators back to the negotiating table to work out a practicable arrangement to this end.
In these and other ways, let us move up the steep and difficult path toward comprehensive disarmament, securing mutual confidence through mutual verification, and building the institutions of peace as we dismantle the engines of war. We must not let failure to agree on all points delay agreements where agreement is possible. And we must not put forward proposals for propaganda purposes.
Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity-in the field of space–there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries–indeed of all the world–cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the moon not the respresentatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.
All these and other new steps toward peaceful cooperation may be possible. Most of them will require on our part full consultation with our allies–for their interests are as much involved as our own, and we will not make an agreement at their expense. Most of them will require long and careful negotiation. And most of them will require a new approach to the cold war–a desire not to “bury” one’s adversary, but to compete in a host of peaceful arenas, in ideas, in production, and ultimately in service to all mankind.
The contest will continue–the contest between those who see a monolithic world and those who believe in diversity–but it should be a contest in leadership and responsibility instead of destruction, a contest in achievement instead of intimidation. Speaking for the United States of America, I welcome such a contest. For we believe that truth is stronger than error–and that freedom is more enduring than coercion. And in the contest for a better life, all the world can be a winner.
The effort to improve the conditions of man, however, is not a task for the few. It is the task of all nations–acting alone, acting in groups, acting in the United Nations, for plague and pestilence, and plunder and pollution, the hazards of nature, and the hunger of children are the foes of every nation. The earth, the sea, and the air are the concern of every nation. And science, technology, and education can be the ally of every nation.
Never before has man had such capacity to control his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty and disease, to banish illiteracy and massive human misery. We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world–or to make it the last.
The United States since the close of the war has sent over $100 billion worth of assistance to nations seeking economic viability. And 2 years ago this week we formed a Peace Corps to help interested nations meet the demand for trained manpower. Other industrialized nations whose economies were rebuilt not so long ago with some help from us are now in turn recognizing their responsibility to the less developed nations.
The provision of development assistance by individual nations must go on. But the United Nations also must play a larger role in helping bring to all men the fruits of modern science and industry. A United Nations conference on this subject he;d earlier this year at Geneva opened new vistas for the developing countries. Next year a United Nations Conference on Trade will consider the needs of these nations for new markets. And more than four-fifths of the entire United Nations system can be found today mobilizing the weapons of science and technology for the United Nations’ Decade of Development.
But more can be done.
–A world center for health communications under the World Health Organization could warn of epidemics and the adverse effects of certain drugs as well as transmit the results of new experiments and new discoveries.
–Regional research centers could advance our common medical knowledge and train new scientists and doctors for new nations.
–A global system of satellites could provide communication and weather information for all corners of the earth.
–A worldwide program of conservation could protect the forest and wild game preserves now in danger of extinction for all time, improve the marine harvest of food from our oceans, and prevent the contamination of air and water by industrial as well as nuclear pollution.
–And, finally, a worldwide program of farm productivity and food distribution, similar to our country’s “Food for Peace” program, could now give every child the food he needs.
But man does not live by bread alone-and the members of this organization are committed by the Charter to promote and respect human rights. Those rights are not respected when a Buddhist priest is driven from his pagoda, when a synagogue is shut down, when a Protestant church cannot open a mission, when a Cardinal is forced into hiding, or when a crowded church service is bombed. The United States of America is opposed to discrimination and persecution on grounds of race and religion anywhere in the world, including our own Nation. We are working to right the wrongs of our own country.
Through legislation and administrative action, through moral and legal commitment, this Government has launched a determined effort to rid our Nation of discrimination which has existed far too longin education, in housing, in transportation, in employment, in the civil service, in recreation, and in places of public accommodation. And therefore, in this or any other forum, we do not hesitate to condemn racial or religious injustice, whether committed or permitted by friend or foe.
I know that some of you have experienced discrimination in this country. But I ask you to believe me when I tell you that this is not the wish of most Americans–that we share your regret and resentment–and that we intend to end such practices for all time to come, not only for our visitors, but for our own citizens as well.
I hope that not only our Nation but all other multiracial societies will meet these standards of fairness and justice. We are opposed to apartheid and all forms of human oppression. We do not advocate the rights of black Africans in order to drive out white Africans. Our concern is the right of all men to equal protection under the law–and since human rights are indivisible, this body cannot stand aside when those rights are abused and neglected by any member state.
New efforts are needed if this Assembly’s Declaration of Human Rights, now 15 years old, is to have full meaning. And new means should be found for promoting the free expression and trade of ideas–through travel and communication, and through increased exchanges of people, and books, and broadcasts. For as the world renounces the competition of weapons, competition in ideas must flourish–and that competition must be as full and as fair as possible.
The United States delegation will be prepared to suggest to the United Nations initiatives in the pursuit of all the goals. For this is an organization for peace–and peace cannot come without work and without progress.
The peacekeeping record of the United Nations has been a proud one, though its tasks are always formidable. We are fortunate to have the skills of our distinguished Secretary General and the brave efforts of those who have been serving the cause of peace in the Congo, in the Middle East, in Korea and Kashmir, in West New Guinea and Malaysia. But what the United Nations has done in the past is less important than the tasks for the future. We cannot take its peacekeeping machinery for granted. That machinery must be soundly financed-which it cannot be if some members are allowed to prevent it from meeting its obligations by failing to meet their own. The United Nations must be supported by all those who exercise their franchise here. And its operations must be backed to the end.
Too often a project is undertaken in the excitement of a crisis and then it begins to lose its appeal as the problems drag on and the bills pile up. But we must have the steadfastness to see every enterprise through.
It is, for example, most important not to jeopardize the extraordinary United Nations gains in the Congo. The nation which sought this organization’s help only 3 years ago has now asked the United Nations’ presence to remain a little longer. I believe this Assembly should do what is necessary to preserve the gains already made and to protect the new nation in its struggle for progress. Let us complete what we have started. For “No man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back,” as the Scriptures tell us, “No man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God.”
I also hope that the recent initiative of several members in preparing standby peace forces for United Nations call will encourage similar commitments by others. This Nation remains ready to provide logistic and other material support.
Policing, moreover, is not enough without provision for pacific settlement. We should increase the resort to special missions of factfinding and conciliation, make greater use of the International Court of Justice, and accelerate the work of the International Law Commission.
The United Nations cannot survive as a static organization. Its obligations are increasing as well as its size. Its Charter must be changed as well as its customs. The authors of that Charter did not intend that it be frozen in perpetuity. The science of weapons and war has made us all, far more than 18 years ago in San Francisco, one world and one human race, with one common destiny. In such a world, absolute -sovereignty no longer assures us of absolute security. The conventions of peace must pull abreast and then ahead of the inventions of war. The United Nations, building on its successes and learning from its failures, must be developed into a genuine world security system.
But peace does not rest in charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people. And if it is east out there, then no act, no pact, no treaty, no organization can hope to preserve it without the support and the wholehearted commitment of all people. So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper; let us strive to build peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace, in the hearts and minds of all of our people. I believe that we can. I believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of human beings.
Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed, and was willing to sign, a limited test ban treaty. Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: “Give me a place where I can stand–and I shall move the world.”
My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.
The audio-visual removed was in relation to the UN’s purpose which Kennedy says is not dependent on the existence of emergencies. This is relevant to the 2020 Public Health Emergency of International Concern (state of emergency, suspend Constitution). What Kennedy is saying is the UN’s work DOES NOT depend on emergencies. Yet the World Health Organisation has powerful actors like Bill Gates (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and the World Economic Forum long list of corporations (see John Hopkins Coronavirus Simulation, August 2019) which created the conditions for crisis driven government demand for pharmaceutical and biotechnology products suspending Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) to bypass safety and coerce experimental genetic therapies (DNA altering). It becomes evident from the alleged pandemic that UN is using announced global emergencies (without solid evidence) on the basis of a larger global agenda (NWO) to be implemented.
The next part in the video deleted is about the UN’s real mission world peace. Clearly those who removed this section don’t want peace. Yet peace is in their highest interests whether they know it or not. They have believed peace doesn’t make money and from this incredibly narrow band width, leadership promotes ‘disruption’ to force change and avoid the hardest work, peace. Peace from the perspective of the world’s people is what is wanted as they are the predominant targets of wars (see Seymour Hersh’s post next). Most wars are not between standing armies but impacting the public, the majority of deaths are civilian non-combatants. We know from the Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars Bilderberg document that wars are for depopulation. The belief behind this is we need less population due to implementing AI and automation as a framework for control. That is, people aren’t needed or their energy is now costly. Those caught up in mind control regarding business as reality, are not taught to truly serve people or care what happens to them, or consider the impacts of their decisions, they see people as a tool and it is apparent they don’t respect them. These perceptions are erroneous in reality. The unconscious need for power (taught from father to son) is unquestioned, so they are blind to the truth. This is because they were taught this as children, they were not given the love they needed and likely abused as part of their training to project power. So they won’t get this narrative, unless they really stop the old ideas and just come along side this discussion as a possibility it could be true. I write in this way with peace in mind, as I can see they innocently followed family dogma and didn’t realise the real karma that is attracted when causing harm to others, it returns.
In the missing audio-visual material Kennedy is advocating to not convert our new-found hopes and understandings into new walls and weapons of hostility. That is, not create barriers to peace or invest in weapons. This is what upsets the military-industrial complex as they are industries that dependent on defence contracts. Now again, they are innocent in a business model that teaches them they must provide shareholder value. They must profit from war and this is how warfare, false flags, endless conflict becomes part of a business strategy to make more money. Again, disconnected from the felt experience on the ground of those injured or killed and the trauma of war that lingers. In a sense, they can’t see this, as they live in a different world. They see themselves as superior as the world’s people will work for nothing, they don’t respect their poverty which their father’s and forefather’s engineered through fractional reserve banking and economics. The blind leading the blind. Kennedy was seeking to create a coalition for peace due to mutual assured destruction. He said “…Even little wars are dangerous in a nuclear world. The long labor of peace is an undertaking for every nation–and in this effort none of us can remain unaligned. He was killed because he wanted real peace. That is a threat to those who want power and control at any price.
As a peacemaker myself, educated by global experts, what I see is that, predominantly in the field of conflict resolution, it is largely populated by women. Why? Females have skills with building human relationships and community, as mothers they understand innately emotions, sensing the psychology and communicating in ways that build trust and set boundaries teaching accountability. Men are not taught this by father’s, they are taught to not show emotion, hide their feelings (vulnerability) and be the strong silent type and avoid disclosures. This be prized as a General, but it can’t work if you want to build collaboration, partnerships and real peace. The military approach escalates fear, turns innocent boys into murderers (see Seymour Hersh next blog), costs billions/trillions diverting tax funds away from real need and keeps weapons of mass destruction on hair trigger alert in a arms race where there are no winners. Helen Caldicott (Nuclear activist) saw this masculine paradigm calling her book ‘Missile Envy’ and the competitive postures of men, seeking status and success. She sought to educate the public about the reality of nuclear fallout, sickness and death (as has been seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later Depleted Uranium). She formed the peace movement and had a discussion with former US President Reagan to bring sanity to insanity and bring humanity back from the brink. It seems the men can’t or won’t change, still stuck in a paradigm which today is lining up as an extinction level event. Those in leadership do not want to be seen as wrong as it is somehow a weakness, when it is the greatest strength (honesty) and it is how we grow as for the most part ‘they don’t know what they do’. Or reframed ‘they don’t know they don’t know’. That is the blindness of ignorance. However, when you ‘know you don’t know’ you are more careful as you might be wrong and this opens the mind to possibilities (see more). To not know may well save the world from nuclear/ biological/ technology/ psychological misadventure. Humility, would be a strength if clear seeing is the goal. In a corporate setting a stakeholders, risk Management, investments and partners will see any decision that reduces profits or affects ‘brand image’ as a ‘threat’ just like any theatre of war. So they work out how to remove the perceived threat. So this destructive war mentality continues. This is why wars have not ended. The actors cannot imagine the pain and massive destruction they cause in pursuit of self interest framed as defence when observing remotely from ivory towers of closed groups, not boots on the ground.
Kennedy extends the olive branch to the world of cooperation, new confidence and collaborations for peace, which is not what those invested in war or responsible for moves on the global chessboard of world control want to hear. So Kennedy becomes the enemy in their mind, when he appears to be about rebalancing no win conflict of that which is out of order (chaos). It is an irony the catch cry of high level planners is order out of chaos, the truth is the opposite. It is in chaos by an Order keeping life disrupted to force life into their shape for profitable and power gains of the few over the many. This is done but without the innate ability to see how peaceful actions expand real wealth as felt ‘abundance’ and changes the actors. They literally change in terms of how they see based on inner change. Remember ‘you see as you are not as others are’ but won’t be aware. As they work for the whole not just their narrow part, the world changes returning to balance. I say this with peace in mind, as each and every one of us acts in self interest without consideration of the whole, which only ever comes back to cause disruption/pain/anger/disappointment etc. A wise ruler (wisdom of Solomon) knows that ‘what you do for others returns to the self’ as we are all connected (oneness). Many grapple for the wisdom but like the parable by Jeshua ben Joseph ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.’ This was not meant to be a insult to the rich man, it was related to consciousness (seeing more). When you are dependent on others, as a wealthy person is, he or she becomes weaker/dependent (others doing for him/her) s/he is not able to access that Kingdom (inner richness) within, as he or she can become unkind, take for granted that which is given, create slaves or surfs (inequality), this impacts his or her ability to access the greatness within. The Arthurian legend of the roundtable was really a metaphor for inner richness held in equality, fairness as the holy grail and the metaphor for pulling excalibur from the rock (truth – between rock and hard place). The unity promised comes from inner unity. This type of leadership is loved because they live the honour as a code amongst equals. Integrity and gratitude in life is the pathway to peace. This is not taught to boys but still violent gaming is seen as the next recruits for the next war. In truth all go home to the same place as we are One.
When you take from others (rorting, fraud, deception, treasures) as a way of life normalised, emptiness becomes the unconscious driver for ‘more‘ or a inner sense of ‘not enough’, that is the real meaning of greed, it is a inner poverty which creates ‘outer poverty’. They are flipsides of the coin. Just can’t feel fulfilled or happy when taking but most don’t see this. Men typically won’t put words to it as they avoid, so they can’t see to learn. So, military colleges keep the same rhetoric of violence repeated, education passes it on, other actors find ways to profit from both sides, and the imbalance is never addressed in light of aware self mastery some call wisdom. Men try to find this in combat ie. ‘warriors’, ‘martial arts’ as ‘honour’ but it alludes them amplifying ‘not enough‘. They don’t find peace or ‘value‘ inside. Until they do they will project it onto others until they destroy life (we are at a critical point in 2026). Peace is not the enemy it is our natural state of being when we unite the opposites not as marketing, but for real.
When this happens, your world will literally change as you see as you are not others. Inner peace is unmistakable as there is no doing, no need to prove anything and no fear. Fear can’t exist when inner resolution has occurred, you make peace with your world and it is like a new world arises. That is what I clearly see. This is not the typically peace narrative, it comes from my experience.
Life is not the way we all perceive. We live in our bubbles defined by opinions, media, education, families and so on, this shapes what we see and then believe. We also live in a dynamic universe where we can’t predict life, even a well ordered life cannot know 100% what will happen. So there are many unknowns.
What is the wisest statement you can make:
‘I know I don’t know’
This is when we open to possibility. Nothing is impossible. Life has its own timing of which we can look upon it and marvel. I certainly do in my own life. There is no way I could predict my life. These days I just smile. If I think I am in control, look outside and say that is true! You can’t.
With great change, unprecedented change, comes great opportunity to reinvent ourselves in an image that is more aligned with our true nature. Whenever you fight nature, you lose.
When you get it wrong and keep fighting to be right you lose.
When you keep hurting and project it onto others believing they are your problem, you lose.
When you repeat behaviours that you know are harmful, and refuse to change, believe you can’t, or can see no way out, you set up patterns of karma that return to yourself, as nature is circular. It can look like people are doing this or that but in reality you do it to yourself. People just become messengers to help you (higher perspective) to wake up to what you can’t see.
Fear can be a powerful obscurer of the truth. We fear ridicule, we fear accountability, we fear exposure, we fear losing everything, we fear being hated and so on. What we witness today is the smearing of so many people, reverse spin, lies peddled as the truth to continue to work on people so they will agree and work with you. Yet nature knows and you know the lie. When you lie to yourself you will feel guilt deep down no matter how you rationalise it, hide it, numb it, run from it or just deny over and over. Life will keep bringing it back to your feet. Again and again in a range of different forms. Why?
Because nature is about balance. Justice in its original intent was a woman holding the scales, that was to balance that which is out of order. We are speaking here of a natural balance. Nature does not play favourites, pay one part of nature to do its bidding for a self interested goal. It feels the entire nature, indeed, ecosystem as itself. It does not relate to the idea of a ‘self’ but it has the whole feels the sum of the parts. Thus awareness of the whole continually serves each aspect to return to balance as the highest sustainability.
We, as humans, don’t understand the selfless activity of serving all of nature as self. There have been master’s overtime who self mastered and were able to let go of ego completely and return to their true nature that had no ego at all. They lived from ‘I don’t know’ as the highest peace.
When there is nothing to do, no-one to be, no pressure, no expectations, no failure, no worries (as we say in Australia), then you let go and just BE. That is your true nature. NOW is the only place that exists. We carry past and future in our minds. We became planners because of our fear of change that exposed our vulnerabilities, so we planned to make sure everything unfolded exactly as we envisaged. The world of business became that projections and we ended up with master/servants or employers/wage earners in our bid to try and feel secure and control that which you can’t control. It certainly looks like control as predictability appeared to be there but we became bored with the rhythm of routine and tried to ‘feel ourselves’ through food, entertainments, sex, conflict and adventures to feel like we are living. The more we controlled the more we felt less happy as perceived sameness was not our true nature.
As I’ve said on this blog, I’ve let go of all control. Yes I was trained in economics and have done endless research on corruption, deception, cruelty as I explore the ‘sad face’ of what I see as the happy/sad clown. I’ve lived the life, worked in 400 companies seen all walks of life as a silent traveller, it is probably why I don’t feel animosity towards anyone. Until you walk in another’s shoes you can’t know the reality. We can perceive, we can get surety from research material, credible witnesses and so on, but at the end of the day it all comes down to perception unless it is my direct experience. With that I sit with ‘I know I don’t know’ as wisdom not deficit. It is a very honest place to sit. In fact when I was at university that is when I learned I knew nothing.
My narrative seems to be turning to my life. All unplanned. I can feel the clown/fool archetype within myself (and everyone else) as I type. I walked through the crowds playing, feeling ONE with everyONE, not feeling anyone was unacceptable no matter their look, status, gender, ethnicity, disability or looks. I saw them all as acceptable. I felt no weight on my shoulders. I felt no stress. I just moved loving everyONE. It was the most liberating feeling of my life. I realised true freedom was in ‘not thinking’. The thinking brings with it judgements, thoughts, fears and much that sits beneath the surface of things no-one understands. Instead, I just looked into the eyes of people in an unpredictable space, and played. That is what children do, they have no unlearned their freedom and joy just from simple pleasures. They are who we all are when we stop believing our negative thoughts.
That is why children are at the centre of our civilisation. They are us in the beginning, but we forgot ourselves. This is why pedophilia will dissolve once we see the inner child that is pained passing on more pain to other children. We have to get very present with these feelings, without judgement, to just sit and be with the pain. This is for both the perpetrator and victim, where both in truth suffered. But to continue with behaviours that return to the self, it is wiser to understand the pain. There will be many who don’t know they are loved. They don’t know their true selves. They see themselves in roles, status, aesthetics but not their eternal self which continues when the leave this expression (life).
For those waking from the dream of separation you will feel the prompting to clean up the mess you created. You will start to see you created all the negative events, disappointments, breakups, losses as part of your journey of experience. Self responsibility is really just becoming aware ‘I did this’ on many levels. You can resolve this inner pain by self forgiveness and extending peace to others who may need to hear from you ‘sorry’ or ‘can I help’? or whatever you feel you must say, this is part of the rebalancing that ensures you don’t have to come back in another life as the victim.
There is natural justice which is not about punishment but balance. Love doesn’t hate anyone as love is not either fear or love. It is the source of all life that brings all life into existence. Love is unity, the utopia many claim they dream of, Zion or whatever word you want to use to bring into being this place of happiness.
Love is of the self, not the other, ever. No two people ever met in truth as you can’t possibly know anyone else. You can walk in their shoes but in reality this is getting a sense of same same but different. On higher levels ‘you are me’ becomes an awareness. Some may call the other ‘another me’, so if that is realised then ‘what you do to another returns to the self; is a truism in our awareness. This is when we tap into the sense of ‘love’ (oneness) within.
Love has no need or greed it just plants seeds of the next creation out of joy. Love is the happiness we all feel when there is ‘nothing to do’, that is why so many love holidays or Christmas or moments alone. It is to feel our essential connectedness to all of life indeed creation.
You can change the word to reaCtion, so instead of knee jerk reactions you will learn to C first to experience Creation. Some call this the law of attraction. When we realise we create everything we see consciously or unconsciously we will then start to focus on ourselves not the world outside.
My work in this blog has been to explore the unhappiness of others To see and decide what I believe. I examine how I feel when I post information. Is it for the highest good. Will it help ‘all sides’ by making visible what we fear which is the expression of lack of knowledge.
You can be the smartest person, the greatest brain, clever, dispassionate and yet feel unhappy as material wealth or prestige is not happiness. I can say definitely it is to make peace with yourself. I call this resolving the opposites. I have to make peace with the dark and the light in order to experience homeostasis. As dark creates light (wars, murder, violence, abuse etc.) and light creates dark (jealousy, envy, inferiority etc.) The negative sits there, where we keep repeating the same mistakes is acting on the ‘negative’ voice rather than just sitting with it. We go out to change the ‘other’ whether they are perceived as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or whatever. The truth is they are an aspect of you. Until you turn within you cannot resolve that which is outside yourself. So self responsibility is key. Indeed, a turnkey.
The civil reset speaks to all of us, including those who see themselves apart from the rest. They are not. You are me. I am you. Civil is who we are outside of politics, business, money, it is all of us as civilians, people, organisms as part of the larger nature of which we are never disconnected.
The reset is:
Know thyself and be true
Be nothing.
Resolve all inner conflict.
Take full responsibility for ALL of it.
Choose happiness.
Be a Fool for love – reconcile the opposites within.
I felt inspired to share this after all the hard work on the CIA and Digital Reality which I see as not real at all. Just another distraction to hold onto something you cannot hold. Just trust what you have is what you need. Who you are is who you are meant to be. Trust that life brings you the right people/information/events/outcomes at the perfect moment in service to what you truly want whether you are aware or not.
Know you are loved unconditionally.
That is what I truly see. That is what sets me free. Reminding me of infinity in a sea of possibility.
Intelligence for too long has been above the law not accountable for the crimes, false flags and assassinations they have directed in the name of the public yet for covert reasons to empower the few over the many. The false flag operations have in fact worked against the public. That is why things are shifting at this time. It is recognised the best interests of the people, who pay wages by virtue of taxes, and whose power is only valid in service to the public.
The real issue is lack of government oversight and greed. This is the ego seeking to solidify identity and the fear of ‘out of control’, yet that precisely is what is attracted when you do not learn to ‘know thyself’ as a wisdom.
The first video is John F. Kennedy’s speech. This speaks to the dilemma we the people face today.
I notice edits to this speech which I will address in the next blog, as you don’t make mistakes in audio when it is a Presidential speech.
The problem society faces is when intelligence is behind false flag events and innocent people get blamed. They are not under public oversight as they are a power unto themselves. This makes them very dangerous as the public can be weaponised against ‘terrorism’ and then ‘domestic terrorism’ on the basis of falsified evidence or algorithms in the predictive policing software which has been reported by Whitney Webb to be ineffective and likely wrong.
Secret Society Speech
The New World Order is a secret society seeking world control. This needs to be investigated by independent coalitions of real peacemakers rather than government sanctioned commissioners as we can no longer trust that.
David Icke in an interview with London Real.
We cannot move forward as a civilisation until these crimes against humanity are delt with transparently and by the rule of law. They themselves are the relatives of a long line of family who have believed in control not love. It is time for a more loving society to emerge. I am homeless and own nothing and do not hate anyone. If I can learn to be at peace without security, you can open your minds to a possibility that better things come when you resolve inner conflict that never works, it only harms innocent people who want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. I have come to the conclusion in my many years focused on peace, that there is no enemy. It is only negativity and fear we all believe as we were taught. You have to focus on the world you want to co-create. I see innocence in ignorance and cruelty that knows not love.
Former CIA agent Kevin Shipp I discovered early on in my Covid-19 research (for the Senate) in 2020. He was a CIA whistleblower who is making sure the public learn more about the crimes against humanity promulgated by the US government and those who have infiltrated it. He was a senior CIA asset, I would say his testimony is worth watching and learning from as those who have taken over governments, like the US, have access to nuclear codes when they finalise the takeover. It would be wise to think/feel deeply about this and how to return the rule of just laws (justice) which is really about balance (within) and then we see it outside ourselves. Life is indeed a mirror, denial is the mask where we fool ourselves as we are not honest or letting fear dictate. It is time to change.
What is the difference between the Shadow Government and Deep State. CIA is the Shadow Government. The Deep State is designed to influence representatives re-election. He says this must be dismantled.
They have to clean the upper levels of CIA. He says Trump can’t be controlled. He believes in Trump but there are real concerns being reported about Trump by Whitney Webb. So we are dealing with lots of perspectives, beliefs, perceptions and spin. The bottom line is we have to learn to solve our problems non-violently and to understand ‘who we are’ outside of the mind control that kept us obedient to agenda’s and blindly following authority. We are at the end of a long chain (block chain) of fear that has harnessed power through finance and assets. The real power has no power. That is what the world will learn.
You can go past the London Real block chain advertising as the interviewer is a trader boosting blockchain. Watch the information. I am no supporter of digital currencies as they are not the ‘real economy’ but created by those with a agenda to get all on line who fear losing money. The reality is ‘greed’ is still the seed germinating ‘lack’ which can lead to corruption for ‘more’ to stave off insecurity. My preference is domestic real currencies made in each country backed by gold/real wealth. This runs counter to what David Icke is about.
My father said this to me a long time ago that we need to create domestic currency he cited Jack London. I never forgot, I don’t disagree with dad. We have to reclaim sovereignty (self determination) and to live within our means and live the peace many say they want in a space of abundance not greed. So we are going through times of being tested – who are you?
The public need to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Susan Lindauer is another making clear 911 was not a terrorist attack but false flag operation. Some indicate the ritual attack simulated the Tower (collapse) in the Tarot. The cult lives in a world of ritual, magic in their search for power and their ideology of ‘do as thou wilt’.
Journalist Whitney Webb discusses the CIA, Ukraine and PayPal Mafia.
