Category Archives: Defence

The New World Values the Human Being

This video shows human development of a baby. It slows us down to deeply contemplate the incredible value of human life.

What’s beautiful about this video is the commentator is clearly a developmental expert and a mother.  So she brings humanity into her talk, when she smiles I feel her knowledge as integrated with joy.  It is interesting I feel tears coming to me with the recognition of the power of motherhood. I was never a mother sadly, as my calling was to serve humanity as my personal journey.  Yet always I loved children. My perspective was interaction on an equal level not as a parent. I never spoke down to them, I always spoke to them as they are me. In the persona of a clown you are the child. They see a great deal. I recall a child meeting me at Southbank in Melbourne dressed as a clown. My friend Hairy Potter gave this child a banana in pyjamas doll.  The next day I was driving out a side street in Fitzroy without clown gear.  In clown gear you can’t recognise me, without it clearly different. The child was on the path and looked up and said “clown”. The child was around 5. That was when I saw that they see us beyond the make up and costumes, they look into your soul as the thinking brain hasn’t distorted them at this stage. They are pure perception. Without our story we are as well.

I like the words:

New World
Strong World
Sitting World
Mobile World
Walking World

I wonder why they don’t develop colour vision until the 3-4 months of age.  Perhaps the light hits the cornea and activates colour, developing the light prism in the eye.  Dogs see in black and white. Fascinating. The commentator says this as well, she is not speaking from an intellectual perspective, she is seeing life develop and amazed at nature. She sees the brilliance in development. Most of us just see a baby crawling. We practice and develop our whole lives when open to life. Even when not, we learn. This is the knowledge of mother’s that has been discarded by humanity as “babysitting” I’ve heard. Motherhood intelligence is ignored as it is taken for granted. Her knowledge is not understood by men as they work. As women work they lose the connection to their children. For the mother’s presence is critical for child development. Daycare centes will devolve humanity as the mother-child nexus is broken in favour of making money. This is how commercialism stunts our growth. My hope is mother’s do not institutionalise their kids and come to value their role which is the most important role, more important than a prime minister, president, CEO of the wealthiest corporation. The humble experience of the mother’s love for her child is what changes the world. I’ve lived a life not as a mother but I’d say the mother’s I met know human nature far better than I. They know what is important, not money but people. My mother says it is all the time. That is intelligence that doesn’t data gather but intuitively values the human. This is the real national security as developed human’s don’t go to war.  I am researching world events I will add thoughts in as I integrate what I am learning about human development with the economic/political reality of those who see life differently.

So my message is to the United States and the decision to leave the Intermediate Nuclear Treaty (INF) due to China not being a signatory and the bi-polar world shifting from Russia to China. The INF is a nuclear framework that protects the public ensuring no first strike of long range weapons, it de-escalates the fear of annihilation. Opting out increases fear and tensions and now allows long range strikes.  China’s approach to humanity is why the fear is there given totalitarian rule and oppression of groups within China.  I note in this video is an Asian mum and baby. All life is precious. I say to the Chinese this could be a Caucasian baby or another ethnic group, all are of the highest value worth more than real estate or property or minerals.

So when men believe in dominating through violent weaponry it is the civilians that are harmed who are innocent, this is the crime against humanity. Control is not harmony. This is not preserving peace or security in our world, the insecurity of US/China relations moves us in the direction of mutually assured destruction (MAD) – lose/lose (no win). Resources divert from children’s wellbeing to inanimate weaponry. What you do to another returns to the self is a universal law (cause and effect). What you think about you bring about (law of attraction), you see as you are not as others are (projection). The hard work is developing an understanding of the “other’ not as “know your enemy” but to understand them as a friend is to connect to “humanity” (emotional intelligence) despite differences, criticism and rhetoric. Remember the critic is your greatest teacher as they will show you what you can’t see in yourself (blindness). If you cannot take criticism you are in denial and internally refusing to face the dark aspect in yourself, as you fear losing face (humiliation). Denial is an ego response to protect the image carefully crafted as “right”.  Lao Tzu who I will post more of taught the Chinese people about wisdom which comes from truth not deception. Deception leads you into a hall of mirrors where confusion reins not power. Truth leads you to the pond where you can see into your own reflection, only you know you. No two people have met, ever. You only meet projections of what you believe others to be. Gossip and demonization is the hall of mirrors. Saying it like it is as you understand it, provides security. This is where the real security is realised.

The doorway to peace is to “know yourself” and your humanity let’s go of the egoic voice that is negative. When you know yourself you can respect another. If you don’t respect yourself corruption flourishes.

For those making money out of murder these so called defence industries or contractors and non profits are caught up in economic mantras that justify terms of “defence”, “economic security”, “economic growth” in a world that is ecologically collapsing and in a time where COVID bioweapon is used to collapse the world economy. This is the culture of fear. The mind games all play do not honour life or the value of a child. How you treat children is symbolic of how you treat the world. The abuse in senior leadership levels is risking the lives of billions as you lost the connection to humanity and its true value.  This is a zero sum game.

We must all wake up to change that is inevitable.  MADness is not Illumination or progress, it is egress (backwards).
What if losing is winning? Who has the wisdom to know the difference?

So here is the video on child development, an area far more important than the arms race.  Maybe next life I have the joy of parenthood.  All the world’s children will have to be my children for now, as I serve them with love.

Documentary on Julian Assange Revealing War Crimes and Corruption

This is in the global interest.

It is the truth hat sets us free. Silence and secrets when concealing criminality are NOT in the public or global interest. It is a duty to reveal corruption, crimes and harm to innocent civilians.

3/4 of a million documents were released.

What Defence would not answer at Senate Estimates

Defence is the theme tonight, completely unexpected but it is flowing and I am just going with the flow.

This video below provides insights into the restriction on questions by the Senate. Defence is a sensitive area and they can evoke the national interest and the public record. What if privatisation takes information out of the public record is my question.

The challenge is to balance public interest with Defence secrecy and to gain insight into when questions are avoided as they may reveal problems or they may be avoided given sensitivity. It is very difficult to know where those lines are as often there is a ‘need to know basis’ that happens. So silos of information are known so people can speak the truth in front of a Senate hearing. I have concerns about the Deep State and illegal behaviour that has been clearly outlined by whistleblowers in CIA, FBI and military personnel. As more whistleblowers come forward this raises concern in the public mind that activities are not in the public interest. Therefore, information can be hidden.

This is just a general comment not specifically in regard to the video.

I get the feeling of blocking from other Senators. There may be unconscious bias in respect of Defence as a sacred area that we don’t talk about or perhaps deference to power or those in authority. I wonder. Just a reflection.

Senate Hearing: Defence Response to US Torture and Leadership?

I am definitely having inspiration tonight and my finding of the Senate hearings, Senator Ludlam appears to be the focus as the hearings come up with him, which I sense is significant. It was unexpected but intriguing as I explore democracy, Senators, government officials and whether the public interest is served.

I note the questions around Trump going to war with China. Definitely there was posturing prior to Trump and prior to Iraq around tensions building as China is perceived as a threat. So in this dance between Senator Ludlam and the Secretary of Defence the narrative maintains official lines of ‘not going to war with China’ but nonetheless the tensions could escalate as defence is not the issue but pre-emptive tactical approaches which may not be first strike but could build the context for conflict.

The Trump administration has not said it is going to war but the machinations are warlike and it is clear there is conflict over trade and power.

Secretary of Defence Richardson was asked his view on torture. The secretary emphatically states he is keeping his views to himself, yet I believe that is in the public interest given waterboarding, as we are aligned with the United States.

Senator Ludlam then switches tact and asks a policy question.
What is Australian policy on torture?

The Secretary of Defence says: we don’t utilise torture.

Senator Ludlam: Do we support our allies using it?
The Secretary of Defence indicates: as a general principle we are opposed to the use of torture. Senator asks ‘is this view communicated to colleagues at a ministerial or departmental level or counterparts in the US. Secretary says ‘to whom’ and then asks ‘why’?

My thought here: The words ‘as a general principle we are opposed’. So specifically we are not?? Torturing people should be clearly a ‘no’ given the Geneva Conventions and signatories to the Conventions on Torture. So illegality is the subtle issue here.

Senator Ludlam indicates: the reintroduction of torture as a means of intelligence gathering. He says the US Commander-in-Chief indicated things way worse than waterboarding.

Minister Payne indicates the views of the Secretary of Defence are taken on board. No comment on torture.

Secretary of Defence stated: the President spoke positively about waterboarding, as President he indicated personally he didn’t have a problem with waterboarding however he delegated it to the Secretary of Defence, highly decorated officer who was opposed to and not pursue such methods. He thinks Trump is clear.

Senator says it is contradictory.

I will add in here: How can our Secretary of Defence speak to a President’s positive attitude about waterboarding when this is an activity of making a person believe they are drowning. Taking them to the point of death struggling for air. It is horrendous and if he were to experience it I am sure he would condemn such a practice. These are invisible lines drawn as to who we are as humans. Yet the reality is the military is in the business of killing. This acceptance of violence as a solution is hard to fathom and unquestioned mindsets believe violence works as we have seen over and over the harm caused and hatred fuelled by violent actions. This does not make the world a safer place. It makes it very frightening particularly when these attitudes (projections) can come into the Australian society under the guise of homeland security (ASIO Act) given protests and automation/AI disruptions in the future. What then? Do we change humanitarian laws around targetting? Do we replace democracy with a technocracy? Do we drop all rules of war as the posts have shifted and we just move with the times without an anchor or handle on who we are as Australians and what we believe in.

The issue here is standards and ethics and the illegality of torture of which Australia is a signatory and whether as an ally we have sought to make clear we are not aligned there. It appears we ignore it. The answers are vague as it is evident they preserve the relationship. However, as a friend and ally we are in truth obligated to speak the truth to allies if we are steadfast in our sovereignty and values to uphold democracy if that is the objective. The latter is a key question.

Senator Ludlam asks: Will Australia continue to use intelligence from the 5 Eyes agreement if that intelligence was obtained through torture?

Another key area of focus is Pine Gap located in Australia and as part of the 5 Eyes and information about Australians passed by US to Australian counterparts to gather data and create ‘plausible deniability’ from our end.

Secretary of Defence: We don’t know how the intelligence is obtained. We intelligence share with Australia (doesn’t sound right), it saves Australian lives and we value the intelligence the US shares with us.

My question – does it on balance?

Senator asks: Do we do any due diligence? (to find out how it is gathered)

No, the Secretary states.

Senator: So we don’t mind if obtained by torture.

Secretary of Defence: We share intelligence. We have long standing arrangements. National interest is served, Australian lives saved (said again).

Senator Ludlam asks: Are national interests served if implicated by torture as intelligence gathering technique?

Thus the Secretary of Defence ignores the ethics (as he is trained to do) and indicates the relationship is served by intelligence sharing arrangements. So this highlights for me – why we are in relationship with the United States as data gathering is to gain advantage in a competitive world driven by economic interests where real time information is power.

I wish to sit with this for a moment as I can feel inspiration. I wish to say that I observe justification for activities refers to the public benefit yet under the surface there is denial in facing torture that is illegal. We look at self interest but not collective values as democratic which is often a justification for military activities. The issue of complicitness arises as we know, even publicly, that torture is used. This is associated with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes as our societies speak of the rule of law, justice etc. Ethics and warfare are fraught with contradictions as war is about killing and winning. We dress it up as noble yet training is violent and it preserves power in truth.

Senator Ludlam asks: Does the Australian Government support the US in its alleged proposal to bring back the use of black sites, where torture carried out in the past operated by CIA?

Secretary of Defence: As far as I am aware (slip up here). I am simply not aware that this is the intention of the US administration.

Senator: New York Times obtained draft Executive Order, will table it. Refer:

Secretary of Defence: I will simply note Senator administration has denied, whether it was right or not, I don’t know, that there was such as draft administrative order. You are going to present an article from the New York Times, which the administration has denied. So nothing I can do with the article you give to me.

Senator: Won’t bother than.

Further discussion about Tillerson.

I like this question:

Senator Ludlam: Are you guys having trouble establishing what US Government policy is?

No. None whatsoever…

Senator states: President Trump says United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its sense about nukes…(before he takes office) let it be an arms race. Does the Department or Minster agree with this strategy to make the world a safer place?

Minister Payne felt his question wasn’t constructive.

I would like to add in my feeling here. I note that the way she answered the question was controlling the QandA and deciding if she would answer or not rather than being subject to a people’s representative asking questions on behalf of the Australian people. Under the surface Senator Ludlam revealed a vulnerability in respect to the character of Trump which is critical given his finger is on the nuclear button.

As citizens we would want that question answered as nuclear misadventure is in our interests as populations would be destroyed if a mentally unwell or dominating (dictatorial) person ordered a detonation. Whilst these weapons are in the world we have a right to know what our Defence department’s position is. Yes I understand there is diplomatic issues but what of fearlessly speaking out as Australian’s and calling a spade a spade as a good friend and ally must to ensure peace in our world? It is a question of grave importance as the words ‘arms race’ cost Australian taxpayers as we pay the price for this alliance that aligns us against others rather than taking the position of a mediator (in my view a wiser posture). The arms race may convey to the industrial military complex that there will be future sales.

It is noteworthy that Minister Payne oversighted a $200 billion dollar defence expenditure and it has been recently stated by a US Admiral Davidson (Lowly Institute, 2020) that Australia’s trade is approximately $400 billion (Australian) in the defence relationship which is a lot of money. Considering our welfare sector is being cut, more people are unemployed and rising numbers of homeless budget priorities must be determined and justified on real grounds that benefit all Australians.

Moreover, US defence paper’s released to the public have a strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance (2018) which is about total control across battlefield strategic areas including cyber warfare. Scrutiny of the US is essential give Silicon Valley companies contracted in the Australian government to manage software, information and notably defence etc. So their nuclear position, attitudes, beliefs and continued funding of these zero sum weapons is in the public interest.

We still align with violence in the mistaken belief this makes us safer. It does not. It redirects precious resources into violent conflict that is increasingly outside of public oversight given lucrative privatisation of the military and intelligence operatives (militias, contractors). As corporations and foreign governments dominate government (purchase representatives) and in cases have their own Minister’s e.g. Defence Industries, they have access to a political process when in reality we (the public) don’t. I have tried myself to write to Minister’s and leaders and it is evident they are not responding to me or answering my questions etc. Our democracy is shaky at best. We are forced to pay tax and we have no say over where it goes just assured it “saves lives” and is in our interests when soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq or exposed to depleted uranium. Large numbers of civilians are killed, so lives are not saved in wars for oil or power struggles. The political jostling for control on behalf of interests is of great concern. So the area of Defence relationships and interests requires an inquiry (without vested interests) to cost/benefit and ethical appraise this relationship given the growing instability of leadership, clear undermining of democracy, foreign interference, the unaccountable Deep State (shadow government) and black operations which is unaccountable to the public.

We hitch our wagon in the vague belief we are protected or get surveillance/information benefits when civilians are clearly not protected as weapons blow up entire buildings, release radiation, destroy infrastructure and ignore the Geneva Conventions. So there is a care factor of zero for the public. A rules based order or the rule of law goes out the window as Guantanamo Bay clearly has shown. It appears that thuggery has replaced real defence and the character of leaders is of greatest concern. This is not just Donald Trump but the Clinton, Bush and Obama camps as well.

So what can civilians do? How do we get real answers to questions that must be answered without notice? Are we sovereign or serving two?

Senate Hearing: US Nuclear Bombers in Australia?

Senator Scott Ludam is asking questions of Defence to determine if their are nuclear armed aricraft in Australia. He was interested

What is interesting about interviewing Defence is that the questions depend on the information at Senator can access. There was mention of public source which is for public consumption. Where is the real line drawn in respect of national interest and concealment. Always in these hearings you can hear responses but it is not clear what is being said as people ensure they cover their bases, so to speak,

The Australian/US Defence relationship requires more scrutiny, particularly given the endless war approach to terrorism, the industrial military complex and its own defence industries Minister, corruption in the US government using defence to profit from energy markets (corporate profit is US national interest) and global strategic interests.

Australian Defence sees itself on the same page with US Defence given the likeness. However, where is the line drawn between Australian security interests and US security interests and at what point does Australian interests depart from US interests or are they seamless?

New Zealand banned nuclear ships as a public safety risk when nuclear armed. In Australia the US is allowed to not declare if they are carrying nuclear weapons (neither confirm or deny). What happens if one malfunctions in Sydney Harbour or up in Darwin?

Do nuclear weapons ensure peace or is it an approach that is based on the use of fear to frighten the enemy to deter conflict? What happens when leaders are mentally unwell, dictators, pathological or corrupt private interests?

is it possible that nuclear armed bombers are transitting through Australia. The Secretary of Defence makes a statement where he makes a vague response referring to common sense. I think common sense is that they absolutely are.

The officer indicates we are in a diarchy, I didn’t know this word.

A diarchy or duumvirate is a form of government characterized by corule, with two people ruling a polity together either lawfully or de facto, by collusion and force. The leaders of such a system are usually known as corulers.

I note the Secretary of Defence gives him a look. I can understand why as he has admitted we have TWO RULERS – US and Australia is my common sense conclusion. Thus foreign interference in the polity.

The wording on ‘common sense’ actually undermines other views as not common sense. This is subtle power. He says look at the authorities that sit round nuclear policy in the US, he thinks it is a non common sense approach. I smile at the ‘yes Minister’ approach.

Senator Ludnam say’s that on the 4th March 46 legal experts on international law wrote to Minister Payne expressing concern Australia’s extended nuclear deterrents and the lawyers urged government to review its doctrine on the extended nuclear deterrents. He asks if the review is taking place. Senator Payne says no review.

I note the voice ‘breaking for tea’. This was at a point where it was significant. I believe it was a form of diversion. As a citizen I am very concerned about the interests that are not neutral or working in the public interest.

What if we had a look at other ways of seeing outcomes. For example as a peacemaker what I know is what you think about you bring about. How does this impact planning for war? Another approach is the law of attraction, to envisage the world you want, peaceful engagement and problem solving to ensure a win/win for all. Rather than competitive approaches where he who wins gets the spoils, as the mainstay of wealth, influence and power. What if the real power was in looking at the enemy within – fear, greed, corruption, financiers, corporate power, political donations etc. What if these were regarded as threats to peace and real security? What if we did the hard work of training for peace not war? What if the relationship was to build cultural understanding rather than defence postures? What if profiting from war (or misery) was a card taken off the table as governments balanced defence with prioritised resource appropriations that ensured the public interest? What if violence feeds insecurity, impacts sovereignty and leads the world to a zero sum game? What if the greatest defence was no defence as we drop postures to recognise that like attracts like? What then?

It was Einstein who said ‘no problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it’.

When the world’s militaries spends 1 trillion a year and at the same time we haven’t solved poverty, we haven’t fed the millions starving, they live in inadequate shelter, suffer from communicable diseases, have insufficient or no education, insufficient health care and life choices truncated by poverty? How does military spending be justified? How is the nuclear posture be justified? What of the nuclear silos shut down by UFO’s, what does that tell us about how dangerous nuclear weapons are? How does war define us as a species when nuclear fall out, depleted uranium and exposure kills humanity and pollutes the environment?

Can we put all the cards on the table so we can solve these problems and advance our civilisation to a level where the extraordinary human potential can be maximised rather than divide and conquer? What about real conversations that question why we fight as we seek to resolve all conflict recognising the real power is in bringing out world together to move into a future with infinite possibilities? Can we reach beyond our limited world views? I wonder.

Dialogue, critique and questioning is essential in the public interest to ensure that our government is not unduly affected by other interests and is open to questioning to make them think through their perspective with input that is not military.

The video is below: