The Overview Effect.

Originally posted on June 26, 2013 by Jerry Alatalo

galaxy22Alphabet Contemplation and observation of Earth from the profound perspective of space literally changes a human being. From that viewpoint, any ideas having to do with separation leading to disharmony – whether separate nations, regions, spiritual traditions, races, political philosophies, wealth/classes or power levels – become absolutely meaningless. Seeing the Earth in this way helps give an idea of the fundamental vision and genesis of this blog – The Oneness of Humanity. If – when – the human race fully understands the concept of oneness between all people, all life, and all things,  it will mark the closest civilization has approached to achieving its greatest evolutionary movement. Some react to the idea of establishing heaven on Earth by saying it is simply and clearly impossible, unrealistic, waste-of-time, utopian thinking.

While viewing The Overview Effect men and women may find themselves experiencing moments of deep spiritual understanding that Earth is heaven, that humanity has always owned the real opportunity to choose that way of perceiving, and awareness of universal oneness can truly make all the good difference in the world.

Oneness – Earth Overview

—-

For more information from the film’s producers:

The Overview Institute

Fragile Oasis

Planetary Collective

Viktor Yanukovych: Donbas Is Genocide.

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-37BBC interviewed former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych recently, overthrown in February 2014 in what he calls an “illegal, unconstitutional coup”.

Some excerpts from the interview:

“When I left Ukraine there was peace. I didn’t want a war to happen. … Wages were paid on time in Ukraine; Ukraine was developing; we were thinking about the future. And what happened to the country after? This is the worst scenario that could ever happen. I will say this: it’s a nightmare that one could only see in a bad dream – but it’s real. The war is on, people die, people suffer. The country is split”.

On the over 100 deaths by sniper fire of police and protesters on Maidan in February 2014:

“I approached Ukraine’s Prosecutor General with a request that the facts were investigated publicly. Because the people don’t know that there is no investigation – it’s been 1 1/2 years. On the contrary, all the traces of the crimes that took place in Maidan are being destroyed. And today – 1 1/2 years later – Ukrainians understand that the government and the president weren’t interested in the killings. Those interested in the killings were the radicals and criminals who wanted to seize power in that way”.

“I did everything to not allow a war in Ukraine. And unfortunately in 1 1/2 years the authorities didn’t even start an investigation (into) who was shooting those people in uniform. The ones who were protecting the government buildings, those who maintained the order. They were fulfilling their duty”.

On Crimea:

“What is better for the people of Crimea? War or peace? The people will say peace. That’s when Crimea had a referendum, the people fear for their future, for the future of their kids. And Crimea didn’t accept the right-wing radical ideology that Maidan wanted to bring to it. And the people of Crimea – 90% of them – voted to leave Ukraine. I think it’s very bad, but it’s a consequence of Maidan. It’s a consequence of the radical nationalist movement that scared the people of Crimea, who were traditionally pro-Russian”.

“We understood the moods in Crimea and during the presidency of Yanukovych there was no question about secession or separatist movements. Today it is already a fact – today there is war. They talk about getting Crimea back. How? By war? Do we need another war? By the way, now people start talking about Transnistria – 500,000 people live there”.

“Now, you know, we should talk about the people of Crimea. Crimean citizens see everything that has been happening in Donbas, and they try to imagine what could have happened to them had they not gone to Russia. What would have happened to Crimea? The same as with Donbas or even worse?”

Viktor Yanukovych’s hometown is Donbas:

“I can’t watch without feeling pain. I see familiar faces and places, destroyed buildings, you know. It’s very hard. My ancestors’ graves are there; my parents’ were buried there, my relatives and friends. Of course it’s a terrible tragedy. I think what is happening now in Donbas is genocide. Genocide of Donbas people”.

“30% of Russians have ethnic roots in Ukraine, Russia can’t stand aside. … My opinion is that the constructive role of Russia is preparing the Minsk agreements. Why the Minsk agreements not being implemented now? This is the question for the two sides to answer. Donbas and Kiev”.

———-

After seeing a post critical of BBC for showing its British viewers only segments of the interview dealing with Yanukovych’s rich lifestyle and private zoo, it took a short time of searching to find a video of the interview including topics focused on the important aspects of the crisis in Ukraine. In the interest of transparency and truth about that currently tension-filled area of the Earth, Viktor Yanukovych’s interview has been shared here.

This writer does not take “sides” in any conflict because there are no sides on this Earth – only truth, oneness and the human family. To allow the best chance for peacefully resolving differences between people of different nations and regions, what is first necessary is building a truth/fact-based foundation before moving forward.

Reported numbers of deaths since March 2014 from Ukraine’s civil war range from 6,000 to 50,000.

———-

As it happened – Yanis Varoufakis’ intervention during the 27th June 2015 Eurogroup Meeting

Originally posted on Yanis Varoufakis:

The Eurogroup Meeting of 27th June 2015 will not go down as a proud moment in Europe’s history. Ministers turned down the Greek government’s request that the Greek people should be granted a single week during which to deliver a Yes or No answer to the institutions’ proposals – proposals crucial for Greece’s future in the Eurozone. The very idea that a government would consult its people on a problematic proposal put to it by the institutions was treated with incomprehension and often with disdain bordering on contempt. I was even asked: “How do you expect common people to understand such complex issues?”. Indeed, democracy did not have a good day in yesterday’s Eurogroup meeting! But nor did European institutions. After our request was rejected, the Eurogroup President broke with the convention of unanimity (issuing a statement without my consent) and even took the dubious decision to convene a follow up meeting without the Greek minister, ostensibly to…

View original 2,562 more words

BRICS: Global Change – Peril And Promise.

by Jerry Alatalo

“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”

– 1 Timothy 5:9-10

World Map1Alphabet Some have attributed today’s wars and violence around the Earth in large part to the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) international financial institutions. Listening to Brazil-born Paulo Nogueira Batista – an Executive Director for eight years at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – provides affirmation the analysis is most likely correct. The question which arises is can humanity prevent the outbreak of a possible major war over this historic change.

Mr. Batista’s last day of employment at the IMF is June 30, after which he will take the position of Vice President of BRICS new, ready-to-open development bank, marking the first time the IMF, World Bank and other major US/western dominated international financial institutions will have “competition”. The development of BRICS will result in a reduction in the role of the dollar as the world’s major currency. Analysts have concluded that the reason the US, Britain and other western nations invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003 was Hussein’s decision to sell oil for euros, instead of the dollar. Analysts believe Muammar Gaddafi and Libya became destroyed by NATO air-bombardment in 2011 because of Gaddafi’s plan for major monetary reform – creation of gold Dinars as the new currency for the continent of Africa.

In both cases, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, false reasons – lies – were put forth to mould public perceptions in favor of military action to remove those nations’ leaders. The nations of Iraq and Libya, the men, women and children living in those countries, have suffered tremendously ever since those military attacks, and today both nations are in extremely difficult situations struggling to recover some semblance of peace, security and economic normalcy. Depending on the extent to which assertions that monetary choices in Iraq and Libya were the major factor leading to military action to protect the dollar are reflective of truth, one could come to view BRICS’ entry into international finance competition, potentially resulting in the US dollar’s decreased use in global transactions, as reason for concern over escalation of war and violence.

Any study of unsanitized, accurate records of history – such as “People’s History of the United States” by the late Howard Zinn, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins, “The Untold History of the United States” by filmmaker Oliver Stone, “The Secret of Oz” documentary by Bill Still, and many others – provides clear evidence that wars become fought for economic, financial, power/control reasons, and not for noble ideals of “democracy and freedom”. Years-long legal engineering of the secretive and massive trade agreements TPP, TTIP and TiSa could accurately be perceived as economic warfare in response to BRICS nations’ early beginnings, meetings and conferences, and continuing development.

The world is changing at a rapid pace, moving from unipolar to multipolar, and the most important consideration for men and women around the Earth is preventing those strongly opposed to this change from reacting through military force.

———-

It is with the intention of providing greater understanding of the BRICS phenomenon and building awareness of both potential positive and negative consequences that Paulo Nogueira Batista’s (PNB) interview has been shared in this post. As the interview begins, host Oksana Boyko notes that Mr. Batista has been “very critical of some of the fund’s methods”.

PNB: “Sometimes the fund has success stories, sometimes the fund has failures… Often the fund makes mistakes or is misguided in its interventions.”

“There are good reasons and bad reasons for delay in going to the fund. Countries are very reluctant to give up part of their sovereignty, part of their autonomy, in terms of policy-making, and are reluctant to fall into the hands of international bureaucrats. Why? Because, among other reasons, these international bureaucrats, comfortably installed in Washington, visiting countries regularly or on a quarterly basis, are out-of-touch very often with political, social, and even economic realities in the countries that rely on the fund”.

“The international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, their governance is very skewed – very unequal. So, the North Atlantic countries are in control. And often these countries have a short-sighted view of how these institutions should act, in my opinion. So, you find that powerful countries, powerful stakeholders of the IMF or World Bank, subordinating the institutions to their short-term or medium-term political agendas”.

“The way to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s more than intentions, it’s a political issue. Countries often, not only the North Atlantic powers, but all countries in general, are prone to abuse power. So, you may find institutions that are supposed to be multilateral, or global, obey not the theory or even the rules that they work under but their interests – it’s not malevolence, I wouldn’t say malevolence… If you look at it from a historical perspective, Europeans and Americans have been used to rule the world, and they are adapting with difficulty to the fact that the world is changing very quickly”.

“I think Greece is one of the least successful episodes in IMF history. And there’s no end in sight to the economic crisis of the country. For a number of reasons, but if you look at the unemployment activity, fiscal policy, structural reforms, the political impasse that arose after Syriza’s victory – impasse between Greece and its creditors, the so-called Troika – has led to a deterioration in the situation, and things are coming to a head right now. As we speak, the situation is coming to a, one more cliffhanger, and its not clear at all whether this time you will be able to pull, not only Greece but Greece’s creditors, up from the cliffhanger”.

Host Oksana Boyko asked about the different IMF treatment of Ukraine and Greece.

PNB: “Ukraine can be seen as a second Greece. …Ukraine, the fund is trying to, let’s say learn, from the failure in Greece. Greece was too little, too late in terms of restructuring; that put an extra burden on the problem and the country itself. In the case of Ukraine, not as early as I would have liked. … 2015 – better late than never – and the program calls for restructuring, ironically, June 30. June 30 has become a fateful day both for Greece and Ukraine, as you know Greece has a major payment that’s been bundled for June 30. By the way, for me June 30 is another significant date because that’s my last day at the fund”.

“It’s very important to compare Greece with Ukraine. Are we facing double standards here? Is Ukraine getting better treatment than Greece because the fund has since learned, or is it because Ukraine, for political reasons, has a special treatment that is not granted to Greece? Then you have the political factors. What is the political nature of the government in Kyiv? What is the political nature of the government in Athens? All those questions are not explicitly there always, but they are of course in the background”.

The discussion turns to IMF reform…

PNB: “There’s a change in plateau in terms of cooperation of the BRICS since 2012. So I think that’s one factor. About the fund, I think there’s a sense of disappointment no doubt. For me, for example, I’ve been working so hard on IMF reform in the last eight years… We achieved some things, but much less than I would have expected, say, back in 2010. So I think the west has to decide, does it want to run the institutions that it controls into the ground by making them uncapable of adapting to a changing world in a quick manner, or do they want to realize that, no, the world is changing fast, we need to open space… One Chinese delegate once said, quite rightly, ‘You have a large, very large, and oversized share of a bad cake. Do you want to reduce your share, and have a smaller share of a better cake?’ And that’s the question they haven’t answered”.

“I think the United States did more than vote for reform in 2010. It actually played a very important role in putting forth reform. If you would have asked me five years ago ‘would it be possible for the United States to become the major blocking factor in the implementation of IMF reform?’ I would have answered quite confidently ‘No’. And I would have been wrong, because the US has since become the major blocking factor. Whether it’s a tactical consideration, to put the blame on Congress – ‘I want to do it, but Congress doesn’t allow me’ – I really wouldn’t know”.

Ms. Boyko points out that the US, without reform, has the “best of both worlds”, so why would they want to change?

PNB: “You touch on a very important point. It was a political agreement at the highest level in 2010, that the countries including the BRICS would provide borrowed resources to the fund as a bridge to the implementation of reforms. We did our part, we provided the resources that we pledged, but the reform did not come. So, it’s a matter of whether you want to have a… Does the United States, do the Europeans want to have a big influence on the multilateral world or are they content to just frustrate everyone? That’s the question they need to ask themselves. They have an incentive. The incentive is to keep the value for the international community – let’s put it this way – of institutions that they created, and where they have a controlling interest. If they don’t want to recognize this… Of course, there are internal divisions…”

———-

IMF reform was/is apparently possible without the approval of the US Congress, but because such reforms would have lowered US voting power below the threshold where the US could assert veto power, it became opposed by the US.

———-

Ms. Boyko talked about “western countries more assertive recently than developing countries”….

PNB: “The west is declining in relative terms but it still rules, and the rest of the world is increasing its weight, but it’s perhaps still not used to having a global view of matters. I think the BRICS are a partial exception to that, let me tell you. If I were to select from the non-west part of the planet – a part of the planet that introduces alternative ideas, that has a global view, I would say it’s the BRICS. It’s the BRICS. I think that one advantage that the BRICS have is that we have experienced what it is to be a developing country, relatively poor, debtor to the IMF… As you mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, not so long ago Brazil was under an IMF program. Russia was under IMF program not so long ago, I think in the 90’s. India in the early 90’s.”

“When someone comes to the board, Greece or Ukraine or whatever, we look at the issue and we have the memory. As a young official in the Brazilian government, I was involved in negotiations with the IMF in the 1980’s during the debt crisis. We have the experience so I think we need to use that experience to have an empathetic approach to the problems of other countries”.

Host Oksana Boyko: “…10 years ago 90% of world currency in the form of US dollar, now it’s 60%. If that trend intensifies, it will have significant social, economic, political consequences on the United States. The United States may become subjected to a new kind of experience. Doesn’t that guarantee that Washington will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the BRICS plans from being realized? … because it threatens its own well-being?”

PNB: “The United States can do a lot, but it can’t do everything. There are certain trends that the United States cannot deal with, although it might wish to. The United States has resisted any reduction of the role of the dollar, so this is a long-standing issue. It will continue well past my departure from this planet. I don’t think we will solve it, but I do think you’re right that we have signs already – especially with China’s rapid rise – that other currencies will become, including emerging market countries, increasingly important in the world”.

Ms. Boyko: “Do you think your expertise will be helpful in undermining the western dominance of the global financial institutions?”

PNB: “I don’t think that’s the way we see it. The way that the BRICS countries see those institutions – the bank in Shanghai and the monetary fund – is not ‘against’ anyone. They’re pro-BRICS and pro-developing countries, so we take a soft approach”.

———-

(Thank you to WorldsApart RT at YouTube)

Swiss Banks’ Terror Finance Scandal: July 4 Topic Of The Day.

by Jerry Alatalo

       WE THE PEOPLE (photo: votecitizens.org)

WE THE PEOPLE
(photo: votecitizens.org)

Alphabet Men and women loyal to the truth must at times wonder if lies, scandal, corruption, accumulation of wealth and power-seeking are the world’s perennial, unchanging, indestructible condition. Whistleblower Scott Bennett’s astounding story is a case in point. Mr. Bennett has appeared on many independent media TV/radio programs in the past year, and his interviews have been heard by tens of thousands of people. Yet, although his description of events sounds entirely plausible and compelling, pointing to corruption at the highest levels of political, military and intelligence officialdom in the United States government – plus at least one of the world’s most powerful banks, Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) – he has not been called to testify before the U.S. Congress. In open session.

In basic summary, Scott Bennett was a counter-terrorism financing analyst working for Booz, Allen, Hamilton, the same corporation Edward Snowden worked for. Mr. Bennett came to meet Union Bank of Switzerland whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld while both were in the same Pennsylvania prison, where Bennett learned of UBS accounts, controlled by the monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman etc., being used for financing terrorist groups – including ISIS. Mr. Bennett produced a detailed report then sent it up the military and intelligence community chain of command, as well as more than 150 United States Senators and Congressmen/women. Since then – May 2012 – there has been no Congressional investigation.

Recently, Mr. Bennett has called the offices of many U.S. Senators leaving detailed, lengthy accounts with staff  demanding action – an investigation where he and other whistleblowers testify in front of responsible committees and the American people. He has recorded those phone conversations and videotaped them, then posted the videos to YouTube at his channel: ArmyPsyOp Scott.

While following up on Scott Bennett’s efforts to expose this scandal, his latest video upload (June 26) at YouTube is of an interview by Susan Lindauer, whose treatment as a whistleblower parallels Scott Bennett’s, and their discussion lasts 1-hour and 42-minutes. With apology to men and women who follow this blog and many other blogs for such a long video, please record “Interview with Susan Lindauer June 2015″ for entry into YouTube’s search engine to view and listen later if time constraints apply. The information presented in Ms. Lindauer’s interview of Scott Bennett is important, because the United States Congress has not taken steps to investigate the matter. The purpose behind posting the lengthy interview is to disseminate the information so that more Americans become aware, contact their elected representatives, and Congress starts an investigation.

The interview provides a more thorough understanding of what is at stake with regard to Scott Bennett’s knowledge about these events, and why the Congress clearly must investigate – on the level of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Church Committee investigations of recent history.

———-

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Bennett’s interview:

“We’re not going to Congress asking them politely if they have time on their schedule and they can introduce our subject between the ‘green tree frog’ and the ‘little old lady’s cat that got run over’ on their busy agenda of things to tackle. We’re asking them, if not telling them, ‘Look, member of Congress, men and women in uniform are dying because they’re getting blown up and hurt and maimed, and they’re coming back to traumatized families, and they’re going into the VA full of drugs and sleeping pills and all sorts of badness. This is happening to them because terrorist operations are being financed by Swiss banks – and you’re not doing anything about it’ “.

“We want you to have the whistleblowers and this issue brought forth front and center, because the people who’ve been involved with this have been covering it up. That includes Roger Zakheim, Dov Zakheim, Lanny Breuer, Eric Holder, Covington & Burling, Booz-Allen-Hamilton, Brad Birkenfeld, Union Bank of Switzerland, Hillary Clinton… The list of people is there; everybody needs to be examined. So, if they (concerned citizens) contact the Whistleblowing Committee – phone # 202-224-4751 – and send hundreds of emails to whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate.gov, that’s how they (you and everyone you know) can play a part. That’s how they can protect their future sons and daughters and stop a war that’s gone way out of control, and get in and fix the government apparatus that’s corrupt, that totally needs to be examined”.

“We called Rand Paul again, and he’s a contender for the presidency. Well, let’s let him put his money where his mouth is – and I applaud him for what he’s done; I applaud him for the good he’s done. I stand with anybody that stands for our constitution and freedom, and is against any police state or government tyranny of the bureaucrats’ intelligence community lording over the regular population. Rand Paul seems to be about that. So let’s give him this issue and let him be the centerpiece. He’s on the committee; he’s on the majority side of this committee… so, Rand Paul’s on the Whistleblowing Committee so let’s let him lead this and demand that Susan Lindauer, Scott Bennett, John Kiriakou and others come forward and tell their story, and see where it leads”.

“We’re not telling it for our own sake. We’re telling it for the American people because we know it can only get worse if it’s not stopped and corrected”.

“When you know of intelligence you report it. You report it loudly, you report it fearlessly, you get into people’s faces, you put your finger in their chest and say ‘Hey, wake up! There’s an issue here you need to pay attention to, because there are kids getting blown up. Do I got your attention, Congressman? Senator? Here it is’. Oh, you’re getting paid by this bank? You’ve got a Swiss bank? You’ve got a Union Bank of Switzerland account? You’ve got an HSBC account? Well, guess what? You’re out of this room. You’re off this table. I want men who don’t have corrupt bank accounts and don’t have financial connections to those parties, and you’ve sworn an oath to the constitution – you damn well better take this front and center and make it your issue”.

“I’ve had people who were on the phone who were saying ‘Well, I’ve got to run to another meeting’, and I say ‘No, you don’t have to run to another meeting. This is the only meeting you need to be in, because this is the only meeting that can stop kids from getting killed! Do I have your attention?’ And I go on with the briefing. So it takes about an hour to get it all out, but I want it out and I record it so it is on the record as a legal document that your office, Senator, was advised. What did you do with it? And that’s where those guys are going to stand up and be leaders, faithful to the constitution, or they are not. And if they are not, then we have the choice to live in a corrupt tyranny or we can clean them out by replacing them – either through impeachment or recall or just not voting for them again and new people taking their jobs”.

“But this is the chance, this is the D-Day invasion of the beach. We need to draw attention to this, and bang these drums as loudly as possible, and get into the face of John McCain, of Bob Portman, of Claire McCaskill, of John Tester, of Heidi Heitkamp, of Tammy Baldwin, of James Langford, of Rand Paul, of Michael Enzi, of Kelly Ayotte, of Corey Booker, of Gary Peters, and Ben Sasse, and Jodi Ernst. Jodi Ernst, who’s an Army officer, she should be furious about this. We’ll see where she stands. But all of these people… If you call yourselves Senators on the Government Affairs and Oversight Committee and you’ve got a whistleblowing email, and a whistleblowing dimension to you, then you damn well better have Susan Lindauer, Scott Bennett, John Kiriakou and a few other whistleblowers appear at your next session”.

“…those are the guys who’ve been persecuted; they had a number of problems. I feel for them; I’ve been there. But what we’ve been through Susan is even worse because we’ve been bloodied. And what they’ve bloodied us with they can do to any American citizen – any other American citizen can go through what you did… kick down your door”.

“This whole Covington & Burling thing is the pustule that will soon burst, out of which will come all sorts of smelly poison, and you see that Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, the top law enforcement officials, worked at Covington & Burling, this big law firm in D.C. UBS whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld comes forth and says ‘Here’s all the bank account information; here’s all the cellphones; here’s the hotels; here’s the emails; here’s everything you need to track’. You know what their response to him was, Susan? ‘We can’t track that. You watch too much TV’. As if to say ‘we don’t have the technological capability’… And I wrote that in my report. That is a flat-out lie”.

“Of course we have the technical capability to track his bank accounts. Of course we can track that. Anyone who says the opposite is hiding something. That’s what they said to him, and then they stab him in the back when he wouldn’t stop. He goes to the IRS, he goes to the SEC, he finally gets into the Senate – and maybe the Senate was told ‘get this guy inside so we can shut him up’ – and he goes into the Senate and testifies to Carl Levin, and Senator Barack Obama was on that committee, and a variety of other colorful characters on the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. He gives them all of this information and then they prosecute him with it, send him to prison, and Oh! … And then he meets me”.

———-

Ms. Lindauer seemed to suggest at the interview’s end that members of the military took the actions which led to Brad Birkenfeld and Scott Bennett being sent to the same prison. She seemed to imply that their meeting in prison had become arranged in order to get the scandal out. There are so many more details involved which will need investigating, but nothing such as that will occur until an investigation actually begins. If you have been in the military, take the action you think necessary. If you have family, friends or acquaintances who’ve served in the military, know an elected representative or public safety official, know men or women in the media, please share this information with them all.

All clarifying, additional, and/or corrective comments on this issue are appreciated. Thank you.

———-

(Thank you to ArmyPsyOp Scott at YouTube)