In Global War Of Ideas, Truth Is The Greatest Weapon.

by Jerry Alatalo

“Those who are convinced they have a monopoly on the truth always feel that they are only saving the world when they slaughter the heretics.”

– ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR. (1917-2007) American educator, historian

 CANADA (photo:

Alphabet The website founded by Emeritus professor of economics at University of Ottawa, Canada Michel Chossudovsky has become one of the “go-to” sites for news on the internet. Mr. Chossudovsky began teaching at the University of Ottawa in 1968, became a visiting professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile during the 1970-1973 government of Salvador Allende, and started researching economic and political repression after a United States-backed coup toppled the democratically elected Allende and dictator Augusto Pinochet seized power in 1973.

Mr. Chossudovsky sees globalization now operational in a global war of many dimensions, most evident in wars taking place in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, etc., and destabilizing events in South America, Africa, and the South China Sea.  According to Chossudovsky, the goal is world domination and the process is directed by powerful élite global capitalists seeking subjugation/control of national capitalist countries under the “cloak of human rights and western democracy”.

He perceives global capitalists using a variety of tactics and strategies from their “toolbox”, including direct military engagement, economic sanctions, a propagandistic corporate media, covert operations, “color revolutions”, weather warfare – “owning the weather for military use”, cyber warfare, and internal warfare consisting of harsh austerity policies with governments and corporations acting against citizens – most noticeable in Greece, Spain, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, and increasingly more visible in all western countries including the United States.

Unfortunately, resistance to the corporatist agenda has become fragmented through “co-optation” of civil societies where groups dilute power into single issue areas like environmentalism, war and peace activism, women’s rights, etc. instead of coming together in an organized manner to effectively confront the “empire of chaos”. The dangerous nature of globalization in Mr. Chossudovsky’s way of thinking relates to those who decide on war and peace believing their own propaganda, that they have to use war to bring about peace and democracy.

The controversial, giant trade proposals being negotiated in secret TransPacific Partnership and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are a large part of the corporate global domination agenda, says Mr. Chossudovsky. It is worth noting that there have been near zero reports on those two massive trade deals in major western/corporate media outlets. If it weren’t for the internet, where the trade deals receive a huge amount of coverage, citizens would likely have no knowledge of their even existing.

The overall, disturbing summary of Michel Chossudovsky’s talk suggests that ordinary citizens have become increasingly marginalized around the world; in a sense entire societies are now viewed in the class of “throwaway”, leading to worsening living conditions for many millions of men, women and children during a real devolution from poverty to despair. Unfortunately, Mr. Chossudovsky’s analysis is correct.

The essential nature of the worldwide economic, social, political battle is a war of ideas, with the “sides” being the corporate mainstream media and its “extensive propaganda” up against alternative/internet media – combating that propaganda with truth on the world-wide-web.


For more insight on the current global situation read philosophy Professor John McMurtry’s astonishing writing: “Winning the War of the World”, originally posted on Global Research (March 28, 2015), along with his speech at the University of Toronto:

To purchase Michel Chossudovsky’s book ‘The Globalization of War”:

(Thank you to GlobalResearchTV at YouTube)

John Pilger’s Message To World’s Journalists.

(Cross-posted from – An article written by John Pilger)


War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda

5 December 2014

mountain55Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?


Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what’s called the mainstream media is not information, but power?


These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war – with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.


The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an “invisible government”. It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.


The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media – a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.


This power to create a new “reality” has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual.”


I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only “culture” and introspection could change the world.


Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of “me-ism” had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.


In the wake of the cold war, the fabrication of new “threats” completed the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition.


In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, “What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?”


He replied that if we journalists had done our job “there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq.”


That’s a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer.  David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer.


In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist.


Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live.


Those are the words of the senior British official responsible for sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s – a medieval siege that caused the deaths of half a million children under the age of five, reported Unicef. The official’s name is Carne Ross. In the Foreign Office in London, he was known as “Mr. Iraq”. Today, he is a truth-teller of how governments deceive and how journalists willingly spread the deception. “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,” he told me, “or we’d freeze them out.”


The main whistleblower during this terrible, silent period was Denis Halliday. Then Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and the senior UN official in Iraq, Halliday resigned rather than implement policies he described as genocidal.  He estimates that sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis.


What then happened to Halliday was instructive. He was airbrushed. Or he was vilified. On the BBC’s Newsnight programme, the presenter Jeremy Paxman shouted at him: “Aren’t you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?” The Guardian recently described this as one of Paxman’s “memorable moments”. Last week, Paxman signed a £1 million book deal.


The handmaidens of suppression have done their job well. Consider the effects. In 2013, a ComRes poll found that a majority of the British public believed the casualty toll in Iraq was less than 10,000 – a tiny fraction of the truth. A trail of blood that goes from Iraq to London has been scrubbed almost clean.


Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers – all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch’s empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media.


The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News – but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn’t Fox News; it was the New York Times.


The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia – when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.


This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington’s military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It’s not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war.


Once again, the evil empire is coming to get us, led by another Stalin or, perversely, a new Hitler. Name your demon and let rip.


The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The biggest Western military build-up in the Caucasus and eastern Europe since world war two is blacked out. Washington’s secret aid to Kiev and its neo-Nazi brigades responsible for war crimes against the population of eastern Ukraine is blacked out. Evidence that contradicts propaganda that Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner is blacked out.


And again, supposedly liberal media are the censors. Citing no facts, no evidence, one journalist identified a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as the man who shot down the airliner. This man, he wrote, was known as The Demon. He was a scary man who frightened the journalist. That was the evidence.


Many in the western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.


What the Russian president has to say is of no consequence; he is a pantomime villain who can be abused with impunity. An American general who heads Nato and is straight out of Dr. Strangelove – one General Breedlove – routinely claims Russian invasions without a shred of visual evidence. His impersonation of Stanley Kubrick’s General Jack D. Ripper is pitch perfect.


Forty thousand Ruskies were massing on the border, according to Breedlove. That was good enough for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Observer – the latter having previously distinguished itself with lies and fabrications that backed Blair’s invasion of Iraq, as its former reporter, David Rose, revealed.


There is almost the joi d’esprit of a class reunion. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post are the very same editorial writers who declared the existence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction to be “hard facts”.


“If you wonder,” wrote Robert Parry, “how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.”


Parry, the journalist who revealed Iran-Contra, is one of the few who investigate the central role of the media in this “game of chicken”, as the Russian foreign minister called it. But is it a game? As I write this, the US Congress votes on Resolution 758 which, in a nutshell, says: “Let’s get ready for war with Russia.”

In the 19th century, the writer Alexander Herzen described secular liberalism as “the final religion, though its church is not of the other world but of this”. Today, this divine right is far more violent and dangerous than anything the Muslim world throws up, though perhaps its greatest triumph is the illusion of free and open information.


In the news, whole countries are made to disappear. Saudi Arabia, the source of extremism  and western-backed terror, is not a story, except when it drives down the price of oil. Yemen has endured twelve years of American drone attacks. Who knows? Who cares?


In 2009, the University of the West of England published the results of a ten-year study of the BBC’s coverage of Venezuela. Of 304 broadcast reports, only three mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the government of Hugo Chavez. The greatest literacy programme in human history received barely a passing reference.


In Europe and the United States, millions of readers and viewers know next to nothing about the remarkable, life-giving changes implemented in Latin America, many of them inspired by Chavez. Like the BBC, the reports of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and the rest of the respectable western media were notoriously in bad faith. Chavez was mocked even on his deathbed. How is this explained, I wonder, in schools of journalism?


Why are millions of people in Britain are persuaded that a collective punishment called “austerity” is necessary?


Following the economic crash in 2008, a rotten system was exposed. For a split second the banks were lined up as crooks with obligations to the public they had betrayed.


But within a few months – apart from a few stones lobbed over excessive corporate “bonuses” – the message changed. The mugshots of guilty bankers vanished from the tabloids and something called “austerity” became the burden of millions of ordinary people. Was there ever a sleight of hand as brazen?


Today, many of the premises of civilised life in Britain are being dismantled in order to pay back a fraudulent debt – the debt of crooks. The “austerity” cuts are said to be £83 billion. That’s almost exactly the amount of tax avoided by the same banks and by corporations like Amazon and Murdoch’s News UK. Moreover, the crooked banks are given an annual subsidy of £100bn in free insurance and guarantees – a figure that would fund the entire National Health Service.


The economic crisis is pure propaganda. Extreme policies now rule Britain, the United States, much of Europe, Canada and Australia. Who is standing up for the majority? Who is telling their story? Who’s keeping record straight? Isn’t that what journalists are meant to do?


In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, revealed that more than 400 journalists and news executives worked for the CIA. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time and the TV networks. In 1991, Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian revealed something similar in this country.


None of this is necessary today. I doubt that anyone paid the Washington Post and many other media outlets to accuse Edward Snowden of aiding terrorism. I doubt that anyone pays those who  routinely smear Julian Assange – though other rewards can be plentiful.


It’s clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by illuminating and shaming the media’s gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He became not only a target, but a golden goose.


Lucrative book and Hollywood movie deals were struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and its founder. People have made big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.


None of this was mentioned in Stockholm on 1 December when the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, shared with Edward Snowden the Right Livelihood Award, known as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize. What was shocking about this event was that Assange and WikiLeaks were airbrushed. They didn’t exist. They were unpeople. No one spoke up for the man who pioneered digital whistleblowing and handed the Guardian one of the greatest scoops in history. Moreover, it was Assange and his WikiLeaks team who effectively – and brilliantly – rescued Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and sped him to safety. Not a word.


What made this censorship by omission so ironic and poignant and disgraceful was that the ceremony was held in the Swedish parliament – whose craven silence on the Assange case has colluded with a grotesque miscarriage of justice in Stockholm.


“When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.”


It’s this kind of silence we journalists need to break. We need to look in the mirror. We need to call to account an unaccountable media that services power and a psychosis that threatens world war.


In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn’t wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.


It’s 100 years since the First World War. Reporters then were rewarded and knighted for their silence and collusion. At the height of the slaughter, British prime minister David Lloyd George confided in C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: “If people really knew [the truth] the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don’t know and can’t know.”


It’s time they knew.

Breaking Truth: Journalists Are The New Artists.


Posted on August 28, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-27This short post is more about providing encouragement and inspiration than anything else. Not too many years ago journalists who spoke the truth were few and difficult to find. Most men and women used to receive virtually all their news from the corporate, mainstream media; however, since the rise of the internet, a dramatic – historic, actually – change in media has occurred.

The internet has become the most powerful tool in history for people the world over to express their true thoughts, views, and opinions, and that tool grows stronger every day. It wasn’t that long ago when university students interested in broadening their horizons and learning about what was happening around the world would have to resort to special ordering books at the university library. In a brief amount of time, that has become an action which has gone extinct; now, not only university students but every living human being on Earth with access to a computer has a “universal library” at their fingertips.

Those reading this who’ve had access to the internet for many years understand just how enormous the shift has been. For those who’ve only discovered the internet in the last couple of years, the sense of enormity is just the same although perhaps not as intense as those who’ve seen the entire growth process. Whether an internet veteran starting from the beginning or one who’s come along midstream, the internet’s effects and phenomena have been nothing short of breath-taking.

Whereas before journalists who spoke, wrote, and reported the truth about world events and circumstances were very rare and corporate shills dominated the media landscape, now those who speak truth have come very near to the point of completely reversing that reality. The corporate, mainstream news shills are now watched by fewer and fewer of the world’s people, and they are the rare ones. Abby Martin points out the example of corporate news organizations’ maddeningly endless reports on the lost airliner MH370 as proof of that media’s desperation to restore viewership.

In the following video interview with Mint Press News founder Ms. Mnar Muhawesh, Abby Martin of RT’s “Breaking the Set” talks about her type of journalism and how “if you want transparency, you have to be transparent”. Although not a religious viewer of “Breaking the Set”, her style fully encompasses the significant changes in media of presentation of facts without “spin”. Many reading this have probably felt for many years that reporting the news should ideally mean reporting the complete truth, but that stockholders’ profits, interlocking corporate boards of directors, advertising revenue, and owners’ dictates always trump when making editorial decisions – what gets, and what doesn’t get, reported.

So, men and women around the Earth can take great encouragement and inspiration from knowing truth is on the march. Thanks to Abby Martin, Mnar Muhawesh, and millions of men and women who’ve started small as “citizen journalists” and grown to become strong voices of truth, humanity has greatly increased its sense of unity, coöperation, justice, peace, and real democracy. Ms. Martin makes a great point when referring to journalists’ decision to work either from a “non-biased” or advocacy style. She says to those who argue for the non-advocacy option that “we don’t have time”.

One could credibly assert that journalists who speak and convey the truth on events of importance are essentially more artists now than reporters. Because artists can change the world.

“The great artist is the simplifier”.

– Henri Frederic Amiel (1821-1881) Swiss philosopher

Nobel Prize Speech (1957)

“In all circumstances of his life, the writer can recapture the feelings of a living community that will justify him. But only if he accepts as completely as possible the two trusts that constitute the nobility of his calling: the service of truth and the service of freedom”.

“True artists scorn nothing”.

– Albert Camus (1913-1960) French novelist

“The artist appeals to the part of our being which is not dependent on wisdom; to that in us which is a gift and not an acquisition – and therefore, more permanently enduring. He/she speaks to our capacity for delight and wonder, to the sense of mystery surrounding our lives; to our sense of pity, and beauty and pain…

… art itself may be defined as a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying its every aspect”.

– Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) Polish born British writer

“It is impossible for a creative artist to be either a Puritan or a Fascist, because both are a negation of the creative urge. The only things the creative artist can be opposed to are ugliness and injustice”.

– Liam O’Flaherty (1897-  ) Irish novelist

“The fundamental purpose of the artist is the same as that of the scientist: to state a fact”.

– Sir Herbert Read (1893-1968) British writer

“For a country to have a great writer is like having a second government. That is why no regime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones”.

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) Russian writer, Nobel Prize 1970


(Thank you to MintPressNews at YouTube)

ISIS Questions? Follow The Money.

Posted on August 25, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

Evidently, ISIS paid cash for their fleet of brand new, white full-size Toyota pickups. Or maybe they stole the trucks, because they hadn’t yet looted the bank in Mosul of $500 million or $10 billion or whatever enormous amount. Certainly intelligence agencies have been all over the “new Toyota trucks” aspect of the ISIS issue, and certainly they’ve learned through investigation how ISIS purchased the trucks (cash, check, credit card, barter…), which dealership, the bank account, and how the money got into the account. Certainly.  They’ve been all over it, the mystery has been solved, nothing to see here people – move along.

And all the hi-tech military weaponry and equipment were scarfed up by ISIS at the Middle East’s very popular, annual “Hi-Tech Military Hardware and Weaponry Swap Meet”, where radical terrorist extremists from miles around gather and tell tall tales about whose group of terrorists took the largest “swathes” of land with oil underneath.

ISIS got its military training watching tutorials on YouTube. That story about receiving training in Jordan is some kind of propaganda.

An apology is in order for making light of such a serious situation, but the amount of speculation, misinformation, and false narratives gets to the point where one must vent frustration in some way. Sorry.

If this world were ideal, all the questions about ISIS would have already become answered, because in an ideal world leaders would be unanimous in their views that truth is all-important. Wars and killing in an ideal world would have ceased in the Middle East long ago because leaders, at the first signs of violence, understood clearly the need to resolve the conflict right away before it got out of control. Apparently the conditions required for an ideal world have yet to come into existence.

The same sentiment holds for Ukraine, Gaza, and other war-torn regions on Earth. Millions of articles, reports, videos, talk shows, interviews, and other forms of communication were produced about ISIS, Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and the military violence. The independent media’s reporting is almost diametrically opposite of mainstream corporate news’ reporting. One must ask how views of the two largest groups of journalists on Earth are so far apart on the world’s most important, consequential issues.

One group is reporting accurately and the other is not, for there is no other explanation to the wide divergence of narratives. There is only one true set of facts in reality so journalists, once again in an ideal world, would essentially be reporting the truth with perhaps some rare varying analysis. The simplest form of analysis on the war-torn situations mentioned would consider which “sides” are killing the most people, who has initiated military aggression, and which groups are presenting the most accurate description of reality in their public communications.

Which “sides” in the current Middle East conflagration have acknowledged publicly their awareness of what former Lebanon President Emile Lahoud told about his experience of being offered Saudi Arabian bribe money at a clip of $500,000 per month:

(Thank you to GlobalResearchTV at YouTube)

Former Lebanon President Emile Lahoud declined being bribed by Saudi Arabia, but how many politicians in the Middle East took the money? Emile Lahoud mentioned the attempt by Saudi Arabia to bribe him some three months ago on Press TV, an explosive revelation certainly worthy of reporting by western news corporations, yet although it was conveyed by a former president of Lebanon it was never covered – remaining still unknown to most Americans.

ISIS has received $billions in support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Arab Gulf monarchies, yet people in America still believe somehow the group just materialized out of thin air. Americans are mostly in the dark when it comes to natural gas pipeline competition involving routes across Syria. Both Iran and Qatar have access to the same massive natural gas field and plans to run pipelines across Syria for eventual sale to Europe. Americans are unaware that Iran, Iraq, and Syria agreed to build a $multi-billion natural gas pipeline to move Iran’s gas to Europe, the Syrian war started shortly afterward, and that Qatar – who also proposed a pipeline across Syria to Europe, but the proposal was turned down – supplied $billions to so-called rebels fighting to take down the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria.

These Syrian “rebels” have been somewhat deceptively divided into “moderate”, extreme, and then ISIS – worse than extreme. Besides the pipeline aspect of the Syria war, other factors include Russian influence in Syria and the Middle East (naval port on the coast of Syria), growing Iranian influence in the region, and US/Israel “Machiavellian” plans to “divide and rule” through creating sectarian violence thereby weakening all nations in the region. The US/Israel goal, through war and violence, is consolidation of power in the energy-rich Middle East.

In an ideal world, and here talking about the history of violence and war in the Middle East, there wouldn’t be one drop of oil or natural gas in the region. If that was the case not one man, woman, or child would have suffered harm there through the decades. It is fortunate for the people in the region that their lands are energy-resource rich as it’s good for the economy and higher living standards. It is very unfortunate that until now agreements haven’t been made which give the best chance of peace through equitable sharing of those resources.

People remember the phrase which became famous during the U.S. campaign for president between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush: “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the Middle East, when attempting to make sense of all the wars through history and now ISIS, the phrase is: “It’s the oil and natural gas, stupid.” George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, current NATO Commander Fogh Rasmussen, and other war criminals wouldn’t have lied to the world about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” if the major resource/export of Iraq was tulips.

As Nafeez Ahmed points out in the following Real News Network interview, the will to stop the financing sources for ISIS hasn’t materialized. Without those funds and that support ISIS would find their capacity to harm rapidly deteriorate, and Mr. Ahmed asks why steps aren’t being taken to block the sources. That is a question which Americans need to ask of their Congressmen and Senators, along with conveyance of strong demands for truthful explanations of ISIS’ creation and who is accountable.

The second Iraq War resulted in over one million lives lost – based on lies – and now the same kind of corporate, economic interests and people are in the equation. The world’s people are no longer willing to tolerate lies when war and peace hangs in the balance; when the lives of innocent men, women, and children who happen to have been born in a resource-rich region are at risk. During times such as these, the only leaders worthy of making decisions are those with enough personal integrity to speak the absolute truth to humanity.

Only leaders with that high level of honorable, moral intentions and personal integrity are capable of working together to bring about results in the best interests – physical, emotional, spiritual health and well-being – of the people living in the region.

Because for generations innocent people in the Middle East have suffered from war and violence, the time has come for the harm to finally stop. Enough is finally enough. Humanity deserves the truth.


(Thank you to RealNewsNetwork at YouTube)