Empire, Spiritual Evolution, World Peace.

by Jerry Alatalo

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.”

– CHARLES PEGUY (1873-1914) French writer

aaa-44Alphabet Very soon, killing and violent destruction will become unacceptable by humanity as means for increasing power, wealth, profits and market share.  That time is approaching rapidly, marks what will become recorded in history books as the greatest positive change ever, and humanity will have every reason for taking part in celebrations around the Earth – because “War is over!”

From a spiritual or metaphysical perspective, the end result of a global trend which began with the appearance and increasing use of the internet could accurately be seen as a literal and positive, “game changing”, historic and powerful spiritual evolution of all mankind. What makes the imminent and awe-inspiring transformation that’s occurring and growing worldwide possible is a profound realization by more and more people of what’s been taking place through history and now, the summarizing of that awareness, moving beyond political ideology, and leading to cooperative efforts solely focused on doing what’s best for the health and well-being of the family of man.

The single greatest aspect of this new, emergent and amazing international development is the acknowledgment that war fails in every respect to improve the health and well-being of, especially, those in the physical vicinity directly experiencing war’s horrific consequences – or anyone.  Just as a human being first experiences some physical discomfort in their stomach, the discomfort slowly increases in intensity and occurrence over time, and eventually the person sees a doctor to learn he or she has cancer – so humanity has come to learn through history that war is the universal cancer which must become fought, treated and eliminated to restore health.

Extending the metaphor comparing an individual’s battle with cancer to humanity’s cancerous condition called war is instructive when perceived with an intention to focus on cause(s). Wars are not natural occurrences like earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or floods, but, like the majority of cancer cases, wars are humanity’s self-inflicted cancerous results of willful, planned actions – actions which certainly entail the roots of the disease: war itself.

Going all the way with the useful metaphor, after the individual, if fortunate, goes through successful treatment and elimination of the disease, it becomes necessary for the person to make changes to their lifestyle, eating, and consumption habits to escape from any recurrence of the cancer, and this directly applies to humanity when it comes to ending war. To minimize or eliminate the chances for future outbreaks of the cancer called war, the world and humanity must change.

Persons who’ve contracted cancer and survived have the choice of making the lifestyle changes necessary to prevent the cancer from coming back, or returning to self-destructive habits, experiencing the return of disease, and possible death. In the same manner, the billions of human beings of this generation we call humanity must wisely change ways of living on Earth, otherwise face more war, more killing, more horrific destruction, placing unimaginable stress upon the lives of more sacred and innocent  fellow members of the human family.

Some who pass this way intuitively understand to some various extent or depth just how important is the task for humanity to end war. This means ending war as soon as humanly possible, in this generation, not leaving the effort to accomplish world peace to the future, and people living in the year 2030 or 2050.  Such an understanding comes easily to nearly every man, woman or child in the world when answering the both simple and profound question: “when is the best time for peace on Earth?” The answer is obvious – and the answer is now.

In past posts, this writer has strongly suggested organizing a week-long “World Peace Conference”, possibly the first of its kind, to bring about the sharing of good ideas between respected men and women leaders from around the world in the fields of government, academia, religion, business, labor, the arts, mainstream and alternative media, along with others whose list of goals and intentions has peace on top at #1.

It seems beyond belief and explanation that among the many questions directed at candidates thus far in both the Republican or Democratic debates none of them asked “is world peace possible, and if so, what is your plan to bring such a world about?” Isn’t it logical to think that world peace would be one of the major topics for debates between men and women seeking enough votes to become the President of the United States? Perhaps suggesting world peace should become a major area of focus – and more (any) time should become devoted to the subject – during presidential debates comes across to some as unusual or odd, but one has to wonder when discussion of what in most people’s minds would be humanity’s greatest achievement remains absent.

From this writer’s perspective, not discussing ways to bring about peace on Earth during presidential debates is odd and unusual on a scale multiple times larger than merely suggesting the subject become included and debated. The positive consequences that come with peace on Earth are so overwhelmingly clear and massive that coming to the point of having to suggest it become part of presidential debates can only be viewed as truly beyond ridiculous.  Unfortunately, the most serious issue on planet Earth – war and peace – receives only a small fraction of the attention and effort needed for dealing with it using maximum human skill, wisdom, imagination and potential.

Although such pessimism-inducing facts persist in parts of the world in late 2015, at the same time revelations about the root causes of humanity’s historic problems including war have emerged in an increasingly powerful manner. That fact should induce feelings of optimism. While labeling political ideologies such as capitalism, socialism etc. has some value in that using labels during discussions makes things clearer, perhaps in late 2015 people are moving beyond “labels” which cause needless division to simply comparing “ideas” to identify those which, when implemented, offer the best chance to constructively address problems – and therefore improve the human condition.

The world’s historic problems are comparable to diseases, and many in the healing professions hold to the philosophy of “whatever works”. Humanity’s problems remain today – some becoming worse when measured, so it’s becoming obvious to more and more people around the world that new ideas for living on Earth are urgently needed. It’s hard to predict developments, what solutions or combination of solutions will become offered, or precisely what the future will look like for humanity. What is predictable is that awareness of the root causes of human problems will continue to grow. Like the person who’s contracted cancer and gained the awareness of what it takes to heal, mankind is more than capable of diagnosing, finding the source of, treating and healing its diseases – then adopting a permanent, no-turning-back, healthy lifestyle.

Beyond unnecessary and divisive ideology, adaptation of a new philosophy consisting of “simple ideas examined, and whatever works” offers a solid basis for optimism about the future of humanity.


Journalists Abby Martin, host of “Empire Files”, and Director of MintPress News Mnar Muhawesh are two of millions of men and women around the Earth attempting to discover and reveal the root causes of humanity’s persisting major problems. Along with those millions of others, they believe a new world is possible. Thank you to the world’s healers. Thank you to all peacemakers.

(Thank you to MintPressNews at YouTube)


Speak Softly, Carry A Big Spirit Truth.

by Jerry Alatalo

Sunset OceanA few comments on Noam Chomsky’s talk at The New School in New York titled “On Power and Ideology”… First, it was an interesting coincidence, days after publishing “2016” and intentionally naming the title to suggest George Orwell’s “1984”, that Mr. Chomsky would begin his talk by referring to Mr. Orwell. Perhaps there’s something to quantum physics, the unified field and newer theories that propose thoughts influence material reality, but we’ll leave that mesmerizing topic for another day.

Mr. Chomsky is over 80 years old now, and men and women at some point in the life/aging process start using softer tones when speaking to others. For Mr. Chomsky, in his younger days during the Vietnam War era one can find talks where his voice was more assertive, at a higher volume and on rare occasions loud, especially when in the heat of debate or discussion.

At 80 the dizzying amount of information he’s researched, written and talked about through decades has resulted in his communicative style becoming more subdued, which could describe him as one who “speaks softly, but carries a big truth”.  Many have probably come across comments on the internet which claim that Noam Chomsky, Democracy Now host Amy Goodman and others are “gatekeepers”. Some believe the so-called gatekeepers are holding back on essential truths, and not going “all the way” when discussing important Earth issues.

That debate won’t become discussed now but to say it is always most beneficial to speak the 100% truth, without omission, as best one perceives it . For example, besides the gatekeeper criticism, Noam Chomsky has received criticism for not being more forceful or speaking out about the need for a new investigation of the events which occurred 14 years ago on September 11, 2001. This writer’s view is that one is truly necessary, and could easily be carried out with relatively minor financial cost. In fact, there are probably multi-millionaires and billionaires around the Earth who would agree to cover the costs of a new investigation entirely, so cost is no constraint.

The closest I’ve seen Mr. Chomsky come to expressing more of a spiritual message in his talks was years ago when he answered an audience question “what drives you… keeps you going?’ by saying, “A person has to look at himself in the mirror every morning”.  My one “critical” observation is that if Noam Chomsky (along with all peace and justice activists) presented more in his talks and writings on man’s spiritual aspects he would become more effective. Why? Because I believe peace and justice activism is all about spirituality.

This is no criticism of Noam Chomsky but only a simple observation.  There is a great deal to respect and honor in the decades of work Mr. Chomsky has carried out, and, besides believing peace activism is all about spirituality, it is also my belief that no person has any right to interfere in another person’s spiritual journey. This relates directly to what Noam Chomsky talks about in the talk, in particular American relations with  the Islamic nation of Iran.

“We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us their children. It teaches us to be thankful, to be united, and to love one another. We never quarrel about religion.”



In his talk, Chomsky goes into the current American debate about the Iran nuclear deal. He pointed out that this was an international agreement between the P5+1: permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Britain, China, France , Russia and the United States), Germany and Iran – not only between the U.S. and Iran. He added that the “debate” is only occurring in the U.S. as the rest of the world has been in favor of the agreement, accepting it with relief and optimism, and that it is the U.S. by debating the deal which exhibits its other, unmentioned form of exceptionalism and risks further isolation.

In his quiet manner, he destroys all talk of Iran as “an aggressor nation seeking hegemony over the Middle East”. He points out that Iran hasn’t invaded another nation in well over a century, in “several hundred years” but once – during the reign of the Shah of Iran when he used military force to secure some local small islands. He shares his perception that the Obama administration action to normalize relations with Cuba stems from Latin American nations’ rejection of U.S. policy in Central and South America, and that it was the Cuba action or becoming completely shut out by the people of the South.

On assertions that ‘Iran is a great threat… Iranian aggression…” Chomsky mentions recent Gallup polls asking which nation represents the greatest threat to world peace, and that it is the United States, not Iran, which easily and far and away comes in #1 according to polled men and women. He contrasts Iranian support of Syria and Iraq in those nations’ fight against ISIS being described as “aggression… destabilizing…” to the Iraq War begun in 2003 on lies about Iraq weapons of mass destruction and connection to 9/11, resulting in Iraq’s destruction, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and where the latter has often been described as “stabilizing the region”.

Chomsky noted that Saudi Arabia is responsible for supporting a great percentage of extreme ideology terrorist groups like ISIS, that U.S. NATO ally Turkey has supported terrorist groups killing and destroying in Syria and Iraq, and that media and government narratives fail to accurately describe what’s really happening. His view is that Saudi-sponsored radical Islam is the real danger for the people of the Middle East and beyond.

He said the “threats” posed by some about Iran are non-existent, and that assertions the deal didn’t go far enough are true, but in a different sense than conveyed by those making the assertions. Others claim the deal didn’t go far enough because it didn’t include language making the Middle East a nuclear weapons and mass destruction weapons-free zone. Such a plan has been the content of resolutions at each five-year international meeting on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but, Chomsky points out, the United States has sabotaged or blocked implementation of the plan every five years at least since 1995, including a resolution at the meeting held earlier this year.

In the Q+A he received a question about Donald Trump. He said “the (Republican) candidates are not that different”, Scott Walker (who dropped out of the race days after this talk) told a debate audience he would bomb Iran on his first day in office, while Jeb Bush would wait until the first meeting of his cabinet, and that “This is just off the spectrum of, not only international opinion, but relative sanity”. He stated his agreement with some far-right conservative commentators that the Republicans are no longer a political party but a “radical insurgency”.

He described the current state of the Democratic Party as one where it has moved to the right and are what were known in the past as moderate Republicans, while the Republicans have “simply moved off the spectrum”.

Another question asked about upcoming meetings at the United Nations on sustainable development goals and his view on potential success. He answered by saying “a two-word answer” and that “nothing will be achieved”.

In answer to a question about WikiLeaks Chomsky praised the group, and told the audience much would be earned from reading WikiLeaks information which hasn’t been widely published. He compared U.S. actions toward Iran as “Mafia-like”, comparing the U.S. to the mafia “Don” who sends his goons to teach harsh physical lessons to those who “disobey orders” – which Chomsky asserts represents Iran. Now, nations from Europe are sending government and business delegations for meetings with Iranian officials to discuss contracts and conducting business.

The extreme irony is that Republicans, those who oppose the Iran P5+1 deal so strenuously are associated with corporations restricted from seeking and doing business with Iran. Although the final question “What is intelligence?” didn’t specifically refer to that ironic situation, perhaps Mr. Chomsky’s response after cracking a rare wide grin did. “Well, it’s something that’s lacking in certain places… Let’s put it like that. Thanks.” He then walked off the stage.

The thought came up of Noam Chomsky, at 80 years old and certainly well aware of its inevitable coming, walking off the Earthly stage.


(Thank you to Democracy Now)

Those interested can watch the entire over one-hour lecture here.

Jeremy Corbyn: ‘Find Peaceful Solutions To Problems Of This World.’

by Jerry Alatalo

“Truth is on the march; nothing now can stop it.”

— EMILE ZOLA (1840-1902)

HighwayJeremy Corbyn received 60% of the vote and was elected leader of Britain’s Labour Party. Three hours after the election results were announced , Mr. Corbyn addressed an estimated 100,000 people who’d gathered in London to express their support for the desperate hundreds of thousands seeking refuge after fleeing wars and violence in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other societies which have become destabilized in recent months, years and decades.

The new Labour leader spoke for around 8-minutes, but the message which resonates most powerfully and holds the potential for profound transformation of human civilization could have been summed up in one sentence: “Find peaceful solutions to the problems of this world.”  A great majority of men, women and children living in this generation around the Earth would agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s plain and direct statement identifying war as the root cause of the refugee crisis facing humanity.

For most rational human beings, holding a philosophical position that embraces the idea that opting for peaceful resolution of differences and problems over wars, killing and violence is simple common sense and far healthier in all aspects, but what makes Mr. Corbyn’s election as Britain’s Labour leader so extraordinary is that one of the world’s highest-level, most-visible politicians is essentially calling for world peace.

Some people believe there is no such thing as a “coincidence”. Looking at Mr. Corbyn’s surprising election victory (his odds of winning two months ago were 200-1) one day after the 14th anniversary of September 11, 2001 and the attacks in New York which fueled the so-called “war on terrorism”, one wonders if there isn’t some far higher spiritual power present and coordinating current events.

It’s worth focusing on and repeating that Britain’s newly elected Labour leader is speaking in public of establishing peace on Earth. Time will tell how other high-level, high-visibility political leaders around the Earth will respond to Jeremy Corbyn’s message calling for peaceful solutions to human problems, but if their responses include any criticism of his belief that war is not the best option those particular leaders will become met with demands for very thorough explanations, in light of the current state of world anti-war opinion.

In other words, Jeremy Corbyn’s election victory makes it now much more difficult for those leaders who people label as “hawks” to defend their pro-war positions, and the explanation for that new reality lies in the fact that wars and violence are manifestations of man’s worst personal characteristics and qualities then multiplied in energy and through military force transferred onto the populations of entire nations and regions. Professors of International Relations after Mr. Corbyn’s election will spend a lot of time analyzing the possibilities now emerging as a result of inclusion of political and philosophical ideas which rarely in the past rose to such a high level of power.

It’ll be very interesting to see how professors of International Relations and other related fields of academics like Political Science, Journalism, Philosophy, History etc. analyze Mr. Corbyn’s statements “…find peaceful solutions to the problems of this world”, “…we’re all human beings on the same planet” and “…open your hearts”.

In a sense, academics and other interested observers of world events will find it impossible to exclude studying the relationship between political science and spirit when considering the personal philosophies of both Jeremy Corbyn and the voters who elected him. It’s a very beneficial and good thing the global discussion has risen, and will continue rising, to a far higher philosophical and spiritual level.

Now, if only Mr. Corbyn called for a real investigation of 9/11…


“I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.”

— MOHANDES GANDHI (1869-1948) 

(Thank you to Stop the War Coalition at YouTube)

Abby Martin’s ‘The Empire Files’: Bold Debut On teleSUR.

by Jerry Alatalo

“It is very dangerous to write the truth in war, and the truth is also very dangerous to come by.”

– ERNEST HEMINGWAY (1898-1961) American writer, Nobel Prize 1954

Veterans For PeaceAfter leaving her successful “Breaking the Set” news talk show on RT a while back, many of her fans wondered what was next for the truth-reporter Abby Martin. Her fans don’t need to wonder anymore, after her new program “The Empire Files” was broadcast for the first time on the Latin American network teleSUR.

Thus far the debut has received a combined 3,000 views just between teleSUR English and therealnews (The Real News Network) YouTube channels, where “thumbs up” tallied 384 and “thumbs down” tallied 4, so by that measure the show is off to a good start. Many of the comments expressed approval that Ms. Martin has returned to the arena, the common sentiment being “great to see you back, Abby”.

The first program could be described as a short documentary about the American empire, including its history, particularly in Latin America, visuals showing its global reach, expenditures and details of the military industrial complex, an interview with critical analysis of the US’ 800 bases around the Earth – suggesting their presence results in rising tension and resentment among the people where they’re located,  plus another with a former British soldier who refused to continue serving in Iraq, joined Veterans for Peace, and now speaks out against war and militarism when and wherever possible.

People should see it as a good sign and reason for optimism that shows focused on the simple conveying of truth become accepted with overwhelming approval, plus think about how telling the truth in the media became so rare that when it occurs people find it “extraordinary” – instead of rightly the way it is  for every journalist and media organization.

Abby Martin’s first show and what gets revealed might be viewed by some in the US government/military from the context of recent changes in military laws that place war reporters like Ms. Martin in the unfortunate class of “unprivileged belligerent” (an open-ended, vague legal term), subject to the same treatment as terrorists (also labeled unprivileged belligerents) – indefinite detention, secret military tribunals, denial of Constitutional rights and who knows what else.

The program conveys true historical facts and the truthful opinions of people concerned about continuing wars and militarism, and one has to ask how that is either extraordinary or in any way considered some kind of “threat”. This is simply what real journalists do, and if Abby Martin in this and future episodes of “The Empire Files” shames or forces other journalists guilty of lying by commission, omission or “spin” to report the truth she does a great public service.

In the field of journalism/media, reporting the truth should by definition be the only goal – period and end of story.

(Thank you to teleSUR English at YouTube)