Tuesday, 24 April 2018

Lest We Forget

The essay "Lest We Forget" was written on the eve of Remembrance Day 11 November 2007.

I didn't write again for about 2 years as I figured there was not much else to say.

Dropbox link to pdf of the original: 
(I've checked all the links. Where they don't work I've found an alternative where needed. I've left the original links in for the sake of historical accuracy. The 'Great War' image below is recent from a google search)

Anzac Day 2018 falls in the Centennial year of NZ celebrating the conclusion of the Great War WW100.
If humanity were to learn the collective lesson it would have altered the following 100 years of bloody history. There's been plenty of action in the first two decades of the new millennia, with the 9/11 Crime inspired Global War on Terror (GWOT).
The recent provocations in respect to Russia in respect to the Skripal Poisoning and the Douma Syria incident point to the WarPigs desire for more blood to be spilt.
Both sets of accusations were advanced through the mass media machine by the UK, US and French Governments without any evidence offered to the global public. The fact the MSM have largely fallen silent about those allegations in the face of real evidence points to the discerning counter narrative offered by the critically minded who work to ensure that there are no repeat false flag attempts to drive the world to war. 
Interestingly it is our WW1 Atlantic Allies that are eager to commence a new hot war with Eurasian Powers. 

Away from the specific and onto the principle - why are we having to continue to relearn the lesson? "Lest We Forget" can have many meanings, for me it is to ensure we ban the drive to war.... 

Lest We Forget
We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”
Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982) 

1914 saw the commencement of hostilities in the so-called Great War and 1917 saw the USA's involvement on behalf of the Allies. Australia and New Zealand without the requirement of any pretext, volunteered her sons and daughters to that Great Human Carnage. The Terror and futility of Modern Warfare were fully exposed to any who wished to learn the lesson.
11:00am on November 11, 1918 is the symbolic time of the signing of the Armistice consigning to history the "War to End all Wars." We celebrate it as Remembrance Day, the US calls it Veterans Day. "Lest we Forget."
This was a significant event as the War is estimated to have cost 40 million casualties including 20 million dead. However it was merely an early chapter in a bloody century of human stupidity. We seemed fated to repeat in the 21st century the error of that previous one. Escalating tension, underlying continuous Warfare. This site:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America (new url) uses diverse sources to develop a picture of War Dead through history up till 1900. Use this link to view "Deaths by Unpleasantness" in the 20th Century: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm  (new url)
A discerning eye cast across the numerous reports, articles, governmental and non-governmental appraisals; any source you choose, will reveal the parlous state of global security presently encountered.
Whilst the final figure for war dead in the twentieth century some 167 - 175 million persons (using the above source) may seem large, this new century is by no means a walk in pacifist heaven. When tallies of the human sacrifice from the first seven years of the 21st century's attempt on the previous record are compared we are off to a grisly start.
Daily, we are confronted by hubristic bluster and verbalized aggression suggesting a third "Hot" World War. This is a terrible and apocalyptic nightmare when ones recognizes the firepower available to the likely protagonists.
Who then or what force brings about the conditions which impel men to wage war against the other? Surely this question deserves the earnest and focused attention of the World's greatest minds? Surely this question is one which ought exercise all minds in the hope of a positive outcome?
Surely some of these have already addressed the question, perhaps even developed some preliminary findings, perhaps even come to logical conclusions that would forestall the requirement to revert to arms?
Or if this is not the conclusion we can draw, what delays our applying our collective minds to this task? I note that philanthropic business celebrity Richard Branson, earlier this year,offered $25 million (US dollars, best claim them quick) toward any who proposed a solution to greenhouse gas, (again we see the morbid fascination with solutions technological, carbon sequestration rather than questioning rampant industrial consumption, the planting of trees along with saving existing forests) see 9th February 2007 news item:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070209_ap_gw_branson.html   (new url to Branson story)
Is it possible that similar offerings of Corporate philanthropy could be extended toward investigating the cause of war?
"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind...War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." : - John F. Kennedy
On the "Peace Trail" I have crossed the histories and sayings of many fine persons both existent and departed. One person's acquaintance I make despite the veil of death is a Military Man of standing and capability matched only by few. His demeanour and attentiveness to his soldiering task brought him legendary status within his lifetime. His name Smedley Darlington Butler, born 30 July 1881 in West Chester, Pennsylvania, who by the age of 16 had gained his parents permission to join the US Marines. The initial prompt being the American-Spanish War then waged in Cuba. During his military career he served with distinction. He was many times decorated including with civilian awards from foreign powers. At the time he left military service in the early 1930s he had attained the rank of Major General.
Smedley Butler was a leader of principle who had respect for all people, notably for the service-persons under his command, and for the veterans once de-mobbed. During the course of his military career he came to the realization that his role in the US Armed services is as the policeman for American Corporate interests abroad. He twice served in China. The first occasion was protecting the US mercantile interests in partnership with the British during the Boxer Rebellion. The second occasion in the 1920s during the Nationalist Civil War where he and his troop were encamped on land owned by the Standard Oil Company. Protecting US interests in this case was protection of the Standard Oil Company's Chinese assets.
Increasingly through his career Smedley Butler was dismayed that US Militarist Policy was factored around protecting moneyed interest's assets with poor persons lives. In the twilight of his career following "retirement", he embarked on a lecture tour of the USA speaking in 1200 different localities "War is a Racket" to veterans and the ordinary peoples of America. He advocated an isolationist USA, nevertheless one which would fiercely defend its homeland, not one which would remove American boys from their homes and take them a half world away to die defending someone else's property. Property and assets often gotten and maintained against the interests of local or indigenous populations.
Smedley Butler died 21st June 1940 hours before the French surrender to the expansionary Nazi German Forces. Up to his death he advocated the US stay out of what he described as a despotic European adventure. Inside a turn and a half around the Sun, the forces that fought under the "Rising Sun Flag," drew the Americans into the carnage with their 7th December 1941 attack on the US 7th fleet in Pearl Harbour.
Of the colourful events in Smedley's hectic life none match the offer made to him by representatives of Wall St. in 1933. He was approached by a Financial Bonds salesman Jerry Maguire to front a renewed organization of veterans and mobilize them to march on Washington. Eventually uncovered was a plot to usurp the then President Roosevelt and install a compliant Commander in Chief, compliant to the dictates of the Moneyed Aristocracy who were most alarmed by Roosevelt's "New Deal." They also ran their opposition to the administration's uncoupling the US dollar from its Gold Standard backing. The moneyed folk feared the egress of inflation eating into the value of their not inconsiderable assets. (At this point I make no comment on the preference of the Gold Standard)
Smedley Butler accepted communication with these until he determined he had enough material to inform Authority. The full story, written by author Jules Archer, 1973 is available in the following links for those who wish to gather in a comprehensive outline of the cut and thrust of Smedley Butler's career and details of the Putsch against the US Government.

Also below is Smedley Butler's speech "War is a Racket." At least read "The Plot To Seize The White House, By Jules Archer" to gain some of his insight as to the motives and forces then driving man to War.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13906.htm (The Plot To Seize The White House, By Jules Archer)
Butler's the War is a Racket speech:
The McCormack-Dickstein Committee agreed to listen to Butler's story in a secret executive session in New York City on November 20, 1934. The two co-chairman of the committee were Representative John McCormack, of Massachusetts, and New York Representative Samuel Dickstein, who later became a New York State Supreme Court justice. Butler's testimony, developed in two hours of questions and answers, was recorded in full. None of the named conspirators apart from Butler's direct contact Macguire were questioned and all of the key players in the Putsch managed to have their names expunged from the publicly released report. No investigation was conducted, no charges were brought. It is apparent the uneven-handedness of the law's application. A similar plot by the proletariat or other non-mainstream group would have received greater attention from Authority. McCarthy's later Communist witch-hunts highlight this duplicitous truth. Also see Franklin Delano Roosevelt vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated, Part IV by L. Wolfe, from the American Almanac Website (lots of reading here): http://american_almanac.tripod.com/morgan4.htm
Another contribution in this discussion arises from the Nye Committee's investigation into the causes of why the USA involved itself in World War 1. Available here via Wikipedia is a brief summation of the Committee's findings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee From the article;
"The committee reported that between 1915 and April 1917, the US loaned Germany 27 million dollars ($27,000,000). In the same period, the US loaned the UK and its allies 2.3 billion dollars ($2,300,000,000), or about 85 times as much. The conclusion has been drawn that the US entered the war because it was in its commercial interest for the UK not to lose."
For those wishing for depth the entire report is available here:
More than this the Committee unanimously found collusion between arms manufacturers and the armed services, and arms manufacturers and foreign powers to subvert USA policy aimed at peace. It further found that the Industry was instrumental in the German defiance of the Versailles Treaty forestalling the German re-armament. German rearmament commenced from 1924, abetted by the "Racketeers."

Smedley Butler's racketeers were up to their necks in it. From the report the following extract indicating the Committee's intent;
"The committee finds, finally, that the neutrality bill of 1936, to which all its members gave their support and which provides for an embargo on the export of arms, ammunitions, and implements of war to belligerents, was a much needed forward step, and that the establishment of a Munitions Control Board, under the Department of State, should satisfactorily prevent the shipment of arms to other than recognized governments."
Too late the damage had been done. The march to World War 2 was written in the World's stars. Thanks to the best efforts of the World's Military, their Political Leaders, and the Global Armaments industry this War once initiated engulfed effectively all nations on Earth in six years of carnage with the very best that modern industry and ingenuity could buy with "our money."
  • We the common people fought the War.
  • We the common people were maimed and killed in the War.
  • We the common people had our lives and the lives of our families disrupted in the War.
  • We the common people did not profit one iota from the War.
  • We the common people suffered acute shortages of necessary materials as a result of the War.
  • The only ones to profit were the War Supplies Providers and their servant Governments who improved their power and prestige.
  • We the common people paid fully for the War. Lest we Forget, indeed.
For mine the Second World War of 1939 - 1945 was an avoidable event. Any considered reading of the Nye report see above link, (and do take time to do so, perhaps a 10 minute investment in future peace) can only reach the conclusion that there exists in our society a grouping of interests which are ever seeking to promote anxiety and the accompanying and requisite Escalation of Armaments. To appreciate the problem of Peace one must appreciate the forces at work to "Deny Peace." Look here at the extent BAE (British Aerospace) goes to secure its interests: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011616,00.html and the cover the British Labour Government is providing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2173947,00.html from both USA investigations and earlier a domestic inquiry into fraud and corruption in respect to alleged payments of $1 billion to the Saudis in order to gain Armaments contracts.
Lest we forget, indeed. I've not had the distasteful experience of killing another at a third person's order. I was too young for Conscription to fight the Viet Cong, another wasteful enterprise in human stupidity. I am now in my 49th year, probably to old to fight... so it is likely the direct experience of War as an event appears to have passed me by. Thus far anyway, thank God or thank my lucky stars?
But in thanking my lucky stars I'm cognizant that many others are not so lucky. The sheer accident of birth places them in the swath of the "juggernaut of death." Lest we forget, indeed.
What have these unfortunates done to deserve the mainstream ignominy of being Iraqi, or Iranian or Kurdish, or Palestinian, or Eritrean or Ethiopian, or Afghani or any other nationality or grouping being scapegoated for the profits of the Armaments Industry and the Political Powers bolstered by their patronage and bribes.
What right does any nation have to profit in its economic dealings by the "Killing of Others?" Lest we Forget, indeed.
So the big question; Is war avoidable? I can only answer for myself. Yes. War is organized violence imposed to gain a result. Remove the incentive and ability for the aggressive to gain via violence and one removes the need for War. It is said that the cause of any War usually lies in more than one issue.
What issues are at work today? The Australian Press and their fellow travellers have launched a campaign for Free Speech. Their campaign "Australia's Right to Know" is headed by Murdoch's News Limited and includes the major media interests in Australia including Fairfax who control a large proportion of the New Zealand Newsprint Media. From Stuff's (Fairfax) 6-11-2007 article available here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4262704a12.html
"Australian democracy is not as free, not as open, nor as transparent as it should be. Some of the rights and freedoms we cherish are threatened," said John Hartigan, chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd in Australia and head of a coalition of media groups concerned about free speech. Australia ranked 28 out of 169 countries for press freedom according to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders latest index released in October. In 2002 it was ranked 12th.
The report titled Australia's Right to Know found 500 pieces of legislation and at least 1000 court suppression orders restricting media reporting.
"Many of the mechanisms that are vital to a well-functioning democracy are beginning to wear thin," the report's author, Irene Moss, former chair of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, told a news conference.
"The greatest loss in this battle is not to the media, but to the Australian people and their right to know about important matters that affect them," she said.
This presents an interesting conundrum, the media assert that Government is clamping down on truth, and I assert that the media are equally guilty in misinforming the public. If both of us are correct in our assertions; the media in stating that Government is clamping the truth, and I in suggesting the media are disingenuous in their reportage of life's events; then the public are doubly thwarted in their attempts to make head or tail out of the resultant propaganda.
Acquaintances of mine on occasion will place in my hands a book, or a reference to an event which they imagine will evoke my curiosity and quest for knowledge. The latest contribution of this ilk is Robert Fisk's 2005 Opus, The Great War for Civilization. Fisk has supplied reports of the "blood soaked" Middle East to the World's press for 30 years. As I would need a couple of weeks to wade through this tome of 1300 pages, I approach it and a lot of my reading strategically. From the preface of Robert Fisk's book pages xxiii and xxiv;
I suppose in the end we journalists try - or should try - to be the first impartial witnesses to history. If we have any reason for our existence, the least must be our ability to report history as it happens so that no one can say: "We didn't know - no one told us." Amira Hass, the brilliant Israeli journalist on Ha'areetz newspaper whose reports on the occupied Palestinian territories have outshone anything written by non-Israeli reporters, discussed this with me more than two years ago. I was insisting that we had a vocation to write the first pages of history but she interrupted me. No Robert, you're wrong," she said. "Our job is to monitor the centres of power." And I think, in the end, that is the best definition of journalism I have heard; to challenge authority - all authority - especially so when governments and politicians take us to war, when they have decided that they will kill and others will die.
These words were penned in Beirut June 2005. Who are these powers that Amira Hass identified in the above passage?
My thesis in earlier essays and writings is that humanity as individuals and socially are not naturally predisposed to war. It can be seen that homogeneous groups do not wage war within their ranks. It is surely self evident that this would have a destabilizing effect.
I acknowledge that my statements are viewed by some as fractious; however there is now sufficient evidence; physical, circumstantial, in official reports, and of a witness/anecdotal nature to seriously question the foundations of the "Global War on Terror."
This 6th October 2007 article from Times Online : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1166479.ece?print=yes&randnum=1194570698181# "Blair knew Iraq had no WMD" where it is revealed that 2 weeks prior to the Iraq invasion he informed Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary, that Saddam had no WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction).
The Times Online article is no longer live, however, there's plenty out there: 
Not just a nation, the entire population of Earth is being lied to in respect to the Global War on Terror. By now amongst thinking people it must have penetrated that the 9/11 event involved a fair bit of trickery as well as the complicity of many non-Muslim individuals. After all they are still looking for the plane that hit the Pentagon. Have you seen it? Perhaps we could place an add in the "Lost and Found" columns of the mainstream print media, given they seek truth? I'm sure George Walker Bush would be grateful if we could locate it for him, along with the others lost that fateful day.
In attempting to be factual and as truthful as possible, and going to first principles let's look at the Word "Terror" and its derivatives, terrorism, terrorist and terrorize. From the Collins English Dictionary;
  • Terror noun 1. great fear, panic, or dread 2. a person or thing that inspires great dread
  • Terrorism noun 1. the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2. the act of terrorizing 3. the state of being terrorized
  • Terrorist noun a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon
  • Terrorize verb 1. to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc 2. to inspire with dread; terrify
The act of terrorism and the employment of terror as a means to an end cannot be viewed under any circumstances as a humane activity. The above definition is not limited to small groups of Middle-Eastern radicals. It applies equally to Nations seeking advantage in their dealings with others. The First and Second World Wars were the acts of Terrorists. Fear and loathing were engendered in the World's population, sufficient to bring the Earth to the brink of destruction. Again Terror is applied to the World's population, the degree is determined by one's geographical location.
The polarity of the West/Islamic divide is reinforced by the fear and loathing engendered in both cultures. The asymmetrical nature of the power wielded by the opponents determines the tools of terror employed to gain the antagonist's desire. The so called terrorists the Islamists (they see themselves as freedom-fighters) use amongst other measures the Suicide Bomber. The West and US led coalition use Smart Bombers.
A recent discussion on the extremism and incomprehensibility of suicide bombing led to the following contribution by myself;
Consider the First World War, the allies in the trenches facing a German Machine Gun emplacement. All know that to put their head up in defiance of the machine-gun is to invite sure death. The officer orders the first wave to advance and take the position. You are in the third wave and have seen your comrades mowed down as they crawl across no-man's land. Your turn comes, you've written your note home and kissed your crucifix. How are you different in mindset from the modern suicidee carrying their load of death?
Terror and War calls on men and women to undertake the most onerous tasks. It calls on them to sacrifice and kill. It destroys lives and the souls of those it confounds. It is the work of Satan.
And yet War is glorified, it is held up as a grand adventure, it has been romanticized by literature and film. It is made into something that it is not, for it is none other than the orchestrated mass killing and terrorism of the population of children, women, and men. Lest we Forget, indeed.
As recent as 8th November the New York Times, link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/08vets.html?ref=us carried a story on homeless veterans of the current Terror. Compare this outcome with the ghastly situation on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of other regions where the majority worship Allah. Each day 100 men, women, and children are sacrificed to the most blood thirsty God known.
The War on Terror has been going for centuries by one name or another. If and when the War on Terror is won. (Who claims they can win this War?) The contrariness of the logic here astounds; use overwhelming and awesome Terror to defeat Terror? There will be a War on something else, someone else, or on an idea. However I think the Idea's time has come. In the words of an old campaigner, Gough Whitlam one time Australian Prime Minister "It's Time."
Time to say no to War and the politics of greed.
Time to encircle the Earth with the spirit of the human family.
Time to co-operate.
Time to love.
Time to love our planet, our mother, our home.
Time to recognize the wonder that is the life we share.
Time to be one.
The only victor over a War on Terror is Peace.
Unity in Diversity, its time has come.
Lest We Forget.

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

You need a whipping honey?

Do you live on planet earth?

Or in the internet/social media virtual world?

If an earthling - then what is that?

Another in the human crowd?

We number 4 billion folk with connected devices


One node in a matrix?

Or natural woman or man*?

Or random *gender in this PC world?


There's no shortage of us...

We number 7.6 billion beings - heading to 11 billion before we plateau at a point late in the century - say:

8:00am 8 August 2088

Consider inequality, poverty and austerity

Nothing happens by accident - all is planned

Our system doesn't place much value on human Wellbeing

Continue to do what we do and expect change = lunacy

TP= shit

People who might have a clue on TPP would appreciate the instrumental entrapment and systemic rachet in favour of big business and money interests

Wait till TPP is Trumped #MAGA (Make America Great Again)

= America Great = We are poor!

It's an equation so must balance - the US doesn't do win/win!

Once NZ people are restrained and entrapped in TPP

What #22 US button-ons were suspended?

Suspenders on the Redqueen?

Feeeel the US #MAGA sting

Restrained by the Redqueen of Aotearoa

Destiny and Legacy entwined on the Pole of Herstory

International Women's Day - Purrfect Honey

A smart individual would change

A nation of smart individuals would change

A Progressive Leader would change = Zeitgeist?

We are connected

We can discuss our needs and their satisfaction

Abundance for all not Austerity

Reinstate the Four Wellbeings in the Local Government Act 2002

Social, Environmental, Economic and Cultural Wellbeing = Stolen by the Key National Government in 2012!

It appears that  LabourNational and New Zealand First support TPP and the global neoliberalproject

You too?

Despite the fact that neoliberal Capitalism is not vogue - Ask the Black Prince

Coalition of willing liars says, "We'll give it a turbocharged go - TPP the final solution"

TPP + Trump = #MAGA 

= Make New Zealand Shit  #MNZS

Green Party says #TPPNoWay!

Who is correct?

See the Trend?

Up or down for human Wellbeing?

Who Wins and Who Loses?

Ecological system score -1 = big loser

John Key's Bankster mates score +100Billion Debt! = big winner

Smiling Assassin

Another Smiley Face to cover Vogue with political glam

= Assassin?

Both love TPP

Economic Growth at all cost in a competitive world?

= Compete to the final winner despite the carnage

= Death to all others in a deadly system


How many stressed?

How many NZ dairy farmers have topped themselves under the Smiling Assassin's bankster mates' yoke?

Choking in White Powder = Global Trend

How many more children (youth below age of consent or legal adulthood have suicided)?

How many streams polluted as our political system is polluted with money power

How much War Pig Pollution = Coalition of The Willing = Club of willing murderers in foreign lands

Democracy polluted by the hegemonic power of foreign interests serves whom?

The system is stressed

Solution = pile on more stress = lunatic behaviour = more suicides and ecological destruction = planetary degradation

= trend

Point to the break in the logic trail...

What of you?

Why are you in this virtual world? The world of algorithims...

As opposed to the physical/manual world - the non cyber world of tangibles, or...

Think on it - maybe we are...

All in a connected matrix of human spirits with human value and Right to be Human Earthlings

Why TPP? - It is anathema to the values that most agree

Let's do this TPP = Anathema 

Added 5 March 2018 - video of Christchurch Our Childrens Future team lock-on to the rail tracks near Lincoln Rd. Addington Crossing:


TPP/CPTPP = Wrong Track

As opposed to: 

Let's do things to advance rights such as the right for humans not to exist in a state of institutionalised systemic perpetual decline.

TPP institutionalises the trend = Death by a thousand cuts...

You need a whipping honey?

Sunday, 28 January 2018

United States (US) vs Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?

This essay was written for the benefit of the New Zealand Parliament's Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) select committee's Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty examination process required by Parliament's Standing Orders. The paper was written for and delivered with my public evidence 28 April 2016.

As well as this paper I provided the FADT committee with a dozen papers addressing various aspects of the TPP and its implications, most to the treaty examination March/April 2016 and a few to the subsequent TPP legislation select committee hearings conducted mid 2016.

I place the essay here as it is very relevant to the consideration of the relationship between Aotearoa NZ and the United States.

The truth about the 9/11 Crime and the resulting Global War on Terror (GWOT) a global and endless war that ought be considered World War III is missing from the Official Information records. I will follow with a post about my knowledge of those issues in the near future.

Realism is what follows. Please hold in mind the fact that New Zealand is a partner to the UK/US Five Eyes or Echelon spying agreement, which makes NZ a willing and complicit partner in the multitude of International Crimes and Aggressions around our planetary home!

If you are not interested in reality and wish to maintain a fantasy view of the US mafia state (I also refer to it as the United States of Aggression), please stop reading now!


United States (US) – Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?
Some observations from a google search.1
In the spirit of Anzac – Lest we Forget.
NZ National Interest – What is it?
I wrote the GCSB and NZSIS asking 37 questions relating to our warmaking since the events of the 11th September 2001 known as 9/11. One question that I asked the two security services, to which they provided a substantial answer, was in respect to the definition of the National Interest2;
Most people who reside in Aotearoa New Zealand are ethical or moral characters. I’ve spoken to many of your political peers and they all desire security and peace. They also want prosperity and the ability to do the best they can for their constituents. Sure there is a bit of empire building and pork-barrelling in any game that involves people with power or seeking favour – hopefully this is usually reasonably discernible (no institution is free of corruption – the trick is to ensure that the corruption is not in the fundamentals of the system) in the relatively transparent NZ political economy.
The point being that most of the politicians I meet are reasonable people. I’ve met hundreds of local government politicians and their administrations in the work I’ve undertaken in the past several years as a public advocate in relation to the TPP treaty.
A reasonable person is the entity that the Westminster system is designed to foster and relies upon for its general consent. A reasonable and genuinely liberal character is the epitome of the classically trained enlightenment age gentleman and lady. We were approaching civilisation with liberal values in the middle of the nineteenth century with the classical philosophical observations of John Stuart Mill.3 Is the relative size of the middle class a measure of civilisation? The middle class most benefit from diverse cultural offerings and the trappings of humanistic civilisation. It is the upper middle class that lead society and set the pace of change, they are the managers and professionals and academics who provide the intellectual foundations. US middle class has been losing numbers at both the top and bottom.4
This graph highlights the effect of US government policy settings over the long term:
Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and four of the five quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains by top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar).5
The USA figures reflect a global trend, which is hardly surprising given the economic system the world largely follows is dictated from imperatives that suit USA interests. The following tract is from a 1994 assessment ‘The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American national security’ on US Foreign Policy:
The demand for new strategies for a new world springs from the assumption that the Soviet "threat" fundamentally determined US diplomacy from 1945 until the end of the Cold War. Now that the USSR has disappeared, it would seem reasonable that American security policy would change profoundly. But this view presupposes that Washington's Cold War grand strategy was--and that foreign policy in general is--a response to the pressures of other states. If, however, US security policy has been primarily determined not by external threats but by the apparent demands of America' s economy, then it would be no wonder that, despite the collapse of the Berlin Wall, those who call for new strategies are unable to devise them. Persuasively, albeit unwittingly, this is the argument that the foreign policy community advances today in its post-Cold War strategic reassessments. It is a view that traps the United States in a quandary, for as long as that community believes that America's prosperity depends upon its current national security strategy, the country cannot free itself from the exhausting and perilous task of ordering the world, a task that was supposed to end with the Cold War. To appreciate the dilemma that arises when the United States seeks its domestic well-being in sources beyond its borders, we must examine those internal imperatives that dictate our foreign policy; in other words, we must explore that policy from the inside out. 6
Only 5 years later the prophetic ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank states;
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
I’ve extracted from Bette Stockbauer’s summary of ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ (RAD)7:
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.
Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.
Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).8
One of the crucial calls by the RAD report was the following under the heading; ‘Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force’
... The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power...9
We also require dominance in space for the US and our allies (which must include NZ);
Space and Cyberspace
No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized for the better part of four decades. Weather, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites are increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed, U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996 Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded, “Space is already inextricably linked to military operations on land, on the sea, and in the air.” The report of the National Defense Panel agreed: “Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United States.”
The RAD report places space warfare in crystal clarity in the following passage;
Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants –will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and long range precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an “interim,” short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts – designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defense program – to maximize the capabilities that already exist. But these must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thoroughgoing transformation.10
This on the revolution coming in the art of war;
Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.11
Which brings us back to the commencement of this part of the report to the following statement which is the nub of the thinking.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions...12
This is the point where one then introduces the catastrophic and catalyzing event known as 9/11.
I offered evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee in respect to the then Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, where I identify clearly that the US authority’s 9/11 Commission report misrepresents the facts of that event. This evidence was not questioned by the FADT committee members bar some observations by the Hon Phil Goff in respect to the role of NZ service personnel in Iraq to gain a feed at the ‘oil for food’ trough. The questions I directed to our GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 were aimed at unravelling the 9/11 misrepresentation. Our Intelligence organisations appear to have a view of the world that doesn’t match a physical reality easily uncovered by discerning research in publicly available material.13
Made to order terrorist strike advances the project almost as if the PNAC report was a blueprint. It is of note the numerous signatories of the Rebuilding America’s Defences report that were awarded plum positions in the US administration. John Pilger awarded journalist in his film ‘Breaking the Silence’14 provides insight into the PNAC personnel and their roles;
John Pilger dissects the truth and lies in the 'war on terror'. Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies". Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".
In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination.15
The case for the US and the coalition of the willing being guilty of waging aggressive war is well made. It is also well made the case for the US being the main architect for most of the wars since 1945 which provided the closure of World War Two.16
The USA and the coalition of the willing are guilty of waging aggressive war. The aggressive war standard was determined as the test for criminality at the Nuremburg Trials organised to determine World War 2 culpability. Aggressive war encompasses all other war crimes. The US prosecutor at Nuremberg
The issue of war crimes was considered at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission in 2011.
The Star (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) reports: Bush Found Guilty of War Crimes KUALA LUMPUR: The War Crimes Tribunal has convicted former US President George W. Bush and seven of his associates as war criminals for torture and inhumane treatment of war crime victims at US military facilities.
However, being a tribunal of conscience, the five-member panel chaired by tribunal president judge Lamin Mohd Yunus had no power to enforce or impose custodial sentence on the convicted eight.
We find the witnesses, who were victims placed in detention illegally by the convicted persons and their government, are entitled to payment of reparations,” said Lamin at a public hearing held in an open court at the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War yesterday.
He added that the tribunal’s award of reparations would be submitted to the War Crimes Commission and recommended the victims to find a judiciary entity that could enforce the verdict.
The tribunal would also submit the finding and records of the proceedings to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations’ Security Council.17
The trial conducted by the Allies at the conclusion of World War Two is known as the Nuremberg Trial. It was established by the European victors to try the Germans that were scape goated for the war.18
The Nuremberg Principles for jurisdiction and the nature of the crimes they considered from the text;
Article 6.
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.
Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.19
These last are in effect part of the rationale for bringing the war crime charges before you.
And funny enough NZ has a seat at the Security Council, and has had a turn as the Council Chair in July of 2015. And most of the people of Aotearoa NZ are seekers of security and peace. Do our leadership follow the lead and desires of the people of Aotearoa NZ.
Who do we align with?
Are theses players benign and seekers of peace and security?
If the answer is yes then there is no issue, carry on. However that is not the case.
Surely it is timely to review the arrangement and work out if it suits our ethical frame.

Greg Rzesniowiecki
April 2016
1 I wrote on the GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 seeking answers to 37 questions. The answer after a 40 day extension could be summed up as we don’t look at stuff that causes us discomfort. You can have the answers see attached letter from the GCSB and NZSIS dated 12 April 2016. (Note 29 Jan 2018 - dropbox link to the GCSB and NZSIS answers here:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/t50e1u35uk3q4nk/2016-04-12-OIA%20Request-Greg%20Rzesniowiecki-Response.pdf?dl=0  I have since followed up with more OIA requests on similar matters, see blogpost from Dec 22 2016:  http://values-compasspointsinaposttruthworld.blogspot.co.nz/2016/12/working-on-open-egalitarian-and.html more soon)
2 Image capture from above letter.
After the financial crisis of 2007–08, inequality has further increase. As William Lazonick puts it:
"Five years after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are high, and the stock markets are booming. Yet most Americans are not sharing in the recovery. While the top 0.1% of income recipients – which include most of the highest-ranking corporate executives – reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid."
6 Schwarz, Benjamin C.: ‘The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American national security’ Salmagundi: a quarterly of the humanities & social sciences 101-102 [Winter/Spring 1994] , p.182-211: http://0-literature.proquest.com.fama.us.es/searchFulltext.do?id=R01512115&divLevel=0&area=abell&forward=critref_ft
8 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" – Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony, Summary by Bette Stockbauer; ‘Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm
12 Pages 50 and 51 of RAD and 62-63 of the pdf.
14 Breaking the Silence, watch it here – must watch made in 2004 and shows clearly the illegality of the War on Terror waged by the US and the coalition of the willing: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/breaking-the-silence/
15 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/breaking-the-silence/ I recommend that you watch the film so you apprehend the thesis offered for it is valid and actionable.
16 It is well established the US is a war criminal. The issue is ‘what to do about it?’ Can we carry on being an ally and trading partner to the largest despot on the planet, one who is world policeman in Pax Americana? Who can continue and maintain their professed status as a humanitarian, following humanitarian law?
18 The Nuremberg Trials only considered a few of the possible candidates. Many German professionals and military personnel were uplifted to the USA in Operation Paperclip: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html