“Lying is the Modus Operandi of the Whole System.”
February 11, 2015
This is a hot-off-the-presses and explosive interview by WeAreChange’s Luke Rudkowski with the first and only cabinet-ranking official from a G8 nation to have publicly stated a belief in extraterrestrials: the impressively sprightly 91-year-old, The Hon. Paul Hellyer.
Paul Theodore Hellyer, PC is a Canadian engineer, politician, writer and commentator who has had a long and varied career, which included being Canada’s Minister of Defense. Hellyer is the longest-serving current member of the Privy Council.
Hellyer goes into detail about his face-to-face meetings between US officials and of these officials’ direct experience with extraterrestrials and about the sharing of alien technology with humans, under the aegis of US Black Budget programs.
Hellyer suggests that the reality of UFOs and aliens and the official secrecy and the hoarding of information regarding same, is inextricably tied to the plans of of a powerful, fascist group of people, who plan to institute, by means of extreme force and genocide, a completely fascist New World Order (although he does not use that last term, specifically).
This is one of the themes of his recently-released book, ‘The Money Mafia: The World in Crisis.’ [Much to my surprise, an FKTV subscriber has informed me that I am personally cited twice in this book – so I’ve got to buy it, now!]
He suggests that the full disclosure of the alien reality on Earth is something that could help foil the large-scale genocidal plans, which this fascist group has planned for
the people of Earth.
To this end, Hellyer advocates Amnesty for all participants in Black Budget human-alien projects, so that they can be held immune from the crimes they were forced to commit while employed at these jobs and so that they can come forward without fear of reprisals
for breaking their oaths of secrecy and freely share their information about these projects, which are illegal, in and of themselves, having been conducted without any legal oversight, with the use of US Taxpayer money.
Hellyer also suggests that official ET disclosure must come sooner, rather than later, as the current trajectory of US-dominated geopolitics can only lead the planet to disaster.
To find out more about Paul Hellyer and his new book, check out:
One thing I love about the present time is how SO many people are aware. So many people have awakened or are in the process of doing so. Those who have been doing this for decades are no longer feeling like lone voices in the wilderness of colonized post industrial dystopian society.
So much that got me labeled as crazy, ignored, mocked, shunned etc for most of my life has now become central to global intellectual discourse. People are coming together to learn, grow and actively solve the truly huge problems facing humanity and our beautiful planet.
I’m so grateful! It’s also a novel but wonderful feeling to be a part of the zeitgeist, thinking about and discussing the same range of issues and ideas.
I bet a lot of you are also feeling this sense of amazement and relief- “I’m not alone!”. We are all facing these big problems together.
I have long appreciated Charles Eisenstein’s perspective and writing. I think his essay today is particularly relevant to the theme of Spirit In Action.
I started this blog to share my perspective that spiritual growth and political activism are both necessary but not sufficient to solve the vast mess our species currently faces.
I hoped others would appreciate the idea. I also hoped I would meet people who share this perspective, which seemed somewhat unpopular with both groups(spiritual seekers and political activists), except for Starhawk, ReClaiming Covens, a lot of Native activists, and a scattering of others from various other groups.
I believe that when enough people act decisively on both sides (ie personal/internal spiritual work along with political activism, collective action) the seemingly intractable problems of our age will rapidly become solvable.
If you search for Charles Eisenstein on this blog there is a link to his book Sacred Economics free to read online, or download. A full internet search on him should provide a veritable feast of interesting stuff.
What is Action?It seems that a few people misread my catalog of the “jaded activist’s” dismissals of various tactics as my own personal disapproval of those tactics. That was not my intent. I especially value the tactics that disrupt the governing stories of our society, and unravel the narratives that underlie oppression and ecocide. The point I was trying to make is that for any “action” one proposes, there is always a reason why it won’t work, why it won’t be enough, why it is a drop in the bucket, why it won’t bring deep enough change… why it is all hopeless.
Personally, of all the tactics I enumerated, I tend to favor civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action the most highly, but even petitions and orderly, permitted protest marches can sometimes be useful. Just setting the record straight here: Charles is not telling everyone to sit at home “being the change.”
On the other hand, I also want to expand the scope of what we consider to be “action.” Conditioned by the ideology of instrumental utilitarianism, which values actions according to their calculable, measurable outcomes (and which is the essential mindset of the investor), we tend to value the big visible actions more than the private, invisible ones that actually take just as much courage, or even more. For every big-name climate activist out there, there are a hundred humble people holding society together with their compassion and service. I cannot emphasize this point enough. I refuse to accept a theory of change in which the humble grandmother taking care of a terminally ill little boy is doing something less important for our future than, say, Bill McKibben.
This is one of my core beliefs: that every act sends ripples out through the matrix of causality; that every act has cosmic significance.
Yet I am not offering these small acts as substitutes for political engagement. I believe that a well-rounded person will engage on many levels, and that when the moment comes, the courage cultivated on the intimate level will translate into the courage to step in front of the riot police. Both come from the same place.
According to our personal qualities and life circumstances, different kinds of action call to us at different times. I want to expand our understanding of what “action” is, to support people in trusting this call. Because our deep mythology valorizes certain kinds of actions, we are often left with the feeling that we are not taking significant action. Furthermore, even those who attempt the actions that are most strongly validated by our dominant theory of change often feel like they aren’t doing enough. Is the state of the environment better or worse than it was 40 years ago? Is transnational finance stronger or weaker? How about the military-industrial complex? The agrochemical industry? Many activists are coming to believe that more of the same is not enough; that we need to act from a different place — and that requires inner work and interpersonal work. i think many common tactics used by environmentalists and political progressives are actually counterproductive — not because they are insufficiently clever, but because they encode some of the same deep worldview from which ecocide and oppression arise as well. I won’t go there now though.
When someone focuses on one level of service to the exclusion of the rest for too long, the result will be a growing dissatisfaction and a desire to grow. One way that growth happens is through the broadening of the scope of one’s vision: for example, to learn about the web of economic and political relationships that is driving ecocide, or to become aware of oppression within one’s own organization, or to recognize one’s own self-delusion, sanctimoniousness, or violence. As we grow, the natural object of our care grows too, and there may be a shift in what calls to us. Someone unaware of climate change isn’t going to do anything to stop climate change.
I think the discomfort that some of the commenters have expressed with the idea of sitting in retreat (and believe me, their discomfort echoes my own) comes from two sources. One is the feeling I referred to above, that “I’m not doing enough.” I’m not doing enough and I can’t do enough and perhaps if I make myself uncomfortable enough about it, I can goad myself into greater efforts. The second is the natural discomfort that arises when the time to grow, to move, to expand is upon us. I suspect I am not the only one who is in the Space Between Stories, not the only one who feels the call to deeper and more effective service. Nor am I the only one who doesn’t have a clue what that looks like. The caution I am offering (to myself mostly) is not to temporarily alleviate that discomfort by reflexively adopting familiar or prescribed kinds of action, just so I can assure myself I’m doing something. Maybe something new wants to emerge. Maybe I need to stop all this traveling and speaking. Maybe that’s getting in the way of my next step. Maybe I need to get my hands in the soil more. Maybe I need to drop my knowledge for a while and learn something radically new, which will then integrate with my old knowledge in ways I cannot imagine.
“You know, I think LeBron did the right thing,” Obama told PEOPLE two days after that Cavaliers-Nets game.”We forget the role that Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe and Bill Russell played in raising consciousness,” the president continued.
“We went through a long stretch there where [with] well-paid athletes the notion was: just be quiet and get your endorsements and don’t make waves,” he also said. “LeBron is an example of a young man who has, in his own way and in a respectful way, tried to say, ‘I’m part of this society, too’ and focus attention.”
“I’d like to see more athletes do that,” he added. “Not just around this issue, but around a range of issues.”
At a time where police unions across the country are calling athletes pathetic, ignorant, and demanding apologies for wearing these shirts, it’s very refreshing to see our president stand up for the social consciousness of athletes and even give their actions some historical context.
“For some, racial inequality and fear are raw realities every day, and anything inspiring in American history rings false and remote. For others, the call to reflect on injustice feels like a personal accusation. But we are caught in this history together.” READ MORE »
(Excerpt-click the link above to read this article on Truthout)
In the case of the Zapatistas, it is the desire for a world outside of neoliberal exploitation, in which life is not disposable. Or, as the Zapatistas are fond of saying, a world in which many worlds can fit.
For 10 years now, the Zapatistas have been living autonomously, creating a world not consumed by capitalism’s manufactured desire. It would be naive to assume that there haven’t been serious stumbling blocks to overcome, but nevertheless they have managed what many believe to be impossible, a life outside of capitalism’s culture of disposability. They have refused to be relegated to an undignified living death as excess and created a new world based on dignity, autonomy and sovereignty. The Zapatistas haven’t moved with the speed that many thinkers and activists would like, but that is perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from them. In the First Declaration, they note that they are the product of 500 years of anti-colonial resistance, and each communiqué since then has highlighted the continued need to resist exploitation and exclusion in all their forms. Only through continuous resistance can people realize the memory of a non-disposable future. The process of de-colonialization and resistance to dehumanizing forces is never-ending, so patience is by far the most important virtue. Or, as the Zapatista axiom states, “we walk slowly because we are going far.”
Until all areas of oppression, genocide and state sponsored terror against the disadvantaged are cleansed of this spiritual and moral cancer, we will not have peace or progress toward a just and prosperous future for all.
If you can do nothing else at least remember the forgotten people who are suffering invisibly from Palestine to Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, much of Africa and South America and the Pacific, in even the US and Canada the ongoing genocide of First Nations has yet to let up.
We can speak out. We can pray. We can boycott and divest from companies who profit from these miseries.
I disagree with this author on one point- I believe that boycott and divestment from Israeli corporations that profit from the occupation is also a valid choice that respects the Israeli companies and people who oppose the occupation instead of acting as though Israeli citizens and Jewish people are a monolithic entity like the Borg.
Imho it is racist to lump ALL of ANY ethnic group into such a monolithic nonsense.
People are individuals with hearts, minds and moral choice-how insulting to act as though Israeli citizens cannot choose to themselves divest from and boycott corporations that are endangering their lives by placing profits ahead of human rights and safety of everyone in the region!
Editor’s Note: We invited the Relgious Action Center of the Reform Movement and J Street, both of which have opposed the Presbyterian divestment, to respond to those who support the Presbyterian resoluiton. Neither agreed to do so. Tikkun has sought to be a safe space in which both sides could present their thinking. But it’s hard to get the two sides in the Jewish world to sit together and discuss the issues, since anyone who supports even the very limited form of divestment proposed by the Presbyterians is, as J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami said recently, crossing “a red line” and hence, in the view of the Jewish establishment, automatically suspect of being anti-Semitic. We believe a public debate is a more healthy way to conduct this discussion, and so we are disappointed that neither J Street nor the Reform Movement accepted our invitation..–Rabbi Michael Lerner
Presbyterian Divestment – A Jewish Perspective
by Cantor Michael Davis, Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council
The first time I wore a kippa and talit outside of a synagogue setting was four year ago outside a hotel in downtown Chicago overlooking the Chicago river. I was singing with a group of my colleagues, local Reform cantors, to protest the mistreatment of hotel workers. I had the privilege of getting to know worker leaders, edit a national clergy report into worker conditions and organize my fellow clergy in Chicago. This was an exciting time – we took over the lobby of a Hyatt hotel with a flashmob, met with senior executives, collaborated with Christian clergy, traveled to other cities and on and on. Last summer, four years after their last contract expired, the Hyatt workers finally won a fair labor contract from management.
The lessons I learned from this successful worker justice campaign have relevance for me in thinking about how to end Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank.
The lasting lesson this experience taught me was that in any dispute between two parties of disparate power, the more powerful party will object to the involvement of third parties. In the case of the Hyatt labor dispute, management argued that this should be resolved between management and labor; the public should stay out of it. Israel, is by far, the more powerful side in the Israel-Palestine conflict: militarily, financially, politically. In Israel’s case, American Jews are told that only the Israelis have the right to an opinion on the Palestinians. After all, their future is at stake not ours. Americans, including Jews, have been accused of anti-Semitism or being fellow travelers of Jew-haters. We are told to stay out of it.
Yet our involvement in Israel-Palestine as Jews and as Americans is necessary and valuable. In the case of Hyatt, management was clearly disturbed by the public’s engagement with the issue. Hyatt Corporation’s most senior executives devoted many hours to meetings with clergy – particularly rabbis – who supported the workers. In the case of Israel, the international movement speaking up for Palestinian human rights is of great concern to Israel.
In Detroit, in a couple of days, the Presbyterian General Assembly will debate divesting from three companies that are complicit in Israel’s military occupation and colonization of the West Bank.
I, an Israeli national who served three years in the IDF, and who has served the Jewish cmmunity in Chicago for over 20 years, support the right of our Presbyterian friends to freely explore their conscience on divesting from American companies that benefit from Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank. I will be at the Presbyterian General Assembly arguing for divestment. I believe, along with a growing number of Jews and Israelis that BDS is the best non-violent option to stop the downward spiral to inevitable violence. For Jews – and for Christians – divestment is a principled position. As a supporter of BDS myself, I know how much effort the mainstream Jewish community is putting into shutting down this debate and excluding BDS supporters from the Jewish community. I would challenge those who are trying
to shut down the Presbyterian debate to show how the motives of those supporting divestment are anything less than honest. This is unworthy of us as Jews and particularly egregious when directed at our Christian neighbors.
First, we should note that under international and American law, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is illegal. Any business involved in the occupation is therefore illegal too. That alone should be enough to keep American companies away from the Occupation. The Israeli government argues that the occupation is necessary in order to keep Israel safe. How does building Jewish cities on stolen Palestinian land or the daily harassment and humiliation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians make Israelis more safe? All indications are that antagonizing Palestinians imperils Israeli lives.
But more importantly, for us as Americans and Jews, the argument itself is irrelevant. The law does not recognize Israel’s perceived self-interest as legitimate grounds for making another population suffer. Jewish tradition teaches the same lesson. On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, we read of the education of the Prophet Jonah. Jonah was commanded by God to prophesy to the city of Nineveh: let them repent their evil ways and be saved. But Jonah boards a boat to escape that mission. Rashi on the first verse of the Book of Jonah explains Jonah’s thinking: “the non-Jews will likely repent. If I prophesy to them, they will turn to God. And so, I will have shown Israel in a poor light since the Jews do not heed the words of the prophets”. Jonah was willing to let a non-Jewish city be destroyed, fearing what saving them might mean for the Jews. The ancient rabbis selected this reading for Yom Kippur to teach us that even when saving others in immediate danger now may imperil Jews later, we must choose to save our fellow human beings. If that is the reason for the Occupation, then Jewish tradition rejects that argument.
Let us also remember that the Presbyterian resolution does not call for divestment from the State of Israel, from Israeli companies, from individual Israelis or even from Jewish-owned companies. Rather the resolution calls for divestment from three American multinationals implicated in documented human rights abuses.
The Presbyterian General Assembly will consider divestment from three companies: Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola.
Caterpillar (CAT) sells heavy equipment used by the Israeli government in military and police actions to demolish Palestinian homes and agricultural lands. It also sells heavy equipment used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the construction of illegal Israeli settlements, roads solely used by illegal Israeli seIlers, and the construction of the Separation Wall extending across the 1967 “Green Line” into East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The number of outstanding demolition orders in East Jerusalem alone has been estimated at up to 20,000.
Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) provides biometric ID equipment to monitor only Palestinians at several checkpoints inside the West Bank. 2.4 million West Bank Palestinians are required to
submit to lengthy waits as well as the mandatory biometric scanning, while Israelis and other passport holders transit without scanning or comparable delays. The biometric ID is also used to regulate residency rights of non-Jews in Jerusalem. Since 1967, Israel has revoked more than 14,000 Jerusalem residency cards, with 4,557 being revoked in 2008 alone. HPQ sells hardware to the Israeli Navy that enables it to maintain the ongoing naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. This blockade has included interdicting humanitarian supplies and attacking Palestinian fishermen.
Motorola Solutions (MSI) Motorola Solutions provided an integrated communications system, known as “Mountain Rose,” to the Israeli government which uses it for military communications. It also provided ruggedized cell phones to the Israeli army utilized in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The company also sold wide-area surveillance systems for installation in the illegal Israeli settlements.
Plainly put, corporate revenue is built on the back of Palestinian suffering. And Jewish tradition is clear in its rejection of ill-gained profits.
Caterpillar profits from the destruction of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of Palestinian orchards by supplying the armor-plated and weaponized bulldozers that are used for such demolition work. Destroying homes is not a Jewish value.
Motorola Solutions profits from many aspects of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including developing perimeter surveillance systems installed around dozens of Jewish- only settlements in the West Bank, built on Palestinian land. Defending stolen property is not a Jewish value.
Hewlett-Packard provides ongoing support and maintenance to a biometric ID system installed in Israeli checkpoints in the occupied West Bank which deprive Palestinians of the freedom of movement in their own land, allows the Israeli military occupation to grant or deny special privileges to the civilians under its control, and denies residency rights to a number of nonJews in Jerusalem by virtue of not being Jewish. Discrimination and segregation are not Jewish values.
Christians, like Jews, have a special interest in what happens in the Holy Land and a special responsibility to its peoples. The Presbyterian Church should be free debate the issues on their merits without fear of being branded as anti-Semites or any of the other harsh responses that have been circulating recently in the Jewish community. Friends allow friends to have their own opinion and to freely discuss their ethical choices.
Let us show our Christian neighbors the same respect that we expect and enjoy from them. Hillel said: Love your neighbor as yourself, this is the whole Torah.
To Support Israelis Fighting The Occupation, Presbyterians Should Vote “YES” On Divestment by M.J. Rosenb erg
A number of people have written to ask if I support the motion before the Presbyterian Church to divest from three companies which produce machinery Israel uses to sustain the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza.The companies are Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola.
Why those three companies?
Caterpillar manufactures the bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes to make way for settlements. Hewlett-Packard supplies Israel with the hardware to maintain the blockade of Gaza and the software to enable Israel to segregate and separate Palestinians at West Bank checkpoints. Motorola provides the surveillance equipment used to monitor Palestinian civilians throughout the West Bank.
These three are to the occupation what Dow Chemical was to the U.S. war in Vietnam.
The Presbyterian Church, with some $9 billion in investment assets, is being asked to divest from all three companies,
Actually, I don’t understand why any religious group would invest in any of these companies in the first place. All three are members in good standing of the military industrial complex and have been involved in unsavory activities around the globe. But that argument is for another day.
Right now, the Presbyterian Church has the opportunity to say NO to the occupation in a tangible, concrete way. It has the opportunity to support Palestinians without harming Israelis. I can hardly imagine any progressive voting NO on this resolution, choosing big corporations over the people of both Palestine and Israel.
Don’t overlook the latter: the Israelis. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe a few million. good Israelis who are desperate for outside help to end the occupation. Due to the quirks of their political system, they are saddled with Binyamin Netanyahu and his coalition of religious extremists and settlers. Time after time, they have looked to the United States for help and, time after time, the Netanyahu government and its lobby have blocked the Obama administration from providing any.
This resolution provides hope.
For the record, I oppose the Boycott, Divestment & Sanction of Israel in general because I believe that the BDS approach targets all Israelis, not just the government and certainly not just the occupation. The Presbyterian resolution targets only the occupation which is fair and right. If I thought it was anti-Israel in any way, I would not support it. But I believe that being pro-Israel requires opposing the occupation.
This resolution is pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian and, above all, pro-peace. It must be approved. Voting “NO” is a vote for the occupation.