THE LOGIC OF EMPIRE

                                


                                                                        



 

The following is my latest submission to The Albany (OR) Democratic-Herald, one of a dwindling number of local newspapers that recognizes it's duty to provide a public forum for its readers. It is the third in a series of guest columns trying to educate the public about the imperial nature of the United States. 

 

I encourage those putting all their energy into resisting the policies of the current government to consider the connection between the assault on public institutions and U.S.-sponsored violence abroad.  Replacing one government with yet another willing to continue a policy of endless war is not enough to achieve their goals. Liberals could join the growing conservative antiwar movement, if both stopped “othering” those with differing political outlooks.

Anyone who has played the game of Risk knows world domination requires a long-term strategy. Americans, having been raised to believe they are not citizens of an empire, do not understand this also applies to U.S. foreign policy. Its goal is not defense, but global conquest. It is vital to understand this, because every empire falls. Ours will be no exception, and it will be devastating to all of us.

Our empire managers have led us into endless war using the claim that “American interests” are at stake, but Venezuela, Russia, China, and Iran are enemies because they threaten the interests of average Americans. The real threat is to the profits and power of those who seek to dominate the world’s resources. The ultrarich, often from the shadows, use their wealth to persuade western governments to wage war on any nation that resists their dictates.

In this real-life game of Risk, fossil fuels are critical. They power the machinery of commerce and war.  Israel is crucial to controlling oil-rich West Asia. Russia, also replete with fossil fuels, is the key bridge between Asia and Europe. Rising economic superpower China, while oil-poor, is seen as the ultimate prize.

African and South American nations are not dangers, but sources of cheap raw materials. The Empire assures that these resources remain cheap by stunting development, keeping in debt bondage, and periodically attacking governments it cannot subvert. Venezuela, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, is only the latest example.

Palestinians are not directly resisting the Empire. They are resisting ethnic cleansing by a rogue nation whose success is critical to US plans for global domination. That makes Palestinians de facto enemies, justifying the Gaza genocide in the minds of leaders of both parties and those who fund their campaigns.

As Eisenhower pointed out, the cost of militarism is poverty and hunger. It has led to homelessness, lack of access to medical care and premature death. How many Americans would be saved if the trillions spent on war were redirected to programs that promote the interests of average Americans over those of Wall Street war profiteers in the weapons, oil, tech, and banking industries?

The Trump administration has responded to military-driven deficits with austerity, literally taking food from children’s mouths while denying medical care to the poor, whose numbers are growing rapidly. Billions are spent to brutalize scapegoated immigrants while billionaires enjoy trillions in tax cuts.

Both parties share responsibility, however, as they have been united in their support for every war since the end of WWII. We must ask whose interests they are serving, and who benefits from abridging our rights, which inevitably accompanies war.

Obama was the first to claim authority to kill anyone overseas he deemed a terrorist, including Americans. In 2011, he pressured Congress to give Presidents the right to arrest citizens and place them in military custody indefinitely without charges.  Now that Trump has begun creating an enemies list, there is nothing to stop him from executing American citizens he labels “domestic terrorists” but a Supreme Court that has given him nearly unlimited power.

 

It's time to stop fighting each other and unite to disempower the real enemy within.

 

The article above was published in the Albany Democrat-Herald/ Corvallis Gazette-Times on January 3, 2026.

 

THE MUSSOLINI TEST

It is often said of Mussolini's fascist dictatorship that "At least he made the trains run on time." The point is that without freedom, an authoritarian government can create a society that is efficient. What people who have not lived through fascism do not seem to appreciate is the high cost that comes with that efficiency. It is also often pointed out that democracy is a messy business, but too many do not appreciate their own part in creating the disorder that makes fascism appear to be preferable. Is it possible that in a democracy we could in some sense "make trains run on time?" I propose that a test of whether we are capable of governing ourselves is whether or not we can make freeway traffic flow smoothly. 

For a democratic society to be viable, citizens must understand the responsibility that comes with the power to make decisions that affect us all. In the same way, drivers have to understand that their decisions on the road determine whether traffic will flow smoothly, to the benefit of all. The individual determines whether decisions based on short-sided self-interest upset the orderly process of getting from one point to another or whether they will frustrate our common goal of getting to our desired destinations efficiently. Only when the great majority of citizens act in the interest of the common goal of driving the US in the direction of  democracy will democracy become possible.

I was driving to Portland over the Christmas weekend when I experienced an event that showed how difficult it will be to establish democracy in the chaotic society that the United States has become. Anyone who knows Portland knows that it has been a hotbed of resistance to authority at least since the Vietnam War. It witnessed some of the largest demonstrations in the country against the effort to impose corporate Empire upon the citizens of a distant land while trying to shut down resistance by its own citizens. As I was crawling along the freeway for the last 20 miles, I asked myself how in a city that embodies coordinated resistance to government power have citizens become so blind to the effects of their individual actions? How can it be that a city that recently saw one of the highest turnouts in support of the Occupy movement people could fail to see that only by acting according to what was best for all could they achieve their common goal of getting home as quickly as possible so they could spend time enjoying the holidays with family and friends?

I believe the answer is that while Portlanders truly want democracy to achieve what is best for all, they do so out of self-interest. They understand that our government does not represent us, but fail to recognize that in a democracy a government can only be made to serve their interests when voters understand how their decisions affect us all. That is not to say that Portlanders don't consider this when voting but like Americans everywhere, they do not make it a habit to consider the effects on society as a whole in their individual decisions. There are of course many exceptions to this rule, but the fact that there are not enough citizens who think in this way to make traffic flow smoothly proves that this way of thinking is not as pervasive in the Portland area as they would hope.

Of course, the phenomenon of people who want to create a society in which the government operates in the best of all failing to order their personal lives around this commitment is not unique to Portland. The effects of this failure are being felt around the nation as a whole and by extension, the citizens of nations around the world. The actions of a US government unchecked by the collective power of the citizens it is supposed to represent are the greatest threat to the survival of human civilization in history. Only by acting in cooperation can Americans gain control of the government and save themselves and future generations around the world from the scourge of a permanent fascist New World Order.

To return to the comparison of driving on the freeway to directing a government to head a nation in the direction that the majority of people want to go, consider how easy it would be to make traffic flow efficiently if drivers keep in mind that driving conditions depend on the individual decisions each of them make. All it would take is to remember what each of us learned in driving safety class in high school: Keep a safe distance between cars by allowing one car length for every 10 MPH you are travelling. This allows for safe braking in an emergency and for smooth lane changes, both of which act to allow for the mistakes of others. By analogy, keeping in mind that the country can only move forward when citizens allow a respectful distance between competing interests of our fellow travelers in reaching their individual goals is the only way to avoid collisions of these interests that prevent us all from arriving at our selected destinations.

Imagine a freeway having become a parking lot because of stalled traffic, with cars spread out along a 10 mile stretch of freeway. If these cars were travelling 60 MPH they would cover that distance in 10 minutes. If the drivers are stuck in stop-and-go traffic they might be lucky to travel 10 MPH on average, making a 10 minute trip take a full hour. At the risk of stretching the analogy, I would argue that the US government is stuck in gridlock because Americans have become unwilling to allow space for differences, aggressively pursuing what they perceive to be in their self-interest while ignoring the fact that they are collectively responsible for where we find ourselves at a given time. If those who wanted to travel slowly were to stay to the right and allow those on the left to pass them, each of them would get to our destination at their chosen time. 

This is the roadmap to democracy. Every citizen can choose their own destination, but they cannot get there without mutual cooperation. None of us should expect or want to tell others where they must go. When each of us values our personal space over the right of others to share it, some are forced to travel with traffic to a destination others chose. They may miss their chance to go in the direction they choose if others do not give them the space to exit the freeway and go their own way. While each of us would like to believe that we can control the direction we take, most of have been cut off or blocked from the exit of our choosing at one time or another.

If we try to assert the right to choose to exit a road that seems to go in the wrong direction, we may cause a chain of braking that can bring a halt to each of us reaching our chosen destination. On the road, this may even cause a chain of accidents that can make us arrive too late to accomplish our goal in traveling in the first place. In civil society, those who threaten to upset the orderly flow of events by such means as Occupying public spaces are seen as dangerous and are subject to infringements of their civil liberties. In either instance, each of us bears some responsibility if we are not obeying the rules of the road. In the same way that tailgaters endanger others by making lane changes difficult, every one of us who impedes the movement of the nation as a whole toward democracy bears a part of the responsibility for our collective failure to get there.

Democracy is a messy business, but it would not be if we understood that we are so interdependent that we must consider the effects of our individual actions on others and on society as a whole. We can continue to accept the myth that each of us travels the road of life according to our own decisions, or we can accept that we do not control our destinies independent of those of others. Each of us is subject to the effects of decisions made by others. We can choose to be part of the decision making process or we can allow others to make those decisions for us, as Mussolini did for Italians in a fascist society where corporate interests were placed above those of the people. That is what happens when people do not work together to achieve common goals in a democratic way. A complex society can only realize these goals with the help of a government that puts the interests of all above those of the most aggressive among us. Such a government cannot exist unless the people it represents assure that all are represented equally.

I predict that when America passes the Mussolini test, it will have proved that democracy is possible. When the freeways of America move smoothly, Americans will have demonstrated the capacity to determine their collective destinations by allowing each other the freedom and means to choose their own paths. For those who have never driven on a freeway because they live in a part of the country where a tradition of private ownership of roads has persisted or where they have allowed government to make every driver individually pay the cost of using roads that belong to all of us, this will be a particularly meaningful change. 

The United States has a system of government designed to allow the existence of a democracy. The road to democracy has not been smooth, but Americans have always been able to get back on the path when the collective interests of all have been threatened by the economic elite that would choose their destiny for them. Americans have the ability to make any changes the majority collectively wants when individuals choose to accept a few basic principles of democracy: respect for differences of opinions, awareness of our interdependence, a willingness to accept the will of the majority and an expectation that our government does the same.

Is there hope for democracy in America and the world? That depends on us. If enough individuals show to others the value of recognizing our interdependence by less aggressively pursuing our individual goals, we might just teach enough others to consider how the effects of their actions on others influence our individual and collective  destinies. The simple expedient of demonstrating the importance of common courtesy on the road would be a great way to start. 

ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM

In 1941, German-born sociologist and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm explored the roots of fascism in the seminal Escape From Freedom. He concluded that fascism could arise in any nation whose people allow themselves to submit to authoritarian government. Sinclair Lewis had written in his 1939 novel It Can’t Happen Here that fascism could arise in America if the collective consciousness of its people became one in which populist demagogues promising relief from the Depression were seen as the answer to economic suffering.

As events have proven, fascism can indeed arise in America. The citizens of the United States grew fat and complacent after WW II, believing that it was their  manifest destiny to prosper, never questioning where the source of much of that wealth and American power. As the military-industrial complex grew and became a threat to the rest of the world, Americans were willfully ignorant of the suffering that our profligate consumer-oriented society was based on. The Vietnam War was supported by a majority of Americans who did not have to fight it for years, while 58,000 men and women gave their lives for corporate Empire. 

Fromm’s thesis was that there are two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. He argued that as children we are free of much of the decision-making that adults have to engage in. As we grow older and are forced to make more decisions for ourselves, anxiety and uncertainty result. Many therefore escape from the freedom to make choices about their own lives by accepting what they are told by the corporate media, politicians and their peers. They refuse to grow up and accept responsibility for making their own informed decisions about political questions or their role in a society that increasingly functions to benefit the rich.  

Freedom to is the freedom to make our own choices according to our own values and beliefs. This requires questioning the prevailing ideas of our society. If we are unwilling to do so, we surrender the freedom to have a role in determining our individual and collective destinies in exchange for relief from the anxieties that come from challenging orthodox beliefs that often do not reflect our own values. This is what we have done in giving up on a broken political system that is the result of our willful ignorance, complacency and lack of sense of social responsibility. We have allowed fascism to emerge in the cradle of democracy.

It is not too late to save ourselves from being enslaved in a fascist New World Order. If we examine our deepest beliefs we will find that most of us do possess a sense of social responsibility. That means that we have a responsibility to work together to mold a new society in which the needs of the least among us are as important as our own. 

We must give up on the naïve belief that in a fascist system all have an equal chance to live the American dream, which is quickly becoming the American nightmare. Those of us who have shirked our responsibility to think for ourselves must learn to we can't avoid our responsibility to each other and call ourselves free. We must realize that in a society governed by a wealthy few, we do not have the power to control our individual destiny, let alone our collective fate. We can know true freedom only if we work together to become a society in which we are all free from want, free from oppression and free from the threat of endless war.  

Once upon a time there was a truly United States. It took the misery of the Great Depression to make us realize that a system designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many would inevitably become oppressive and that only together could we take back the reins of government. Were it not for the social safety net that is now under attack, since 2008 we would have been in an even greater Depression. 

Those who accept the myth of the corporate media and politicians that "creeping socialism” is bankrupting the nation are living in an artificial reality divorced from that of most Americans. When we seek to escape our responsibilities as sovereign citizens by letting an economic elite make the decisions that affect all of us, we are submitting to the authoritarian mindset that is at the root of fascism in every place that it has taken hold. 

If rugged individuality is the defining characteristic of Americanism, we should learn to think for ourselves. No one is truly free in a society of people who do not feel any responsibility toward others.

Top of Form

AMERICANISM DEFINED

The people of the United States face threats to their safety, health and economic well being that are not being addressed by Congress. Congress has a favorability rating in the single digits, yet we continue to re-elect the vast majority of its members every two years. The reason is that most Americans seem afraid to face the greatest threat: that the Democratic experiment may fail because of rabid partisanship, for which we are ultimately responsible. The dangers our government is failing to address pose a threat to the rest of the world given the economic and military dominance of the United States over other nations.

If we want a government of, by and for the People, we must achieve consensus on where we want our leaders to take us. That requires forging a consensus on what kind of America we want to leave our children. This is the crux of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. If we cannot agree on what we want our elected officials to do, then they will continue to do as they please. That is generally to keep themselves in office by catering to the interests of the special interests that pay for their obscenely expensive election campaigns.

Our task as Americans is thus to end the ability of the moneyed few to control the electoral process. As long as we continue to labor under the delusion that one party or the other represents our interests, we will continue to fight each other instead of the plutocracy that controls our government by virtue of their wealth and power. When both parties concede that they must continue competing for special interest money, supporting either unconditionally makes us complicit in a system that is driving America away from the path to true democracy.

Democracy cannot exist where a people are not good enough to rule themselves.That means a society that does not assure that the rights and needs of all of its citizens is not a true democracy, which is predicated on the notion that every citizen has equal opportunity to thrive in that system. It does not mean that wealth is redistributed by the government. It means that one of the roles of government is to ensure that an economic aristocracy does not arise to take control of it. We as a nation have failed to do that.

We are a society where teachers are demonized for contributing to the economic decline because they dare to demand decent pay and health care in exchange for preparing our children to be productive and responsible citizens.The assault on teachers is just one piece of the general effort to wage class warfare on the worker. In attempting to systematically destroy unions by taking away the right to collective bargaining that Reagan once said was fundamental to democracy, the wealthy are attacking the entire middle class. If we do not realize that and work together to protect ourselves, we will fail in our duty to leave our children a world better than we found it.

Jefferson taught that democracy cannot survive without educated citizens. He knew that a People who forget its history is condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. The battle between Americans like Jefferson who wanted a nation of free people and those who refused to abandon the notion that a few privileged individuals had a divine right to rule over the many has been going on since the founding of the nation. We are at a time in history when we must finally finish the Revolution born in the blood shed by those who gave their lives for the freedom of all people, including generations of men and women around the world yet unborn.

If we are to ensure that the last, best hope for Mankind does not perish from the Earth then we must put aside the artificial distinctions that divide us and work together to end control of the government by special interests. That means that we must decide what it is that we can all agree is the minimum expectation of those seeking our votes in 2012 and beyond. In my view, that is their pledge to support a constitutional amendment to end the ability of wealthy and powerful special interests to control the electoral process.

This is a collective, nonpartisan cause that will require us to reject the fallacy that the unique characteristic that makes one an American is the individual freedom to do as one pleases with no regard to the effect of our actions on others. The true character of those who founded our nation was defined by their willingness to put their lives and sacred honor on the line for the sake of ensuring liberty and justice for all people around the Earth forever.

WINNING THE CLASS WAR FOR THE 99%

There have been a slew of constitutional amendments introduced in Congress recently, each claiming to “reverse Citizens United.” This is the result of pressure from activists passing resolutions around the country calling for an amendment that would actually do this, which none of the amendments introduced to date would do.

Each of these amendments is limited to giving states and the federal government the right but not the obligation to control the flow of corporate money in elections. It is preposterous to expect that a Congress dominated by corporate money would even consider using such a power if by some miracle the thing were passed. Do not be fooled by these generally well-meaning efforts by members of Congress trapped in the mentality that they must work on only what is possible now. The fact that they are working with colleagues who have accepted the self-fulfilling prophecy that they have no choice but to sell their loyalty to the highest corporate bidder is no excuse. While some willingly sell their loyalty, others feel this is the only way that they can make a difference in Congress because they have to be re-elected to do the public any good.  

The 99% cannot give up on the electoral process if they want to effect real change. They need to recognize that we do have real representation in Congress, but they will only take risks when they know we are backing them. Some members of Congress have been elected and re-elected without being tainted by corporate money. Senator Bernie Sanders comes immediately to mind as an example. We have to ask the question why is he afraid to do what must be done: introduce a constitutional amendment that would abolish corporate personhood outright? He knows as well as anyone that only by ending the power of corporations to buy members of Congress can we hope to elect those who will put the interests of We the People over those of They the Corporations. The answer may seem clear but it is not as simple as many people think.

Although Bernie doesn’t rely on corporate money to run, he has to realize that planting a dagger in the heart of the corporatocracy would invite retaliation, making himself the target of right-wing campaign PACs like Karl Roves’ Crossroads. In addition, he would be setting the corporate Democratic leadership up by making support for the amendment a campaign issue. We all saw what happened to Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner when they dared challenge Democratic leadership to put the interests of American citizens over those of their corporate Puppetmasters: Kucinich was marginalized even by real liberals in Congress like Peter DeFazio of Oregon, while Weiner was left twisting in the wind when he got caught in a scandal that had nothing to do with the performance of his duties as a Representative.

As long as Democrats and independents in Congress are cowed into following the Democratic leadership in lockstep toward the Right, voters will continue to abandon the party in disgust. Many are concluding that a party willing to be led by the nose by the same corporate entities that have wholly bought the Republican Party is not worth their support. The perception is that the difference between the two is not important enough to fight for. The Democratic Party has not so much been abandoned by their supporters so much as they have been abandoned by it.  

Democrats supporting the amendments presently in Congress fall into two categories. There are those like Max Baucus who have long ago sold themselves out to corporate interests, and those who believe that incremental change is their only choice. Baucus took in over $6 million dollars in the election cycle preceding the Democratic effort to bail out a failing medical insurance industry that was cynically labeled “reform.” The resulting gift to the corporations that comprise the medical-industrial complex was obvious. What was less obvious to many is that this was the intent of Democratic leadership when they decided to take on the issue. There are lessons here we must heed if we are going to get a constitutional amendment introduced and passed that will accomplish what the members of Congress proposing the current bills claim.



Prior to the public debate about the public option and its far worse alternatives, Rahm Emanuel put Democratic leaders on notice that single payer was off the table. Inside sources say that Howard Dean was told that he would not be a player in the debate if he could not get Democracy for America to support the public option bait-and-switch. DFA responded by claiming that their million-plus members supported the public option strategy when a simple poll would have proven otherwise. In getting other progressive leaders and members of Congress to fall in line, they managed to sell to the Democratic rank and file the self-fulfilling prophecy that single payer was “not politically possible.” 



This Machiavellian plan to satisfy corporate interests in the name of “reform” was reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s marketing of the Medicare Modernization Act that appears to have been designed to kill Medicare by establishing an unfunded prescription benefit plan whose costs were deliberately and grossly misrepresented. Among other gifts to the medical-industrial complex, pharmaceutical manufacturers were given the power to set their own prices by a ban on the government negotiating drug prices. In what came as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with how some Democrats receive underserved credit for being “liberal,” Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden crossed party lines to cast the deciding vote for this bill that is putting the viability of the Medicare program at risk.



Not surprisingly if you follow the money, Wyden introduced the only serious competitor to the public option plan, the Healthy Americans Act. It was so bad that it received bipartisan support. While quickly shelved, key elements of this mandate plan were quietly put into the Orwellian-titled “Affordable” Care Act, including massive cost shifting to the consumer that was not taken into account in the CBO analysis. As a result, health care costs continue to rise even while the Democrats proclaim victory in producing health care ”reform.” 



The bait-and-switch going on in Congress now is even more insidious and dangerous. If we do not call on these members of Congress to abandon their effort to placate the public while doing essentially nothing about the problem, the movement to abolish corporate personhood will be split and a historic opportunity lost just when the economy, the environment and the families of those serving in wars for corporate personhood cannot stand the delay. 



This is a call to action for those who understand the difference between abolishing corporate personhood and enshrining it in the constitution through an amendment that would validate the doctrine by recognizing that Congress should have the power to regulate it. If corporate personhood is abolished then there is no need to regulate corporate money going to campaigns because it will be illegal.



Those of us engaged most deeply in this modern abolition know just what is at stake. In our educational efforts we need to let the public know the danger of supporting this pig with lipstick. We can pass an amendment abolishing corporate personhood outright and win the war being waged against the 99% if we focus our efforts on making support for a proper amendment a campaign issue in 2012 and beyond.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SLAVERY

 

Today's blog is based on the essay A Brief History of Slavery, from the online book of essays Stop the Madness: The Diary of a Soldier For Peace in the War to Take Back America.

As always, if you like it, please share it.

As the international corporate terrorists enter the final stages of their attempt to impose a fascist New World Order, it behooves us to consider how Peoples have successfully overcome slavery in throughout history. The essential principle is that revolutions are never successful unless those fighting the slavery of fascism first succeed at freeing their minds from the illusion that we are separate and at war with each other rather than fascism itself. We must therefore tear down the Walls that Divide Us to organize the Army of Soldiers For Peace who have never lost a war of liberation once assembled.

Israelis fought enslavement in Egypt by accepting the belief that the only way to become free was to first become free in their own minds, then collectively decide that they would simply not submit to slavery. In earlier times, the Israeli Joseph had won the gratitude of the Pharoah by saving both the Egyptian People and the Israeli slaves through the foresight of storing grain against a famine which soon came. Interestingly, Joseph had been ostracized by his own family before demonstrating his worth. In demonstrating that acting in the interest of all is always the most moral and rewarding thing to do, he earned the right to freedom of the Israeli slaves, even if the Pharoah did not acknowledge it.  Those of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths believe that God intervened as a reward for the sometimes feckless faith of his Chosen People of that time and place.

It seems that prophets arise from time to time when Peoples have accepted the notion that slavery is the nature of life. This is never true because whether granted by God or not, all men and women posses the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, slavery is the greatest evil creation of Mankind because it robs the individual of all these to serve the interests of those in power who regard themselves as having a the God-given right to rule others. This is no different than at other times and places throughout history. The difference in this time and place in the space-time continuum that we all share is that they want to impose slavery on the world so that they will control it in their interests in perpetuity.

This is also our golden opportunity to end slavery once and for all, freeing ourselves from the threat that it can ever arise again from the ashes of the fascist Empire that we are preparing to crush. The internet provides the means to organize across national borders to fight for liberty and justice for all. We simply have to remember that the Qua'ran teaches that the first jihad is the war within each of us to conquer our selfish animal natures and recognize that we are all part of a larger whole that is the human race. Our collective consciousness must undergo a Tectonic Paradigm Shift. I therefore ask the question: What if God Were All of Us?

There are many forms of enslavement. The most important is that which we impose on ourselves by closing our minds to the simple truth that we are all interconnected. Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Muhammad all taught us this in various times and places where we have forgotten it and allowed ourselves to be made slaves of the selfish and self-righteous. If we have faith in anything, we must have faith in the power of the Peoples to successfully wage a peaceful war to free ourselves form the grip of fascism. If we can find the will to imagine that we are one human family, that we are all citizens of the world before all other things, that the internet connects our thoughts so that it forms a collective consciousness that rejects the notion that war is inevitable, we shall overcome some day. It appears to me that day will come far sooner than the self-annointed Masters of the Universe can prepare to stop it.

Shalom.

Asalaam-o-alaykim.

Peace everlasting everywhere to all People who hold love in their hearts individually and collectively for all.