Archive | November 13th, 2013

Global Warming and the Ideology of Anthropogenic (Human Caused) Climate Change

Global Research

The purpose of this work is to provide an investigation into the ideology of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.

It has been written with the confidence that further research within the public, as well as the academic realm is required. Furthermore, the investigative strategy incorporated in this paper serves to provide a starting place for additional investigation. Therefore, the foundational reason for this work is to empower the understanding of the readership.

“We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it…And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control.” John F. Kennedy

To initiate an evidentiary inquiry into geopolitical decision making, one must first understand the causal relations that frame how a scientific issue is presented, addressed and subsequently dismissed. Of importance, is the distinction between sound science and methods motivated by political self interest. In the case of the former, the observer maintains a qualitative standard founded upon the premise that such an investigation will enhance the comprehensive intelligence within their respective discipline. In the case of the latter, the observer upholds a personal standard founded upon the ideology that this method will satisfy their self-interest and accelerate their ascendance to academic prominence. Thus, to value the integrity of the former method, the current directive must be to inspire a holistic understanding within the readership, as well as to identify the inconsistencies that arise within the discourse pertaining to anthropogenic climate change.

To further clarify, the guiding principals and intent of this work is to transform power. Since the prevailing dominant discourse derives its influence through maintaining ignorance, a praxis grounded upon intellectual empowerment is the most effective use of this knowledge. This investigation begins with an analysis of inconsistencies documented by official sources.

First to be examined is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is the prerogative of NASA to research and identify causal forces within Earth’s solar system. NASA identifies multivariate concerns over uncertainties pertaining to potential causal forces influencing climate change. “There’s a great deal that we don’t know about the future of Earth’s climate and how climate change will affect humans”, including the impacts of solar irradiance, aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation, precipitation and sea level rise (NASA 2013). As illustrated by researcher Victor Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, this statement by NASA is critical for “the models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity” (Morano 2008, pg 4). To omit such an influential contributor to climate change as the sun would inherently bias statistical models in favour of anthropogenic theorizing. NASA’s admission is important for it sets the groundwork for a genuine understanding on climate change.

A secondary piece of pertinent evidence is a report issued in 2012 by the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service. In this report, Colin Morice et al. state: “this model cannot take into account structural uncertainties arising from data set construction methodologies. It is clear that a full description of uncertainties in near-surface temperature, including those uncertainties arising from differing methodologies, requires that independent studies of near-surface temperatures should be maintained” (Morice, 2012, pg 5). This is important for the scientists involved clearly state the limitations of their chosen methodology, ie the HADCRUT4 data set, and recommend that independent research be conducted to affirm their findings.

David Rose, reporting for the UK’s Daily Mail, incorporated the graphs from this study into an article he wrote entitled Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report. Rose also interviews a number of climate scientists who express uncertainty regarding the accuracy of climate modeling.

These interviews include “Professor Phil Jones, [former] director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia…[who] admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun” (Rose 2012). Professor Phil Jones is the same individual “who found himself the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails..” (Rose 2012).

In these emails, Jones, in association with Michael Mann and other collaborators, communicate their intention to censor academic papers via intervening in the IPCC peer review process, as well as manipulate statistical data to conform to inaccurate climate forecast models. In a 2009 email correspondence between Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann, Trenberth states: “the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…Our observing system is inadequate” (Global Research 2009). As identified in the introduction, the actions of Jones and Mann perfectly illustrate the ideal of scientists working for academic self interest and not for the benefit of scientific understanding.

Arising from this case of intellectual manipulation is collateral damage. The scientific discipline of climate change and the severe ways upon which human beings are impacted by it, are dismissed in favour of the expert management of human populations. In the dominant discourse, additional issues such as globalization, corporatism, effective waste management, public health impacts, fresh water scarcity and natural resource privatization are often conveniently omitted. This practice of academic self interest attempts to discredit legitimate science while effectively empowering an environment of division, disinformation and subsequently, ignorance. It is within such an environment that opportunists thrive, pseudo-scientists whose rhetorical machinations frame the discourse of public opinion.

“[Thus it has become the case that] our government’s science and technology policy is now guided by uniformed and emotion-driven public opinion rather than by sound scientific advice. Unfortunately, this public opinion is controlled by the media, a group of scientific illiterates drunk with power, heavily influenced by irrelevant political ideologies, and so misguided as to believe that they are more capable than the scientific community of making scientific decisions” (Cohen 1984, pg 59).

A classic example, is Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former United States vice president Al Gore. A significant proponent of anthropogenic climate change, Gore also happens to be a major benefactor (The Telegraph). According to the Capital Research Centre’s publication Foundation Watch, “along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM [Generation Investment Management] is former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson…[In September 2006] Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX [Chicago Climate Exchange] shares for $23 million. CCX owns half of the European Climate Exchange (ECX), Europe’s largest carbon trading company…” (Barnes 2007, pg 4). This sale occurred the same year Al Gore released the film An Inconvenient Truth, which claims both a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as well as pushing the need to offset carbon emissions via green investments. (Freeman 2007, pg 29). In fact, the Executive Intelligence Review reports that “Al Gore spoke at the May 2005 INCR [Investors Network on Climate Risk] Investors Summit at the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of his Generation Investment Management. He called for following the model of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which started up in 2005. Monetize emissions; trade them; reduce them, was Gore’s mantra” (Freeman 2007, pg 29).

Upon further analysis, Foundation Watch affirms that “like CCX, the European Climate Exchange has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a future market in carbon trading” (Barnes 2007, pg 4). It is apparent that several significant benefactors are among the most powerful captains of banking, business and industry. The benefits they incur via the successful management of government policy and mainstream environmental activism is enormous and therein is the real inconvenient truth.

Therefore it is evident that the intentional manipulation of a scientific subject, can be designed to both generate a public reaction, as well as to benefit private interests. However, the real danger is when rhetorical mechanisms infiltrate the common sense of a particular population and influences that populations’ moral consciousness. When rhetoric, and those who employ it, can establish a jurisdiction of unquestionable authority, then it becomes a god, which through its own machinations, is capable of empowering its skillful technicians and silencing logical inquiry. The population, unaware of an intellectual coup d’etat, become willful participants in their own subjugation. Through their acquiescence to a society that abandons formative critical analysis and evidentiary investigation, the population voluntarily reinforces this invisible intellectual prison.

What develops next, is a form of group mentality. When robbed of the proper utilization of the reasoning faculty, a person surrenders to a set of prevailing assumptions, which in this case are reinforced by the rhetorical mechanisms operating in that society. “In fact, people can be so attached to ‘consensus reality’ that its assumptions and predictions override contradictory evidence. When speakers encounter a situation in which people or events do not fit the categories provided by their model of reality, they are more likely to describe those people or event to make them “fit” the model rather than change or revise the model itself” (Penelope 1990, pg 37). What this means is that even when a circumstance arises which exposes that person to an alternative perspective on reality, no matter how grounded in evidentiary logic, that individual will instinctively re-frame or reject that knowledge.

Knowledge, and its effective application, is power. Thus, the willful ignorance of the public creates the opportunity for technocratic domination, i.e., those with superior knowledge make unquestionable decisions that affirm their own superiority (Carson 2002, pg 12-13). This form of expert management arises and is attributed to the demand for it. This is a causal relationship. First, the public generates an expressed need for governance. Second, this need influences the nature and direction of the outcome. Without the demand, governance would not be delivered. Consequently, an important inquiry to raise at this juncture would be: is the current public’s expressed need also managed to support the prevailing political/economic status quo? In pursuit of this answer, the following analysis is offered.

It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary against whom they can organize themselves and act together…[to] bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose (Schneider 1991, pg 70).

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself (Schneider 1991, pg 75).

This report entitled The First Global Revolution, was published by the Club of Rome in 1991. According to their website, “the Club of Rome is a non-profit organisation, independent of any political, ideological or religious interests. Its essential mission is to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public” (Club of Rome). It appears, that one of these most important private decision makers, is none other than Al Gore, who holds a membership with the Club of Rome (ABC News 2007).

Throughout this evidentiary inquiry into anthropogenic climate change, the following connections have been witnessed:

1) the statistical manipulation and censorship of data by leading anthropogenic climate scientists [Phil Jones, Michael Mann],

2) the intrinsic bias towards anthropogenic causal forces inherent in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast models [Herrera, detailing omission of solar activity],

3) the admission of systemic uncertainties inherent in climate forecast methodologies [UK National Weather Service],

4) the widespread unknown variables identified by NASA [solar irradiance, aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation, precipitation and sea level rise], 5) the corporate, industrial and banking interests behind major proponents of anthropogenic climate change [Barclays, BP, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley et al], and

6) the calculated ideological premise that human beings are the source of all environmental problems and thus an enemy to humanity itself [Club of Rome]. Subsequently, the consequences of this prevailing worldview must be addressed.

In doing so, it is important to understand that this prevailing discourse arises primarily from a position of advanced financial capital and influence. Hence, its intentional dissemination by public, private and corporate actors serve to further promulgate its sphere of influence (Schneider 1991, pg 157). The major tenets of this worldview propose limitations on human energy consumption, as well as restrictions on activities that generate carbon output. The expressed bias inherent in how anthropogenic climate change is presented to the public is that of a blaming the victim modality, i.e., that the public must bear the responsibility of the corporate/military/industrial sector.

According to Professor Delgado Domingos of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, “creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning” (Morano 2012, pg 5). Thus, when driving at the heart of this manipulation, it becomes clear that its overarching purpose is not to manifest a global environmental equilibrium, but in fact to re-enforce the predominant political/economic status quo.

This is further illustrated by the aforementioned report by the Club of Rome. Authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider state: “the global nature as well as the seriousness of the environmental crisis, especially that of earth-warming, indicates the need for a coherent and comprehensive attack at the international level and at the level of the United Nations” (Schneider 1991, pg 99). They continue: “in addition, we propose the organization, possibly under the auspices of the Environmental Security Council, of regular meetings of industrial leaders, bankers and government officials from the five continents. These Global Development Rounds, envisaged as being somewhat similar to the Tariff Rounds of GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; a precursor to the World Trade Organization], would discuss the need to harmonize competition and cooperation in the light of environmental constraints” (Schneider 1991, pg 100).

Essentially, the authors are calling for an agreement among prominent political, economic and financial institutions, to facilitate the centralization of collaborative decision making. This citation is also an example of the discourse “administrative rationalism [which] may be defined as the problem-solving discourse which emphasizes the role of the expert rather than the citizen or producer/consumer in social problem solving, and which stresses social relationships of hierarchy rather than equality or competition” (Dryzek 2005, pg 75). Hence, the prevailing dominion of international economic powers is strengthened via this form of environmentalism, and anthropogenic climatology, in the manner it has been presented to the public, inculcates an environment of oppression.

A major mechanism by which this form of expert management is being implemented around the world is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, also known as ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. As previously identified, there is a causal relationship between the public’s demand for governance and its delivery. Subsequently, an important question to consider is: can an international secretariat that identifies itself as “…a powerful movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities as well as 450 medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries…[that] have built a global sustainability network of more than 1,000 local governments…”, influence the public’s demand for this form of governance (ICLEI 2013)?

According to the Capital Research Centre report ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, the answer is an affirmative. The author David Libardoni states: “…the group [ICLEI] is the product of a United Nations conference: the U.N. World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future…[Bolstered by ICLEI’s delivery system,] ambitious local politicians around the world are using ICLEI as an international platform that allows them to build their careers and quickly network with one another on environmental issues” (Libardoni 2008, pg 2).

It appears that politicians willing to become proponents of anthropogenic climate change, as well as ICLEI itself, stand to benefit both financially and politically through the collaborative success of this ideology. For in addition to the sliding-scale membership fees charged to local municipalities (calculated by population size), “over the past 11 years [2008 statistic], ICLEI has received between $250,000 and $1,500,000 annually in EPA grants to fund its CCP [Cities for Climate Protection] Campaign and emissions analysis software. In 2006, it reported $904,000 in governmental grants (out of $3.3 million in total revenue) on its IRS 990 tax form…” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). In addition to these grants, “in 1997, the Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project, also sometimes known as Communities 21…More recently, ICLEI has received major contributions from the left-leaning Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($650,000 in March 2008, $525,000 in 2006), the Surdna Foundation ($200,000 in 2006), the Kendall Foundation ($150,000 in 2007) and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation ($100,000 in 2007)” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). Thus, in light of this evidence gathered concerning the European Climate Exchange, as well as the financial benefits accrued by ICLEI, it becomes readily apparent that the discipline of anthropogenic climatology in concert with private self-interest can in praxis become an ideology of corporatism, advanced financial capital and multinational industry.

It is precisely this ideology that is demonstrated by the New Brunswick provincial government and in particular, the Department of Environment and Local Government. By way of illustration, the following select objectives from the chapter Action Plan Milestones derived from the department’s publication Action Plan for a New Local Governance System in New Brunswick, are identified:

“Transfer the cost of service administration for Local Service Districts to those who receive the service, effective January 2012, by introducing amendments to the Municipalities Act” [Fall 2011] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 16).

“Create a new community funding arrangement, replacing the Unconditional Grant, by introducing amendments to the Municipal Assistance Act” [Fall 2012] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 17).

“Engage stakeholders in the development of community sustainability criteria and a self- assessment tool” [Spring 2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).

“Implement community and municipal sustainability targets for the establishment and restructuring of Municipalities and Rural Communities” [Fall 2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).

“Seek input from stakeholders on a framework for a new Local Governance Act as part of the policy development process” [Summer 2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).

Regardless of the purpose, direction or intended result of the above provisions, the action plan milestones that the New Brunswick government is committing to are consistent with the discourse of administrative rationalism, as well as the designed sustainability criteria of ICLEI. To ground this proposition in evidentiary logic, the following comparison is provided by way of a citation from ICLEI Canada’s publication Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation (ICLEI Canada, pg 8):

To further clarify this evident congruence between ICLEI’s Milestone Framework and New Brunswick’s Action Plan Milestones, “as outlined earlier, Canadian local governments should be familiar with the Milestone process, as it is also central to the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program offered in partnership by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and ICLEI” (ICLEI Canada, pg 6). Remarkably, this corresponds to the objectives outlined in the previously cited Club of Rome publication, The First Global Revolution: “it would be appropriate that the scheme [energy efficiency] be launched by the United Nations in association with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meterological Organization and Unesco [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization].

A corollary would be the setting up in each country of an Energy Efficiency Council to supervise the operation on the national scale” (Schneider 1991, pg 99). In accord with this proposal ICLEI’s World Secretariat recently announced, “ICLEI and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are joining efforts in conducting a global survey on resource efficiency in cities with an objective to get a wide range of city level perspectives and understandings of local needs on resource efficiency.

The global survey will run between March and May 2013 and will result in a final report planned for August 2013. The survey is conducted by a team of experts led by ICLEI’s World Secretariat in close collaboration with UNEP’s Built Environment Unit. The results will inform the Global Initiative for Resource Efficient Cities (GI-REC)” (ICLEI World Secretariat 2013). Indeed, it is evident, that in the dominions of finance, politics and industry, multivariate international powers have aligned their objectives. This method of harmonization between international powers, by which prominence is consolidated and agreements are constituted, is known as globalization.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, globalization is defined as “the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale [e.g. ICLEI]” (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2013).

The concept of sustainability, disseminated and affirmed by previously identified proponents and benefactors of anthropogenic climate change, is “[a subject or practice being] able to be maintained at a certain rate or level: sustainable economic growth, [as well as] conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2013). These goals are consistent with the operational capacities of corporations active in the natural resource extraction industry, with several currently accruing a substantial profit via the European Climate Exchange [BP, Endesa, Shell, Goldman Sachs, Barclays] (Barnes 2007, pg 4).

In addition, the previously cited ICLEI Canada publication, Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation, “..was made possible with the generous support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division (ICLEI Canada, pg 3). Now that ICLEI’s employed methodology (i.e. globalization) has been established, the next question of this evidentiary inquiry is the following: in relation to the intentional manipulation of the scientific discipline of anthropogenic climate change, are there additional methods that further the personal and/or private interests of another organization? To be addressed is the military industrial complex.

A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary (Celentano 1996, pg vi).

In this 1996 United States Department of Defense research paper, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, authors Major Ronald J. Celentano et al. promulgate the importance, as well as (in their view) the opportunities intrinsic to the integration of weather modification technologies into conventional warfare. As noted in this report’s Executive Summary, “in 2025, US aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures” (Celentano 1996, pg vi).

To accurately illustrate these proposed capabilities, Celentano et al chronologically incorporate Table 1: Operational Capabilities Matrix on the next page of their research paper. The following citation is this identical table, copied verbatim from this publication (SEE Celentano 1996, pg vii).

Subsequently it becomes readily apparent that the United States Air Force, as well as the US Department of Defense, have an expressed interest in anthropogenic climate change. Their interest, is largely dependent on their ability to strategically profit from it. To affirm this analysis, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization states, “rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use” (Chossudovsky 2004).

This ideology of self-interest is consistent among all of the exclusive proponents of anthropogenic climate change identified in this investigation. Evident, within the operating methodology of each proponent, is a calculated benefit directly attributed to the successful dissemination of this incomplete and ‘debate settled’ ideology of anthropogenic climate change. Several of the prominent organizations cited are actively involved in the indoctrination of citizens, as well as strategically influencing government policy. Therefore, any remedy offered via this evidentiary inquiry must maintain, as its foundation, a qualitative standard pursued for the purpose of empowering public consciousness. It is integrity, not manipulation, deception, or disinformation that will achieve both an accurate understanding of climate causal forces as well as create an inclusive participatory process for affecting positive environmental change.

Fortunately, there is a growing opposition to the claimed consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change as well as considerable numbers of scientists seeking to accurately understand climate causal forces. Reported by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in 2008 over six hundred fifty scientists expressed opposition to the claimed scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (Morano 2008, pg 1).

[According to this report:] “the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the ‘consensus’ collapsed. Russian scientists ‘rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’. India issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC ‘be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,’ and a canvass of more than 51, 000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is ‘settled’” (Morano 2008, pg 2).

Upon evaluation of this Senate Committee’s report, in additional to the aforementioned statements by scientific sources, it can be surmised that any entity, scientific or otherwise, claiming a global consensus on anthropogenic climate change is doing so: a) falsely, and b) to further their own ideological agenda. The following lecture citation, by Dr. Taylor Gray, concurs with this open minded analysis of anthropogenic climate change: “the occurrence of ecosystems maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium stipulates that the phenomena of climate change is a naturally occurring process. To identify climate change as a problem is exclusively the prerogative of human beings and their unwillingness to accept environmental factors that are beyond their control” (Gray 2013). With this understanding, morality when taken from a practical standpoint, is largely founded upon the availability of the essential ingredients required for life. According to Dr. Gray, “as a naturally occurring biogeochemical cycle, as well as playing the role of an important atmospheric component, carbon is essential for the fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that constitute life. Thus, limiting carbon would place a limiting factor upon the potential for life” (Gray 2013).

What is within the power of human beings, are the ways upon which we build an authentic global community; one founded upon compassion and awareness of the growing needs of environmentally disadvantaged peoples. For example, liberating immigration restrictions to Canada, would allow this country’s comparatively minor population-to-landmass representation (approximately thirty five million, out of a global population of over seven billion) to become proportional through the vitalization by peoples in need of a more hospitable environment. International solidarity based upon localized commodity/agricultural markets would decrease the privatization of arable land in developing countries, which in turn would advance international food security. The creation of empowered generations skilled in home-building, permaculture, holistic medicine and environmental science would limit international economic dependency and encourage healthy, inclusive and self-sufficient communities. However, before this can happen, the prevailing untruths within society must be addressed.

The effective application of knowledge is powerful. And to provide a remedy to a public that willfully embraces convenient untruths is two-fold. To begin, the inculcation and transmission of ignorance must be replaced with a social/economic paradigm that supports continuous learning. To be clear, this would take the form of encouraging independent thought, critical analysis and informed opinion. This instrument of social advancement must have one and only one primary objective. That being the cooperative evolution of human consciousness.

To achieve such a social mechanism the first remedy must be manifested in concert with the second, i.e., the systemic replacement of the conditions upon which material benefit is derived from intellectual manipulation. Effectively, this would mean organizing around a political/economic paradigm that did not foster an environment of exploitation. Conversely, the praxis of this new paradigm would be the encouragement of an informed and intellectually adept body politic.

The success of this naturopathic remedy would arise organically from a psychologically healthy population. Upon this foundation intellectual creative power could create a holistic and inclusive political/economic paradigm. A public effectively self-immunized against ignorance brings with it the opportunity for unheralded philosophical and scientific evolution. In relation to governance and geopolitical decision making, the expressed public demand for it would end making psychological domination effectively irrelevant. Thus, when the conditions for freedom surround the human family, the only problem that remains is choice.

On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. Martin Luther King Jr.


ABC News. Club of Rome Member Warns Against Council Amalgamations. Published 5 June 2007.

Club of Rome. Organization: Overview. Club of Rome. Accessed 14 April 2013.

Baker, Marcia Merry. A Genocidal Hoax: A Chronology of the Global Warming Swindle in LaRouche Lyndon’s Executive Intelligence Review. March 30, 2007. Vol. 34, No. 13, p. 51-55.

Barnes, Deborah Corey. Capital Research Centre: Foundation Watch. Published August 2007.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. United States: Houghton Mifflin Company, First Mariner Books Edition, 2002.

Celentano, Maj Ronald J et al. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. Air Force 2025: United States Department of Defense,1996.

Chossudovsky Ph.D., Michel. The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use. Centre for Research on Globalization. Published 27 September 2004.

Cohen, Bernard L. Statement of Dissent in Ed. Julian Simon and Herman Khan’s The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. United States: Basil Blackwell Incorporate, 1984.

Dryzek, John, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Freeman, Richard & Marcia Merry Baker. Carbon Tax Swindle Behind Gore Hoax in LaRouche Lyndon’s Executive Intelligence Review. March 30, 2007. Vol. 34, No. 13, p. 29-34.

Gray, Taylor, Ph.D. Lecture on Anthropogenic Climate Change, St. Thomas University, 27 March 2013.

Global Research. Ed. Michel Chossudovsky Ph.D. Manipulation of Data and Concepts: The Climate Change Emails. Centre for Research on Globalization. Published 29 November 2009.

ICLEI. Who We Are. ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed 14 April 2013.

ICLEI Canada. Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation. ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed 15 April 2013.

ICLEI World Secretariat. UNEP – ICLEI Global Survey on Resource Efficiency in Cities. ICLEI: Local Government for Sustainability. Accessed 15 April 2013.

Kennedy, John F. Address: The President and the Press, Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association. New York City: 27 April 1961. Transcript contributors: Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

King Jr., Martin Luther. Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution. Washington D.C.: 31 March 1968. Transcript contribution: Martin Luther King, Jr. Research And Education Institute, Standford University. documentsentry/doc_remaining_awake_through _a_great_revolution/

Libardoni, David. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability: Taxpayer Dollars and Foundation Grants Help A U.N. Inspired Group Show U.S. Cities How to Enact Climate Change Policies. Capital Research Centre: Organizational Trends. Published November 2008. pdf/v 1225578943.pdf

Morano, Marc et al. U.S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims, Scientists Continue To Debunk “Consensus” in 2008. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Published 11 December 2008.

Morice, Colin et al. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set, UK Met Office, 2012.

NASA. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Uncertainties: Unresolved questions about Earth’s climate. Accessed 13 April 2013.

Oxford Dictionaries Online. Globalization. Oxford English Dictionary. Accessed 16 April 2013.

Oxford Dictionaries Online. Sustainable. Oxford English Dictionary. Accessed 16 April 2013.

New Brunswick. Department of Environment and Local Government. Action Plan for a New Local Governance System in New Brunswick. December 2011.

Penelope, Julia. Speaking Freely: Unlearning The Lies of The Father’s Tongues. United States: Pergamon Press, 1990.

Rose, David. Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report. Daily Mail. Published 16 October 2012.–chart-prove-it.html.

Schneider, Bertrand and Alexander King. The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Council Of The Club Of Rome. Orient Longman, 1991.

The Telegraph. Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire. Ed. Richard Fletcher. The Telegraph Media Group. Published 3 November 2009.

Tracy Ph.D., James F. Chemtrails: The Realities of Geoengineering and Weather Modification. Centre for Research on Globalization. Published 8 November 2012.

James Divine is a well-traveled transdisciplinary who believes freethinking is essential to the well-being of human innovation. His maverick personality confidently resonates with holistic medicine, investigative literature and spiritual empowerment.

Posted in Health1 Comment

Scientists Warn of Extreme Risk: Greatest Short-term Threat to Humanity is From Fukushima Fuel Pools

Global Research


We’ve long said that the greatest short-term threat to humanity is from the fuel pools at Fukushima.

The Japanese nuclear agency recently green-lighted the removal of the spent fuel rods from Fukushima reactor 4′s spent fuel pool. The operation is scheduled to begin this month.

The head of the U.S. Department of Energy correctly notes:

The success of the cleanup also has global significance. So we all have a direct interest in seeing that the next steps are taken well, efficiently and safely.

If one of the pools collapsed or caught fire, it could have severe adverse impacts not only on Japan … but the rest of the world, including the United States. Indeed, a Senator called it a national security concern for the U.S.:

The radiation caused by the failure of the spent fuel pools in the event of another earthquake could reach the West Coast within days. That absolutely makes the safe containment and protection of this spent fuel a security issue for the United States.

Award-winning scientist David Suzuki says that Fukushima is terrifying, Tepco and the Japanese government are lying through their teeth, and Fukushima is “the most terrifying situation I can imagine”.

Suzuki notes that reactor 4 is so badly damaged that – if there’s another earthquake of 7 or above – the building could come down. And the probability of another earthquake of 7 or above in the next 3 years is over 95%.

Suzuki says that he’s seen a paper that says that if – in fact – the 4th reactor comes down, “it’s bye bye Japan, and everyone on the West Coast of North America should evacuate. Now if that’s not terrifying, I don’t know what is.”

The Telegraph reports:

The operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant … will begin a dry run of the procedure at the No. 4 reactor, which experts have warned carries grave risks.


Did you ever play pick up sticks?” asked a foreign nuclear expert who has been monitoring Tepco’s efforts to regain control of the plant. “You had 50 sticks, you heaved them into the air and than had to take one off the pile at a time.

“If the pile collapsed when you were picking up a stick, you lost,” he said. “There are 1,534 pick-up sticks in a jumble in top of an unsteady reactor 4. What do you think can happen?

I do not know anyone who is confident that this can be done since it has never been tried.”

ABC reports:

One slip-up in the latest step to decommission Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant could trigger a “monumental” chain reaction, experts warn.


Experts around the world have warned … that the fuel pool is in a precarious state – vulnerable to collapsing in another big earthquake.

Yale University professor Charles Perrow wrote about the number 4 fuel pool this year in theBulletin of Atomic Scientists.

“This has me very scared,” he told the ABC.

Tokyo would have to be evacuated because [the] caesium and other poisons that are there will spread very rapidly.

Perrow also argues:

Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years.

Former Japanese ambassador Akio Matsumura warns that – if the operation isn’t done right – this could one day be considered the start of “the ultimate catastrophe of the world and planet”:

(He also argues that removing the fuel rods will take “decades rather than months.)

Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen and physician Helen Caldicott have both said that people should evacuate the Northern Hemisphere if one of the Fukushima fuel pools collapses. Gundersen said:

Move south of the equator if that ever happened, I think that’s probably the lesson there.

Harvey Wasserman wrote two months ago:

We are now within two months of what may be humankind’s most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Should the attempt fail, the rods could be exposed to air and catch fire, releasing horrific quantities of radiation into the atmosphere. The pool could come crashing to the ground, dumping the rods together into a pile that could fission and possibly explode. The resulting radioactive cloud would threaten the health and safety of all us.


A new fuel fire at Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal radioactive poisons for centuries.

Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from Fukushima “would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”

Even Japan’s Top Nuclear Regulator Says that The Operation Carries a “Very Large Risk Potential”

Even the head of Japan’s nuclear agency is worried. USA Today notes:

Nuclear regulatory chairman Shunichi Tanaka, however, warned that removing the fuel rods from Unit 4 would be difficult because of the risk posed by debris that fell into the pool during the explosions.

It’s a totally different operation than removing normal fuel rods from a spent fuel pool,” Tanaka said at a regular news conference. “They need to be handled extremely carefully and closely monitored. You should never rush or force them out, or they may break.”

He said it would be a disaster if fuel rods are pulled forcibly and are damaged or break open when dropped from the pool, located about 30 meters (100 feet) above ground, releasing highly radioactive material. “I’m much more worried about this than contaminated water,” Tanaka said

The same top Japanese nuclear official said:

The process involves a very large risk potential.

BBC reports:

A task of extraordinary delicacy and danger is about to begin at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power station.


One senior official told me: “It’s going to be very difficult but it has to happen.”

Why It’s Such a Difficult Operation

CNN notes that debris in the fuel pool might interfere with operations:

South China Morning Post notes:

Nothing remotely similar has been attempted before and … it is feared that any error of judgment could lead to a massive release of radiation into the atmosphere.


A spokesman for Tepco … admitted, however, that it was not clear whether any of the rods were damaged or if debris in the pool would complicate the recovery effort.


Professor Richard Broinowski – former Australian Ambassador to Vietnam, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Central American Republics and Cuba – and author of numerous books on nuclear policy and Fukushima,says some of the fuel rods are probably fused.

Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E. (Professional Engineer), Professor of MIS, San Diego State University, notes:

The rods in the spent fuel pool may have melted …. I consider it more likely that these rods were breached during the explosions associated with the event and their contents may be in contact with the ground water, probably due to all the seawater that was sprayed on the plant.

Fuel rod expert Arnie Gundersen – a nuclear engineer and former senior manager of a nuclear power company which manufactured nuclear fuel rods – recently explained the biggest problem with the fuel rods (at 15:45):

I think they’re belittling the complexity of the task. If you think of a nuclear fuel rack as a pack of cigarettes, if you pull a cigarette straight up it will come out — but these racks have been distorted. Now when they go to pull the cigarette straight out, it’s going to likely break and release radioactive cesium and other gases, xenon and krypton, into the air. I suspect come November, December, January we’re going to hear that the building’s been evacuated, they’ve broke a fuel rod, the fuel rod is off-gassing.


I suspect we’ll have more airborne releases as they try to pull the fuel out. If they pull too hard, they’ll snap the fuel. I think the racks have been distorted, the fuel has overheated — the pool boiled – and the net effect is that it’s likely some of the fuel will be stuck in there for a long, long time.

In another interview, Gundersen provides additional details (at 31:00):

The racks are distorted from the earthquake — oh, by the way, the roof has fallen in, which further distorted the racks.

The net effect is they’ve got the bundles of fuel, the cigarettes in these racks, and as they pull them out, they’re likely to snap a few. When you snap a nuclear fuel rod, that releases radioactivity again, so my guess is, it’s things like krypton-85, which is a gas, cesium will also be released, strontium will be released. They’ll probably have to evacuate the building for a couple of days. They’ll take that radioactive gas and they’ll send it up the stack, up into the air, because xenon can’t be scrubbed, it can’t be cleaned, so they’ll send that radioactive xenon up into the air and purge the building of all the radioactive gases and then go back in and try again.

It’s likely that that problem will exist on more than one bundle. So over the next year or two, it wouldn’t surprise me that either they don’t remove all the fuel because they don’t want to pull too hard, or if they do pull to hard, they’re likely to damage the fuel and cause a radiation leak inside the building. So that’s problem #2 in this process, getting the fuel out of Unit 4 is a top priority I have, but it’s not going to be easy. Tokyo Electric is portraying this as easy. In a normal nuclear reactor, all of this is done with computers. Everything gets pulled perfectly vertically. Well nothing is vertical anymore, the fuel racks are distorted, it’s all going to have to be done manually. The net effect is it’s a really difficult job. It wouldn’t surprise me if they snapped some of the fuel and they can’t remove it.

The Japan Times writes:

The consequences could be far more severe than any nuclear accident the world has ever seen. If a fuel rod is dropped, breaks or becomes entangled while being removed, possible worst case scenarios include a big explosion, a meltdown in the pool, or a large fire. Any of these situations could lead to massive releases of deadly radionuclides into the atmosphere, putting much of Japan — including Tokyo and Yokohama — and even neighboring countries at serious risk.

CNN reports:

[Mycle Schneider, nuclear consultant:] The situation could still get a lot worse. A massive spent fuel fire would likely dwarf the current dimensions of the catastrophe and could exceed the radioactivity releases of Chernobyl dozens of times.

Reuters notes:

Experts question whether it will be able to pull off the removal of all the assemblies successfully.***

No one knows how bad it can get, but independent consultants Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt said recently in their World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013: “Full release from the Unit-4 spent fuel pool, without any containment or control, could cause by far the most serious radiological disaster to date.”


Nonetheless, Tepco inspires little confidence. Sharply criticized for failing to protect the Fukushima plant against natural disasters, its handling of the crisis since then has also been lambasted.


“There is a risk of an inadvertent criticality if the bundles are distorted and get too close to each other,” Gundersen said.

The rods are also vulnerable to fire should they be exposed to air, Gundersen said. [The pools have already boiled due to exposure to air.]


[Here is a visual tour of Fukushima’s fuel pools, along with graphics of how the rods will be removed.]

Tepco confirmed the Reactor No. 4 fuel pool contains debris during an investigation into the chamber earlier this month.

Removing the rods from the pool is a delicate task normally assisted by computers, according to Toshio Kimura, a former Tepco technician, who worked at Fukushima Daiichi for 11 years.

“Previously it was a computer-controlled process that memorized the exact locations of the rods down to the millimeter and now they don’t have that. It has to be done manually so there is a high risk that they will drop and break one of the fuel rods,” Kimura said.


Corrosion from the salt water will have also weakened the building and equipment, he said.

ABC Radio Australia quotes an expert on the situation (at 1:30):

Richard Tanter, expert on nuclear power issues and professor of international relations at the University of Melbourne:


Reactor Unit 4, the one which has a very large amount of stored fuel in its fuel storage pool, that is sinkingAccording to former prime Minister Kan Naoto, that has sunk some 31 inches in places and it’s not uneven.

And Chris Harris – a, former licensed Senior Reactor Operator and engineer – notes that it doesn’t help that a lot of the rods are in very fragile condition:


Although there are a lot of spent fuel assemblies in there which could achieve criticality — there are also 200 new fuel assemblies which have equivalent to a full tank of gas, let’s call it that. Those are the ones most likely to go critical first.


Some pictures that were released recently show that a lot of fuel is damaged, so when they go ahead and put the grapple on it, and they pull it up, it’s going to fall apart. The boreflex has been eaten away; it doesn’t take saltwater very good.

Nuclear engineers say that the fuel pool is “distorted”, material was blown up into air and came down inside, damaging the fuel, the roof fell in, distorting things inside.

Indeed, Fukushima documents discuss “fuel that is severely damaged” inside cooling pool, and show illustrations of “deformed or leaking fuels”.

The Urgent Need: Replace Tepco

Tepco is incompetent and corrupt. As such, it is the last company which should be in charge of the clean-up.

Top scientists and government officials say that Tepco should be removed from all efforts to stabilize Fukushima. An international team of the smartest engineers and scientists should handle this difficult “surgery”.

Bloomberg notes:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is being told by his own party that Japan’s response is failing.Plant operator [Tepco] alone isn’t up to the task of managing the cleanup and decommissioning of the atomic station in Fukushima. That’s the view of Tadamori Oshima, head of a task force in charge of Fukushima’s recovery and former vice president of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party.


[There’s] a growing recognition that the government needs to take charge at the Fukushima station…. “If we allow the situation to continue, it’ll never be resolved” [said Sumio Mabuchi, a government point man on crisis in 2011].

Posted in JapanComments Off on Scientists Warn of Extreme Risk: Greatest Short-term Threat to Humanity is From Fukushima Fuel Pools

Could US/Iran Nuclear Agreement Spark I$raHell Attack?

Ironically, a negotiated settlement between the United States and Iran could trigger yetanother war in the Middle East.

(Photo: via FPIF)Is Israel really planning to attack Iran, or are declarations about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike at Teheran’s nuclear program simply bombast? Does President Obama’s “we have your back comment about Israel mean the U.S. will join an assault? What happens if the attack doesn’t accomplish its goals, an outcome predicted by virtually every military analyst? In that case, might the Israelis, facing a long, drawn-out war, resort to the unthinkable: nuclear weapons?

Such questions almost seem bizarre at a time when Iran and negotiators from the P5+1—the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany—appear to be making progress at resolving the dispute over Teheran’s nuclear program.And yet the very fact that a negotiated settlement seems possible may be the trigger for yet another war in the Middle East.

A dangerous new alliance is forming in the region, joining Israel with Saudi Arabia and the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, thus merging the almost bottomless wealth of the Arab oil kings with the powerful and sophisticated Israeli army. Divided by religion and history, this confederacy of strange bedfellows is united by its implacable hostility to Iran. Reducing tensions is anathema to those who want to isolate Teheran and dream of war as a midwife for regime change in Iran.

How serious this drive toward war is depends on how you interpret several closely related events over the past three months.

First was the announcement of the new alliance that also includes the military government in Egypt. That was followed by the news that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were stocking up on $10.8 billion worth of U.S. missiles and bunker busters. Then, in mid-October, Israel held war games that included air-to-air refueling of warplanes, essential to any long-range bombing attack. And lastly, the magazine Der Spiegel revealed that Israel isarming its German-supplied, Dolphin-class submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

Saber rattling? Maybe. Certainly a substantial part of the Israeli military and intelligence community is opposed to a war, although less so if it included the U.S. as an ally.

Opponents of a strike on Iran include Uzi Arad, former director of the National Security Council and a Mossad leader; Gabi Ashkenazi, former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff; Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, former heads of Shin Bet; Uzi Even, a former senior scientist in Israel’s nuclear program; Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad head; Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, and Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chiefs of staff; Simon Peres, Israeli president; Uri Sagi, former chief of military intelligence; and Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, who bluntly calls the proposal to attack Iran “The stupidest thing I ever heard.”

Mossad is Israel’s external intelligence agency, much like the American CIA. Shin Bet is responsible for internal security, as with the FBI and the Home Security Department.

However, an Israeli attack on Iran does have support in the U.S. Congress, and from many former officials in the Bush administration. Ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney says war is “inevitable.”

But U.S. hawks have few supporters among the American military. Former defense secretaryRobert Gates says “such an attack would make a nuclear armed Iran inevitable” and “prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” Former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair Gen. James Cartwright told Congress that the U.S. would have to occupy Iran if it wanted to end the country’s nuclear program, a task virtually everyone agrees would be impossible.

In interviews in the fall of 2012, reporter and author Mark Perry found that U.S. intelligence had pretty much worked out the various options the Israelis might use in an attack. None of them were likely to derail Iran’s nuclear program for more than a year or two.

Israel simply doesn’t have the wherewithal for a war with Iran. It might be able to knock out three or four nuclear sites—the betting is those would include the heavy water plant at Arak, enrichment centers at Fordow and Natanz, and the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant—but much of Iran’s nuclear industry is widely dispersed. And Israel’s bunker busters are not be up to job of destroying deeply placed and strongly reinforced sites.

Israel would not be able to sustain a long-term bombing campaign because it doesn’t have enough planes, or the right kind. Most of its air force is American-made F-15 fighters and F-16 fighter-bombers, aircraft that are too fragile to maintain a long bombing campaign and too small to carry really heavy ordinance.

Of course, Israel could also use its medium and long-range Jericho II and Jericho III missiles, plus submarine-fired cruise missiles, but those weapons are expensive and in limited supply. They all, however, can carry nuclear warheads.

But as one U.S. Central Command officer told Perry, “They’ll [the Israelis] have one shot, one time. That’s one time out and one time back. And that’s it.” Central Command, or Centcom, controls U.S. military forces in the Middle East.

A number of U.S. military officers think the Israelis already know they can’t take out the Iranians, but once the bullets start flying Israel calculates that the U.S. will join in. “All this stuff about ‘red lines’ and deadlines is just Israel’s way of trying to get us to say that when they start shooting, we’ll start shooting,” retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman told Perry. Inman specialized in intelligence during his 30 years in the Navy.

There is current legislation before the Congress urging exactly that, and Obama did say that the U.S. had “Israel’s back.” But does that mean U.S. forces would get directly involved? If it was up to the American military, the answer would be “no.” Lt. Gen. Robert Gard told Perry that, while the U.S. military is committed to Israel, that commitment is not a blank check. U.S. support is “so they can defend themselves. Not so they can start World War III.”

Polls indicate that, while most Americans have a favorable view of Israel and unfavorable one of Iran, they are opposed to joining an Israeli assault on Iran.

That might change if the Iranians tried to shut down the strategic Straits of Hormuz through which most Middle-East oil passes, but Iran knows that would draw in the U.S., and for all its own bombast, Teheran has never demonstrated a penchant for committing suicide. On top of which, Iran needs those straits for its own oil exports. According to most U.S. military analysts, even if the U.S. did join in it would only put off an Iranian bomb by about five years.

What happens if Israel attacks—maybe with some small contributions by the Saudi and UAE air forces—and Iran digs in like it did after Iraq invaded it in 1980? That war dragged on for eight long years.

Iran could probably not stop an initial assault, because the Israelis can pretty easily overwhelm Iranian anti-aircraft, and their air force would make short work of any Iranian fighters foolish enough to contest them.

But Teheran would figure a way to strike back, maybe with long range missile attacks on Israeli population centers or key energy facilities in the Gulf. Israel could hit Iranian cities as well, but its planes are not configured for that kind of mission. In any case, bombing has never made a country surrender, as the allied and axis powers found out in World War II, and the Vietnamese and Laotians demonstrated to the U.S.

The best the Israelis could get is a stalemate and the hope that the international community would intervene. But there is no guarantee that Iran would accept a ceasefire after being bloodied, nor that there would be unanimity in the UN Security Council to act. NATO might try to get involved, but that alliance is deeply wounded by the Afghanistan experience, and the European public is sharply divided about a war with Iran.

A long war would eventually wear down Israel’s economy, not to mention its armed forces and civilian population.If that scenario developed, might Israel be tempted to use its ultimate weapon? Most people recoil from even the thought of nuclear weapons, but militaries consider them simply another arrow in the quiver. India and Pakistan have come to the edge of using them on at least one occasion.

It is even possible that Israel—lacking the proper bunker-busting weapons—might decide to use small, low-yield nuclear weapons in an initial assault, but that seems unlikely. The line drawn in August 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for more than 60 years. But if Israel concluded that it was enmeshed in a forever war that could threaten the viability of the state, might it be tempted to cross that line?

Condemnation would be virtually universal, but it would not be the first time that Israel’s siege mentality led it to ignore what the rest of the world thought.

A war with Iran would be catastrophic. Adding nuclear weapons to it would put the final nail into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within a decade dozens of countries will have nuclear weapons. It is a scary world to contemplate.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Could US/Iran Nuclear Agreement Spark I$raHell Attack?

I$raHell ‘Utterly Rejects’ Iran Nuclear Deal That Could Avoid War

'Israel  is not  obliged by this  agreement and  Israel will do  everything it needs to defend itself,' says defiant Netanyahu
– Jacob Chamberlain

Israel PM Netanyahu giving a statement prior to meeting with US Sec of State John Kerry, November 8, 2013. (Screenshot)As international hopes rose around the possibility of successful talks on Iran’s nuclear program in Geneva on Friday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a message for the world: No, no, no.

“Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to defend itself, to defend the security of its people,” Netanyahu said in one of two videos released to reporters ahead of talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at Ben Gurion airport that took place Friday morning. Many interpreted the comments as the latest in a series of veiled threats about Israel’s desire to strike militarily against Iran.


Though not perfect, numerous diplomatic experts and observers are calling the brewing deal a potential best hope for de-escalating the threat of a dangerous military confrontation in the region. Netanyahu, however, said his country would not be bound whatsoever by the agreement, which he called a “monumental,” “grievous” and “historic” mistake.

“This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu was referring to information he had received coming out of the ongoing talks in Geneva between the P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany with Iran over its nuclear program, although no official announcement of a deal has been made.

Though no official statements on the details have yet emerged, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that a joint statement on the framework of a nuclear deal could be issued as early as Friday. Other reporting suggests that though progress has been made, the high-level talks may continue into the weekend before a deal or framework is announced by the parties.

Netanyahu’s comments represent the continued hostility of the Israeli government towards Iran’s nuclear program. Though Iran has repeatedly claimed its nuclear program is for power generation and medical research purposes only, Israel refuses to acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal. Unlike Iran, Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Following his meeting with Kerry, Netanyahu showed no signs of backing down from his hawkish stance, but criticism of his remarks were proliferating. As Ian Black, Middle East editor for the Guardian, reports:

Israel’s ill-tempered opposition – even before anything has been formally agreed – looks set to further strain its already tense relations with Washington. “Netanyahu unwise to challenge US so openly/dismissively on possible Iran nuclear deal,” tweeted Nicholas Burns, a former senior US diplomat. “Netanyahu’s outburst was a serious tactical error.” The Israeli prime minister has taken a hard line on this issue for years, so it is no surprise he is taking the news badly. It is still hard to imagine, however, that Israel would attack Iran – even if it has the military capability to do so alone – while a prolonged and internationally backed agreement is in place.

Kerry did not make a statement before he left Israel for Geneva, though the White House pushed back, at least mildly, against the Israeli Prime Minister by saying that any criticism of the deal is “premature,” because no deal yet exists.

Upon his arrival in Geneva, Kerry told reporters that he was hopeful that a deal could be made. But, he added, “I don’t think anybody should mistake that there are some important gaps that have to be closed.”

Late in the day Friday, according to the Guardian’s live reporting from Geneva, the closed-door talks were heading into their second hour.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on I$raHell ‘Utterly Rejects’ Iran Nuclear Deal That Could Avoid War

US, I$raHell Lose UNESCO Voting Rights

The United States and Israel miss deadline for repayment of dues aftery cutting off con-tributions to the Paris-based body since Palestine became member
– Andrea Germanos

The United States and Israel lost voting rights at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Friday after missing a deadline to repay dues the countries had accumulated since Palestine became a member to the world body.

The Palestinian flag being raised at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France. (Photo: UN)In 2011, the U.S. and Israel cut off tens of millions of dollars in annual contributions after the Paris-based body admitted Palestine as a member. Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was referred to as tragic by Israel and regrettable” by the U.S..

U.S. laws from 1990 and 1994, slammedby Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) as “antiquated” and “a bad idea,” prohibit funding to any UN organization to which Palestine is a member.

“The decision to withhold the dues was in the interest of the foreign policy 1 percent—Israel and its most hard-line supporters in the U.S.–not in the interest of the rest of us,” wroteMiddle East analyst Phyllis Bennis in the wake of the 2011 move. “There has rarely been a clearer example of domestic politics—in this case influence of the pro-Israel lobbies—undermining national interests,” Bennis continued.

Israel and the U.S. had to meet an 1100 GMT Friday deadline to “provide an official justification for non-payment and a plan to pay back missed dues, a UNESCO source told Reuters,” or face suspension of voting privileges

The loss of U.S. contributions makes a critical impact on UNESCO’s operations; U.S. funds, amounting to $80 million annually, had provided 22 percent of UNESCO’s budget.

Agence France-Presse reports that

With the US and Israel withdrawing their contributions UNESCO’s budget fell from $653 million to $507 million. […]

UNESCO’s chief Irina Bokova has raised $75 million to deal with the financial crisis at the agency, which is responsible for selecting and overseeing World Heritage sites and deals with literacy, media freedom, science and environmental issues.

A statement from the U.S. State Department released Friday reads, in part:

UNESCO directly advances U.S. interests in supporting girls’ and women’s education, facilitating important scientific research, promoting tolerance, protecting and preserving the world’s natural and cultural heritage, supporting freedom of the press, and much more. It is in that vein that President Obama has requested legislative authority to allow the United States to continue to pay its dues to UN agencies that admit the Palestinians as a member state when doing so is in the U.S. national interest. Although that proposal has not yet been enacted by Congress, the President remains committed to that goal.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on US, I$raHell Lose UNESCO Voting Rights

Revealed: AT&T Offers CIA Subpoena-Free Access… for a Price

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem Sr
Ongoing program allows intelligence agency to review  global  database for  $10 million a year
– Jon Queally

If you want access to the overseas communication data held by one of the nation’s largest telecommunication firms, you can get it… for a price.

In essence, by working in tandum—and leveraging the available metadata provided by the telecom company for a price—the CIA and FBI can create a complete view of international phone records, including phone calls made or received by U.S. citizens. (Image: CD)As the New York Times reports Thursday, the CIA has been paying AT&T approximately $10 million a year for continued access to its overseas “metadata”—extensive records that show “the date, duration and phone numbers involved in a call.” Those records may or may not show that one end of the call is located in the United States.

The revelation shows the tacit (and voluntary) agreement and financial arrangements that the intelligence agency has made with private companies in an effort to monitor global communications. Most striking is that CIA program is conducted without the authority of subpoenas or court oversight and a legal loophole, creating by working with domestic law enforcement agencies, allows the CIA to do an end-run around the laws designed to keep it from spying on U.S. citizens.

Separate from surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency or those otherwise divulged by documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the ongoing agreement, according to unnamed officials who spoke to the Times, is “conducted under a voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the company to participate.”

In essence, by working in tandem—and leveraging the available metadata provided by the telecom company for a price—the CIA and FBI can create a complete view of international phone records, including phone calls made or received by U.S. citizens.

As the Times reports:

Because the C.I.A. is prohibited from spying on the domestic activities of Americans, the agency imposes privacy safeguards on the program, said the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because it is classified. Most of the call logs provided by AT&T involve foreign-to-foreign calls, but when the company produces records of international calls with one end in the United States, it does not disclose the identity of the Americans and “masks” several digits of their phone numbers, the officials said.

Still, the agency can refer such masked numbers to the F.B.I., which can issue an administrative subpoena requiring AT&T to provide the uncensored data. The bureau handles any domestic investigation, but sometimes shares with the C.I.A. the information about the American participant in those calls, the officials said.

As the reporting also reminds readers, AT&T has a lengthy and troubling history of working closely with government intelligence agencies to spy on its customers when asked:

It helped facilitate the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program by allowing the N.S.A. to install secret equipment in its phone and Internet switching facilities, according to an account by a former AT&T technician made public in a lawsuit.

It was also one of three phone companies that embedded employees from 2003 to around 2007 in an F.B.I. facility, where they used company databases to provide quick analysis of call records. The embedding was shut down amid criticism by the Justice Department’s inspector general that officers were obtaining Americans’ call data without issuing subpoenas.

Posted in USAComments Off on Revealed: AT&T Offers CIA Subpoena-Free Access… for a Price

Protesters Light ‘Bonfire of Austerity’ Across UK


‘Bonfire Night’ sees demonstrations against cuts to welfare, corporate greed

– Jacob Chamberlain

Photo via Twitter / People’s Assembly / ‏@pplsassemblyThe flames burned bright on “Bonfire Night” in London and dozens of other UK cities as protesters gathered once again to protest ongoing austerity measures in the country.

Demonstrators in Parliament Square carried signs that read “no cuts,” “corporate greed does not make democracy,” and “cut war not welfare,” as part of an anti-austerity demonstration organized by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity.

At one point the crowds marched to the middle of Westminster Bridge and lit a “Bonfire of Austerity,” burning energy bills in defiance of rising energy costs.

“The big six energy companies are effectively holding consumers across the country to ransom,” said Owen Jones of the People’s Assembly, citing failed action on the part of UK lawmakers. “It’s going to drive nine million people into fuel poverty, it’s going to kill elderly people.”

“Cameron’s self-defeating austerity is still sucking the life out of places like London – but there’s a growing movement fighting back,” reads a statement issued by the People’s Assembly.

Police in riot gear clashed with protesters in Parliament Square as well as in front of Buckingham Palace, where protesters lit a bonfire yards away from the palace gates, TheGuardian reports.

Similar gatherings took place in up to 40 UK cities, including ManchesterNewcastle, and Nottingham. Many of the demonstrations were organized in coordination with what was coined the Million Mask March, called by the hacktivist group Anonymous, which reportedly took place in over 400 cities across the the world including Washington DC, Vancouver, Tel Aviv, Dublin, Paris, Chicago and Sydney.

Jones continued in a People’s Assembly statement ahead of the march:

The Tories are building a Britain of food banks, legal loan sharks and zero hour contract workers. Millions languish on social housing waiting lists. In years to come, many of us will be asked what we did to stop this horror show. That’s why it’s time to tap into our country’s proud tradition of protest and civil disobedience, and make loud and clear our demand for an alternative to the failure of austerity.”

“Bonfire Night” in the UK, also known as Guy Fawkes Night, is typically a commemoration of Fawkes’ failed effort to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. Many have recently turned the yearly celebration into a night of protest in opposition to corrupt government policies.

Posted in Campaigns, UKComments Off on Protesters Light ‘Bonfire of Austerity’ Across UK

Toxic World Exposing Hundreds of Millions to Deadly Chemicals: Report


Problem goes well beyond a ‘Top Ten’ list, but the human impact in these areas should be a wake-up call to the world

– Jon Queally

Fires are set to wires and other electronics to release valuable cooper and other materials. The fires blacken the landscape, releasing toxic fumes. (Photo: Blacksmith Institute/Flickr)The rise of computers, advanced electronics and large-scale manufacturing systems have serious down sides that much of the developed world and the beneficiaries of those technologies have proven eager to ignore.

And on Monday, highlighting the ten worst places in the world for industrial pollution, a new report claims that more than 200 million people living in low- and middle-income countries are having their health dramatically impacted by their exposure to dangerous levels of toxic materials.

According to the report, produced by the U.S.-based Blacksmith Institute and Green Cross Switzerland in Europe, the new list of the top ten polluted places shows that a range of pollution sources and industrial contaminants—including hexavalent chromium from tanneries and heavy metals released from smelting operations—continue to plague populations already suffering from poverty and poor health systems.

“In this year’s report, we cite some of the most polluted places we’ve encountered. But it is important to point out that the problem is really much larger than these ten sites,” says Richard Fuller, president of Blacksmith Institute. “We estimate that the health of more than 200 million people is at risk from pollution in the developing world.”

As the report shows, the world’s ten most polluted places include:

Agbogbloshie, Ghana
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Citarum River, Indonesia
Dzershinsk, Russia
Hazaribagh, Bangladesh
Kabwe, Zambia
Kalimantan, Indonesia
Matanza Riachuelo, Argentina
Niger River Delta, Nigeria
Norilsk, Russia

The groups released a similar report in 2007 and though many of the same areas remained on their top ten list, they were joined by an unfortunate number of newly polluted areas that have succumbed to the perils of electronic manufacturing and the growing quantities of e-waste produced by the digital revolution.

As Agence France-Presse reports:

West Africa’s second largest processing area for the world’s swelling piles of electronic waste, at Agbogbloshie in Ghana’s capital Accra was among new additions.

Each year, Ghana imports around 215,000 tonnes of secondhand consumer electronics, mainly from Western Europe — a number that is expected to double by 2020, according to the report.

The main health concern linked to e-waste processing in Ghana is the burning of sheathed cables to recover the copper inside, the report said, pointing out that the cables can contain a range of heavy metals, including lead.

Soil samples from around Agbogbloshie have shown concentrations of that toxic metal that are 45 times more than accepted levels, the report said.

“E-waste is really going to be a challenge. It’s growing exponentially. Everybody wants a computer, a laptop, the modern devices, so I think we’re seeing the tip of the iceberg,” Blacksmith research director Jack Caravanos told reporters in a conference call.

Read the full report, The Top Ten Toxic Threats: Cleanup, Progress, and Ongoing Challenges,  here.

Posted in HealthComments Off on Toxic World Exposing Hundreds of Millions to Deadly Chemicals: Report

Masks, Memes, the Torturers, and the Witches


“Can a mask, meme or movement with nobody in charge make a difference?” Stay tuned, says Arnold.Today is Guy Fawkes Day in England, celebrating the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605.

Fawkes was one of a group of Roman Catholics who feared they were mortally threatened by a Protestant authoritarian king and government. The plotters planned to destroy Parliament and kill the king by exploding 1800 lbs of gunpowder in a cellar beneath the House of Lords.

Today will also see a Million Mask March, organized by a movement calling themselves Anonymous, who have adopted a stylized Guy Fawkes mask as a public meme. Their unofficial web site states explicitly that Anonymous is a movement, not an organization, that there is no official site, and nobody is in charge. Their movement includes a hactivist group, the Occupy movement, and other anti-establishment protesters.

The mask was developed by David Lloyd, creator and illustrator of V for Vendetta, (2006) a movie that celebrates the efforts of vigilantes to destroy an authoritarian government in a what they perceived to be a dystopian society

Lloyd notes “The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny – and I’m happy with people using it.”

Anonymous hactivists may or may not have been responsible for taking down the NSA public web site on Oct 25 with a Distributed Denial of Services (DDoS).

The original Gunpowder plotters had some grounds for their fears: The king had authorized the use of torture to extract a confession from an old woman that she had thrown a christened cat into the sea near his ship, thereby causing a storm that nearly drowned him.

The Gunpowder plot was discovered when Fawkes was caught with matches in the underground room full of gunpowder. He was tortured and sentenced to execution by being hanged, drawn and quartered, but he avoided suffering the latter punishments by jumping off the scaffold and breaking his neck.

Accusations of witchcraft and the official use of torture were widespread in Europe at the time. Between 1500 and 1660 an estimated 50,000 to 80,000 persons were executed as witches, 80% of them women. Execution rates for witchcraft varied greatly with the largest number, 26,000, in Germany.

During the same years only about a thousand witches were executed in England. Despite James I, English law never regularized torture, and in addition to a strong tradition of habeas corpus, England had strict rules of evidence, requiring proof of wrongdoing or damage for conviction.

A hundred years earlier, in 1486, a book telling what witches could do and how they should be tortured, tried, and executed was published in Germany by a couple of enterprising if not very scrupulous friars. Malleus Malificarum [Hammer of Malefactors (e.g.:witches)] covered all the bases, starting with the premise that not believing in witches was heresy. It included this charming excerpt: “What is to be thought of those witches who collect…as many as twenty or thirty [male] members together, and put them in a bird’s nest or shut them up in a box, where they move themselves like living members and eat oats and corn?”

Today hardly anyone believes that witches can make pets of penises or cause storms by dunking baptized cats. Most ordinary mortals (I hope) also understand that under torture humans will say whatever stops the pain, and most are able to reason that because the torturer controls the pain, what is revealed is what the torturer has in mind, not “truth” or anything the torture-victim knows.

Almost everything we thought we knew about witches and witchcraft had its origin in the “confessions” of people under torture, and thus was substantially fabricated out of the twisted minds and imaginations of the torturers. It’s not even fictional, let alone descriptive of reality.

It would be comforting to believe that the human race has outgrown torture and concepts of witchcraft. The British today observe Guy Fawkes Day with bonfires and hangings-in-effigy, but they don’t practice torture or burn witches, and they no longer hang, draw and quarter criminals.

Yet are we, after all, much advanced beyond the of Europe in the 15th to 17th centuries? What’s the real difference between an accusation of witchcraft and a suspicion of terrorism when both are used to justify torture and summary execution — sometimes carried out by drones?

I had hoped that Americans were waking up to the reality that our nation is under the control of a new breed of witch-hunters, people who swallow jejune fables about a nuclear bomb controlled by an evil terrorist who will only reveal its location under torture, or believe it is acceptable to secretly spy on world leaders and its own citizens, without the oversight of Congress. We have a president who believes he has the right to execute by drone anyone in the world—including a grandmother tending her garden in Pakistan. Worst of all, a substantial number of citizens apparently believe in this modern witchcraft: that terrorists are evil witches beyond redemption, and assert that not believing in a terrorism or a “war on terror” is heresy, if not treason.

This year we have had American media and public officials accusing Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning of treason deserving death or imprisonment before they have been tried and convicted, or even charged with a specific crime. To me, the treatment they have both received is tantamount to state terrorism.

As Juan Cole recently observed: “Among the founding principles of the United States was “no taxation without representation.” But the NSA appears to be a secret kingdom that appropriates our money with no oversight or accountability. We didn’t elect it, and if it doesn’t let our chosen representatives know what it is up to, then it is taxing us without giving us any representation. It is a tyrant….Secrecy is anathema to a democratic republic….. The only real question left is what the unelected fourth branch of government… is really up to…Who do the mostly right wing NSA bureaucrats really report to if not to Obama? And, what are they really doing with our cell phone records, which reveal to whom we speak, how often, and where exactly we are?…”

Behind our Guy Fawkes masks we argue endlessly about whether we are obedient cogs in an authoritarian empire that creates its own realities, or free participants in a living democracy, relating rationally to the realities we all live in. In the meantime we overlook a simple reality of living systems: Sooner or later, those who try to create their own reality or misjudge the reality that exists, and are not continuously responsive to changes in the real world, will get selected out of the genome.

Can a mask, meme or movement with nobody in charge make a difference? Stay tuned.

You can buy a Guy Fawkes mask online. But bear in mind that Warner Brothers, the Time Warner subsidiary which produced V for Vendetta. gets royalties on every mask sold.

Posted in Campaigns, UKComments Off on Masks, Memes, the Torturers, and the Witches

Pay No Attention to That Imperialist Behind the Curtain


What John Kerry did this week in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is nothing short of despicable. He, and the president who appointed him, managed to honor both a vicious military dictatorship and a totalitarian medieval monarchy as examples of progress toward a more democratic Middle East, as if neither stood in contradiction to professed U.S. objectives for the region.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, right, in Cairo, Egypt. (Photo: AP/Jason Reed)

Egyptians Following Right Path, Kerry Says,” read the New York Times headline Sunday trumpeting the secretary of state’s homage to ruthless military dictators who the very next day were scheduled to stage a show trial of Egypt’s first democratically elected president.

This was all part of a “road map” to democracy “being carried out to the best of our perception,” Kerry intoned, apparently embracing the calumny that the destruction of representative government in Egypt was always the American plan.

Kerry’s perception did not extend to the court farce the next day when Egypt’s duly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, held incommunicado for four months and denied access to his lawyers, was put on trial on accusations of causing violence among protesters in the streets, violence that paled in comparison to the deliberate killing of civilians by an Egyptian military trained and financed by the government Kerry represents.

Indeed, the Obama administration has refused to categorize the Egyptian military’s overthrow of the Morsi government as a coup, for fear that would automatically trigger the legal requirement of a cutoff of most of the $1.5 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military. Kerry was at great pains to assure Egyptian reporters that even the temporary hold on some weapons that the U.S. had implemented was not intended to penalize the Egyptian military for destroying Egypt’s experiment in democracy.

“It is not a punishment,” Kerry said. “It’s a reflection of policy in the United States under our law.” Drat that law that says we should not be rewarding military dictators who jail freely elected presidents.

At the moment Morsi was denouncing “this criminal military coup” from his courtroom cage, Kerry was off in Saudi Arabia paying tribute to “a true relationship between friends (that) is based on sincerity, candor and frankness, rather than mere courtesy.” But not so frank that Kerry would answer questions concerning the recent protest by Saudi women attempting to obtain the right to drive a car. Certainly never so frank as to get to the bottom of why this great U.S. ally funded the most virulent anti-American Islamic fanatics throughout the world; was one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban-run government of Afghanistan when it harbored al-Qaida as it directed terrorist attacks aimed at the United States; and was home country of 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked America on 9/11 as well as bin Laden, their leader.

If there is logic to the U.S. position, it clearly has nothing to do with the stated goals of American policy to prevent terrorist attacks on the U.S. while somehow advancing human rights as a means of creating a more stable, peaceful world. Were that this government’s objective, Kerry would not have traveled to Saudi Arabia to assure the monarchy that the U.S. still favors the Saudi-financed opposition in Syria that includes a considerable contingent of fighters the American intelligence agencies have labeled as Islamic terrorists. Nor would he now embrace a deeply corrupt military oligarchy in Egypt that can continue to enjoy the perks of its disproportionate power only by denying political freedom to the people of Egypt.

There is nothing new in this ugly embrace of the dark side of Mideast life. Cynicism of purpose and contempt for the well-being of most of the region’s inhabitants have underscored centuries of Western imperial intrusion, and the current U.S. example is of that pattern. Indeed, the backdrop issue driving the current drama, the role of Iran, has its origins in past Western machinations when the U.S. overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the last freely elected leader of Iran, when he was threatening to nationalize Western oil interests.

In Saudi Arabia, Kerry said that President Obama had dispatched him to assure the monarchy that the United States remained committed to protect the Royal Kingdom against external threats. That presumed threat refers to Iran, and Kerry is out to assuage Saudi, Egyptian and, most important, Israeli fears that peace might break out between Iran and the United States. Sadly Israel, which long has cultivated an image as providing the only democratic presence in the region, favored the coup in Iran, as it has this year in Egypt, preferring the security of totalitarian regimes to those that might be more responsive to popular sentiment, including support for the human rights of occupied Palestinians.

The problem with this all too familiar game is that it has consequences that at some point will spiral out of control. The entire region desperately needs modernization for its stability or the eruptions of violence that have affected the world will become ever more commonplace. But modernization without representation is a contradiction all too long apparent in this most tempestuous region. That is the sad consequence of the imprisonment of Morsi, who was elected with more than 50 percent of the vote of Egyptians, and the U.S. acceptance of the military that ousted him along with the Saudi royalty who detest everything that is post feudal in the country’s culture.

John Kerry, despite his democratic pretense, has sent a message to the disenfranchised of the Muslim world that the call for representative democracy on the part of the United States is nothing more than a public relations gimmick.

Posted in USAComments Off on Pay No Attention to That Imperialist Behind the Curtain

Shoah’s pages


November 2013
« Oct   Dec »