Why Copenhagen Failed

To anybody interested in the future of the earth’s climate, the conclusion of the Copenhagen conference represents either colossal disappointment or profound rage. The financial pledges— if honored— that rich nations made to poor nations will do nothing to combat global warming. The few climate related agreements that were made were of zero substance, especially when compared to what the situation demanded.

The sorrowful outcome, however, could have been predicted in the conference’s first week, based on two seemingly unrelated events: The conference showcased the largest police action in Denmark’s history (including mass arrests of “troublemakers”); while also producing the largest ever boom in limousine rentals. Both happenings helped reveal the true nature of the conference, spelling doom for climate progress.

Contrary to the hopes of billions of people, the talks were a purely elite affair. Many of the thousands of delegates sent to the conference were not looking to save the planet, as advertised, but were looking out for the national interest of their native governments. Most of these countries are dominated by the “special interests” of giant corporations.

Big business in the rich nations used the conference as a cynical maneuver to maintain their economic dominance over the “emerging business” in the developing countries. This fact was at first obscured by technical language, until the now-famous “Danish Text” was leaked to the press in the first week of the conference.

This document was a conference proposal written by the U.S. and England, though submitted by Denmark. The Danish Text proposes that developed nations — the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. — be allowed to pollute twice the amount of developing countries — China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. — for the next fifty years.

If enacted, the corporations of the developing nations would be forced to function under an incredible economic handicap. Their governments would have, of course, rejected such nonsense, giving the U.S. delegates the needed excuse to blame China for the failed talks (the U.S. media has done this with absolute disregard for facts).

The Danish Text also proposed to move future climate talks out of the realm of the too-democratic UN into the U.S./Europe dominated World Bank. Obama has thus surpassed his predecessor in the realm of global arrogance.

However, the U.S. torpedoed the talks long before they ever began, forcing the international media to campaign in favor of “lower expectations.” The New York Times explains:

“… when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last month, they were forced to abandon the goal of reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the American political system is not ready to agree to a treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy, transport and manufacturing [corporate] sectors.” (December 13, 2009).

Instead of building upon the foundation of the already-insufficient Kyoto Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole new structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework was abandoned because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on multi-lateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses (however insufficient). Instead, Obama proposed that “…each country set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target.” (The Guardian, September 15, 2009).

This way, there is zero accountability, zero oversight, and therefore, zero climate progress. Any country may make any number of symbolic “pledges” to combat global warming, while actually doing very little to follow through — much like billions of dollars rich countries pledged to Africa that have yet to leave western bank accounts.

Obama’s maneuvering to ruin Copenhagen was correctly assessed by Canadian writer Naomi Klein, who said that Obama, like Bush, is “using multi-lateralism to destroy multi-lateralism.” This means that Obama is participating in international organizations like the UN Copenhagen conference, with no intention of reaching agreements. Once the U.S. blames its overseas rivals for the failure to “cooperate,” a more independent path can be struck.

This is reminiscent of Bush’s path to invading Iraq: he used the UN Security Council to pass resolutions against Iraq, which helped him weaken Iraq while strengthening U.S. public opinion. But when the Security Council wouldn’t agree to an invasion, Bush assembled a pathetic “coalition of the willing” to attack, completely abandoning the UN (Obama appears to be following an identical approach with Iran). U.S. corporations wanted to dominate Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other treasures, to the detriment of the corporations within Europe, Russia, and China.

Another example of Obama’s fake multi-lateralism is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. is again being blamed for blocking a multi-lateral agreement in this corporate-controlled organization — some U.S. corporations want market protection from rival corporations of other countries.

The international WTO continues to be unofficially abandoned in favor of regional (unilateral) trade blocs like NAFTA, CAFTA, the EU, etc., increasing international tensions, which, if one looks below the surface, are conflicts between giant corporations based in rival nations, battling for control of international markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.

The failure of the WTO, the UN, and now Copenhagen are all examples of an increasingly conflict-ridden world, based on the emerging economies challenging the rule of the old powers. This dynamic clearly resembles the situation prior to WWI, when the big powers — England and the U.S. — felt threatened by the rise of Germany and Japan, and used a strategy of “containment” to stunt their growth. The end result was war.

This time, however, China, India, Brazil, and Russia are the emerging threats, and the issue of climate change is being used as yet another tactic to “contain” their growth.

With such a dynamic unfolding, there can be no future multi-lateral agreements expected, minus the “symbolic” type that Copenhagen produced. The unbridgeable national conflicts are not the result of bad policy from naïve leaders, but an inherent future of a market economy [capitalism].

Giant corporations in different countries are constantly growing and competing with each other for a very limited global marketplace, always attempting to monopolize markets, raw-materials, and labor by any means necessary. This vicious competition pushes all other social issues into the background — human needs are subordinate to blindly chasing profits.

Such an irrationally competitive system cannot be smoothed over with good intentions and on-paper cooperation. Deeper, conflicting corporate interests between nations are the motor force pushing countries further apart the more cooperation is needed.

But soon the fake cooperation Obama stresses will be too much for the U.S. corporate-elite to bear. Many of them are bored with the international community, especially when the U.S. is the sole military super-power in the world. Soon Obama’s “failed attempts” to cooperate internationally will evolve into a more independent, Bush-like approach.

The largely ignored UN is likely to be further pushed aside so that brute force can continue to dictate US international policy, an agenda already begun by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Obama’s expanding war in Pakistan, and the “looming threat” that supposedly Iran is.

As long as governmental policy is dictated by the corporations — represented in the U.S. by the two party system — multi-lateralism and cooperation are doomed. Thus, the battle to save the environment and end war must include a fight against these corporations, who wield a political/economic vise grip over society. Only by publicly controlling these billionaire-owned mega-enterprises can the peaceful and cooperative impulses of the earth’s people find their full expression.

Pedal To The Metal

Speeding Towards Stop Sign Without Breaks…

Americans, led by their indolent politicians, step on the population gas pedal at full bore into the 21st century without a map, route, plan or clue as to how they will solve their own accelerating human population numbers.

In excess of 150 million Americans live and breathe toxic air in overloaded cities. They grind their way through gridlocked traffic five days a week. They kill 44,000 fellow citizens annually in car accidents from clogged highways. Their rivers run with chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides, sewage and other contaminants enough to create 10,000 square mile dead zones where they empty into our oceans. They suffer water shortages so much so, that they completely deplete the Colorado River before it reaches the Pacific. Americans use so many chemicals to grow food; their acidified soils become more unhealthy and toxic to angleworms and nitro-fixing bacteria with each passing year.

Those chemicals in the air, soil and water create millions of cancer deaths annually around the world. Yet, no one advocates banning the contamination of this planet for future generations or the welfare of all other life on Earth.

All the while, humans burn through non-renewable resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals and metals as if there were no tomorrow. While every scientific indicator shows human activity destabilizing Earth’s climate—leaders admonish citizens to change their lights to the curly-cue mercury energy saving lights—as if THAT will solve our dilemma.

While American citizens suffer 15 million unemployed and 35 million subsisting on food stamps as well as 13.4 million Americans living in poverty—our U.S. Congress imports 160,000 foreign workers into this country every 30 days, month in and month out, year in and year out. All total, the U.S. adds 3.1 million more humans, net gain, annually on its way to adding 100 million people by 2035.

While that certain insanity continues, not one congressional member, media outlet or environmental organization addresses the obvious: we exhaust Earth’s ability to mitigate our presence on this planet. Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report dance around the population issue like a mouse trying to escape a hawk. Charlie Rose, 60 Minutes, Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer, Harry Smith, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Wolf Blitzer and others avoid it at all costs. Yes, they report its mounting consequences, but they won’t touch overpopulation growth.

Bryan Walsh, Time reporter, September 23, 2009, wrote a sobering column, “How much human activity can earth handle?” But nowhere in his piece did he address the population connection!

Walsh said, “The scientific name is the Holocene Age, but climatologists like to call our current climatic phase the Long Summer. The history of Earth’s climate has rarely been smooth. From the moment life began on the planet billions of years ago, the climate has swung drastically and often abruptly from one state to another — from tropical swamp to frozen ice age. Over the past 10,000 years, however, the climate has remained remarkably stable by historical standards: not too warm and not too cold, or Goldilocks weather. That stability has allowed Homo sapiens, numbering perhaps just a few million at the dawn of the Holocene, to thrive; farming has taken hold and civilizations have arisen. Without the Long Summer, that never would have been possible.”

It’s all related

“But as human population has exploded over the past few thousand years, the delicate ecological balance that kept the Long Summer going has become threatened,” Walsh said. “The rise of industrialized agriculture has thrown off Earth’s natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, leading to pollution on land and water, while our fossil-fuel addiction has moved billions of tons of carbon from the land into the atmosphere, heating the climate ever more.

“Now a new article in the Sept. 24 issue of Nature says the safe climatic limits in which humanity has blossomed are more vulnerable than ever and that unless we recognize our planetary boundaries and stay within them, we risk total catastrophe. “Human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state,” writes Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Environmental Institute and the author of the article. “The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development.”

While we multiply our numbers, we degrade our planet-home. But you won’t see any meaningful attention to the root causes!

“Regarding climate change, for instance, Rockstrom proposes an atmospheric-carbon-concentration limit of no more than 350 parts per million — meaning no more than 350 atoms of carbon for every million atoms of air. Before the industrial age, levels were at 280 p.p.m.; currently they’re at 387 p.p.m. and rising. That, scientists believe, should be enough to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which should be safely below a climatic tipping point that could lead to the wide-scale melting of polar ice sheets, swamping coastal cities. “Transgressing these boundaries will increase the risk of irreversible climate change,” writes Rockstrom.

“That’s the impact of breaching only one of nine planetary boundaries that Rockstrom identifies in the paper,” Walsh said. “Other boundaries involve freshwater overuse, the global agricultural cycle and ozone loss. In each case, he scans the state of science to find ecological limits that we can’t violate, lest we risk passing a tipping point that could throw the planet out of whack for human beings. It’s based on a theory that ecological change occurs not so much cumulatively, but suddenly, after invisible thresholds have been reached. Stay within the lines, and we might just be all right.”

“In three of the nine cases Rockstrom has pointed out, however — climate change, the nitrogen cycle and species loss — we’ve already passed his threshold limits. In the case of global warming, we haven’t yet felt the full effects, Rockstrom says, because carbon acts gradually on the climate — but once warming starts, it may prove hard to stop unless we reduce emissions sharply. Ditto for the nitrogen cycle, where industrialized agriculture already has humanity pouring more chemicals into the land and oceans than the planet can process, and for wildlife loss, where we risk biological collapse. “We can say with some confidence that Earth cannot sustain the current rate of loss without significant erosion of ecosystem resilience,” says Rockstrom.

Walsh said, “Rockstrom’s work delineates the limits to human growth — economically, demographically, ecologically — that we transgress at our peril.”

“Ongoing changes in global chemistry should alarm us about threats to the persistence of life on Earth, whether or not we cross a catastrophic threshold any time soon,” writes William Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in a commentary accompanying the Nature paper.

I encourage you, fellow citizen, to take action, to push this issue toward the front burner. If you don’t, as you look out across the political landscape, who will? You haven’t heard one word from anyone in Congress and even President Obama. No matter how much conservation we practice at whatever level, everything becomes negated by adding 100 million people to this civilization and another 100 million after that, etc.

We need a “US Sustainable Immigration Policy” of a maximum of 100,000 annually; “US Water Usage Policy” and “US Sustainable Population Policy” in the 21st century if we expect to remain a viable civilization in the coming decades.

Urban Cavemen

Living life out of balance…

Balance: A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements

In early 2000, I was walking through Manhattan with three friends on our way to meet a fourth member of our party. This was well before cell phones had become so completely pervasive but still, I was the only one in our group without one. I sarcastically commented on this and was prompted mocked as a Luddite. Then it was on to the essential business of figuring out how to meet up with friend #4.

Out came a cell phone. A call was placed to another cell phone. A meeting place was agreed upon and we were on our way. Friend #1 hung up his phone and turned to me, declaring that this was “one of those times” when a cell phone was indispensable. To which I replied:

“If we didn’t have access to your cell phone or any cell phones at all, we would’ve been simply been more creative in order to come up with a plan that would’ve gotten all of us together without a major hassle. Instead, the phone made us lazy because we knew we could just wing it. Instead of problem-solving, we opted for reliance on consumer electronics.”

A similar rant, of course, could realistically be applied to calculators. Not to mention, the spell-check function on your computer, most software programs in general, and yeah…the computer itself. We no longer have to learn how to spell or remember phone numbers or do math in our heads or memorize directions or even walk up a single flight of stairs. Thanks to the marvels of industrial civilization, we happily delegate such tedious tasks to technology so we can have time to focus on the truly important stuff, like…um…well…uh…removing 90% of the large fish from the ocean, perhaps?

Harmony: Agreement in feeling or opinion

We each possess a physiology that evolved to negotiate the Stone Age. Unfortunately, we live in the Space Age. There’s the rub. We are urban cavemen – overmatched in our daily battle to navigate an artificial reality because we have lost contact with our instincts.

“Pediatricians nowadays see fewer kids with broken bones from climbing trees and more children with longer-lasting repetitive-stress injuries, which are related to playing video games and typing at keyboards,” writes Sally Deneen at The Daily Green. Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, calls this “nature deficit disorder.” As a fourth-grader quoted in Louv’s book explains: “I like to play indoors better, because that’s where all the electrical outlets are.” Nature deficit disorder is obviously not a medical term; it’s more of a social trend…a trend that plays in factoids like this: American children between the ages of 8 to 18 spend an average of 6.5 hours a day indoors using computers, video games, television, and MP3 players.

The payoff for all this spectator-ship is a lifestyle based on imitation, competition, materialism, and self-delusion. The dominant culture keeps us inactive while our biology desires movement. The dominant culture sells us junk food while our bodies crave nutrients. The dominant culture trains us to be obedient while our minds yearn for freedom. The dominant culture teaches conformity while our souls demand individuality. The dominant culture denies our biology and puts us out of balance with nature.

Among many others things, it can be posited that we did not evolve to experience artificial light after sundown, live inside four walls under that artificial light, eat processed and refined food products, ingest chemicals and pharmaceuticals, sleep during the day and stay up all night, drive cars, travel in an airplane across time zones with such rapidity, become obese, remain sedentary, consume animal flesh or mammary secretions, usurp our immune system with toxic vaccines, exist on a man-made time schedule, be surrounded by copious human-induced electromagnetic radiation, climb giant mountains, travel to space or underwater, wear shoes or eyeglasses, lift weights and develop hypertrophied muscles, exist without community, give birth lying down, live in a world devoid of top soil and nutrient-rich food, smoke cigarettes, be hyper-exposed to toxic pesticides, endure global warming and the greenhouse effect, use cosmetics, or manage the high level of stress and noise that is synonymous with our so-called progress.

Koyaanisqatsi…this is what the Kogi Indians of Colombia call “life out of balance” and this is what we have created as our culture. When I say “culture,” I am referring to what Jason Miller calls “the pitiless, soulless, murderous machine of capitalism and industrial civilization inculcates, indoctrinates, entices, bribes, and coerces nearly everyone to participate in its bloody, rapacious, and relentless assault on the Earth and its sentient inhabitants.” This culture has quickly fucked up the entire planet. So much so that the elusive Kogi have issued a warning to us, their Younger Brothers.

Equilibrium: A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system

Even the eyes of veteran activists glaze over when I talk about 80% of the world’s forest being gone. They want to debate the latest political minutia while all life on this planet is under relentless assault. It’s cliché to declare that our problems cannot be solved by the same type of thinking that created them. Cliché but accurate. Elections, legislation, protests, petitions, and so on will not stop the flow of pesticides or the use of nuclear power or the glorification of war and its volunteer soldiers or our culture’s relentless march toward total destruction.

Life on Earth is out of balance. Corporations, politicians, judges, cops, and soldiers can’t fix this. In fact, most of them can’t even perceive the imbalance. The change has to come from somewhere else. The change will come from somewhere else…of that we can be sure. The details of outcome, however, are far less certain.

Symbiosis: A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence

One final note, on the medium by which I have shared these thoughts: The aforementioned Kogi have no written language. In part, this is to assure they remember. They talk, they pass down stories, and they remember. “The Kogi attach great importance to memory,” explain the editors of Ode Magazine. “The memory of events with which the community has been confronted, the memory of social regulations within the group and so forth. ‘Memory,’ they say, ‘is like eyes which were made to see. If they close, everything becomes darkness.’ For them, this memory cannot be written down, it must be spoken, passed down by members of the group. In writing, memories are separated from the people and lose their effectiveness.”

So, I ask: what memories are we creating and what are we doing to ensure there will be someone left to appreciate and remember them?

Synergy: Cooperative interaction among groups

The Return of the Aristocrats

By Neil Davenport | spiked-online.com

The real scandal to emerge from the MPs expenses debacle is the demand for even less representative democracy. For certain commentators it seems the best way to restore the British state’s integrity is to reinstate the divine rule of those who ‘know best’ – the aristocracy and the House of Windsor.

Monarchists have leapt upon the expenses scandal in an attempt to rehabilitate the power of the undemocratic sovereign of Britain. For instance, in the Daily Telegraph Simon Heffer argued that the Queen should have a ‘role to play in steadying the ship’ of a battered parliament and that she ‘has the authority to act’ if the legitimacy crisis deepens.

As Brendan O’Neill argued on spiked, such sentiments reveal the institutionalised menace to democracy that the monarchy represents (see Beware the Vultures Circling Westminster, by Brendan O’Neill). Even taking into account the current giddy, panic-ridden behaviour of the political class, it is quite remarkable that such pro-monarchy views are uttered so loudly and proudly in the twenty-first century.

However, in recent years it is not only the usual conservative cranks who have been fawning over the aristocracy and the House of Windsor. Many more radical campaigners and liberals have been equally doe-eyed over the posh. In a recent supplement in the Guardian, a headline that bellowed: ‘Hugh FW for Parliament!’ (This is a chummy abbreviation of the name of upper-class celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.) The writer was seriously suggesting that the chef could and should offer leadership for Brits.

In the past Fearnely-Whittingstall, through his television programmes, has lectured us on such crucial issues as organic farming and ‘chicken’s rights’. In these recession-struck times, the Guardian thinks it appropriate to introduce some ‘Hugh FW’ directives forcing us to buy only overpriced, organic fruit and veg and free range chicken.

Other green campaigners and writers would dearly love to see prince Charles control our lifestyles. The lionisation of Charles by liberals is perhaps one of the strangest developments of recent years. Back in the Eighties and Nineties, Prince Charles was widely derided and ridiculed. His views on architecture, organic farming and his habit of talking to plants were rightly lampooned across the political spectrum. Now a weird and alarming reverence surrounds the prince and his nutty pronouncements are taken very seriously indeed.

In 2005 Charles demanded that then US president George W Bush should prioritise tackling ‘global warming’. Hardly an eyebrow was raised over an unelected figurehead finger-wagging at a democratically elected president. To the contrary, he was cheered. The Times (London) asked earnestly ‘should Bush listen to Prince Charles?’, as if he was offering sound and insightful advice.

Charles’ regular global-warming warnings are enthusiastically greeted by green-minded journalists, like when the prince said, in front of industrialists at St James’s Palace, that capitalism and consumerism are destroying the planet. His Rainforests Project – which calls for ‘green economics that recognises that the rainforests are worth more alive than dead’ – was fawned over by the broadsheets and bloggers, too. One newspaper columnist wondered whether Charles ‘should be seen in a great tradition of dissidents who then become leader, such as Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, and Lech Walesa’. A contributor to the newspaper’s online discussion board thanked the prince for using his ‘considerable influence’ to try to change things.

A blogger called him ‘a symbol of environmental awareness’, while the website supergreenme offers pure hagiographic support for Charles. ‘Hopefully the actions of Prince Charles will inspire other leaders to not only promote change, but actually live a green life as well’, it said.

The support from apparent leftists for Charles’ environmentalism is indicative of just how far material aspiration has disappeared from progressive political thinking. After losing the arguments on the economy and social change, liberal left wingers’ promotion of green ideas and ethical living – effectively swapping materialism for moralism – found a welcome ally amongst the upper classes.

For a long time, aristocratic conservatism has laid dormant in British politics, even within the Conservative Party, which first adapted to liberal modernism via the One Nation Conservatism programme and, later, through New Right economic ideas. The old left’s desire to give an ‘anti-capitalist’ twist to environmentalism has only succeeded in giving very posh reactionaries like Zac Goldsmith and Jonathon Porritt an aura of radicalism. But the demands for Charles to ‘use his influence’ are far worse.

Much of modern political history in Britain has been a struggle to shift power from the monarch to parliament – from the hands of individuals who presumed the God-given right to rule and into the hands of those commoners in the House of Commons who stand or fall at the ballot box. The Magna Carta of 1215 limited the absolute power of monarchs; the 1642 to 1651 English Civil War between parliamentarians and royalists further undermined the monarchy; the Bill of Rights of 1689 established the freedom of parliament to make laws and elect its members without royal interference.

The encouragements of Charles to challenge elected officials flies in the face of these historic gains. It is understandable that mainstream politics is held in low esteem these days, but is this really an excuse to grant a future king political authority?

The support and goodwill that surrounds Prince Charles and aristocratic greens also means they are now more likely to get their own way in preventing important development projects. Last month, for example, the heir to the British throne scuppered plans for a £1billion development which was to create 552 new apartments on the 12.8-acre site of the old Chelsea barracks (6). Now, a new design will be put forward.

More generally, the regulations against building on the Green Belt, which toffs at what is now the Campaign to Protect Rural England helped establish in the 1950s, ensure that many of us cannot afford a decent-sized home with a garden. Extraordinary though it might seem, 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land – and they are mostly the same families who owned it in the nineteenth century (7). Whereas in the past such a backward state of affairs would be an obvious signpost of the deeply class-ridden character of British society, today such an imbalance can be justified in the language of environmentalism, anti-consumerism and even anti-capitalism.

Not long ago, the landed upper classes and royalty were widely despised and mocked, even by those of a moderate political persuasion. They were rightly seen as a barrier to Britain becoming a modern liberal democracy. Now, it seems, many can’t get enough of the upper classes’ ‘green credentials’. From hectoring us on healthy eating to preventing new homes being built, the dead hand of these deadbeats is weighing heavy on ordinary citizens. This is a far bigger scandal than any MP claiming expenses for duck islands, moat cleaning or porn flicks.

Obama ‘Czars’ – A Zionist Shadow Government

ANOTHER ZIONIST JEW IS OBAMA’S LATEST ‘CZAR’ APPOINTMENT as America falls further under the total domination of one of the world’s tiniest minority groups.

Washington Zionist Jewish attorney, Ken Feinberg, will now have the power to actually determine compensation of the senior executives of seven firms that have received US taxpayer bailouts.

Executives at companies such as the American International Insurance Group (AIG), Bank of America and General Motors, will be marked for special oversight by Feinberg who will be operating inside the White House with complete autonomy.

This latest move by the puppet teleprompter ‘President’ reflects his masters’ agenda that companies cannot decide for themselves on matters of pay but will now have a Zionist deciding compensation arrangements. This, of course, comes on the heels of Obama completely reversing himself on his call for salary caps for elite banking and other key executives.

Even Vladimir Putin Warned The US Against Obama’s Creeping Socialism Here.

OBAMA’S ‘CZARDOM’ BRINGS OUR NATION one step closer to a blatant Soviet-oriented socialist Zionist government in what is supposed to be, and what was, an American republic. With Obama’s latest appointment, Zionist-Jewish power in America’s legal and economic infrastructure expands and intensifies to staggering levels.

America’s bailout scam payoffs to wealthy, top Zionist Jewish banksters last year – as ordered by the Fed and Wall Street – showed the world how far the US has been taken over by world Zionism.

Feinberg becomes the newest member of what can quite arguably be called Obama’s Zionist shadow government. Keep clearly in mind that these ‘czars’ – appointed by Obama without Congressional approval – not only oversee Congressional-approved cabinet members, but act as independent national policy makers. ALL of Obama’s leading ‘Czars’ are Zionist Jews…who come from a fraction of a percent of the American population.

A LIST OF OBAMA ‘CZARS’

WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO NO ONE BUT OBAMA, our new puppet president has embarked upon a wholesale power grab in his appointments of over 16 White House ‘czars.’ In a recent CBS News Interview, Senator Robert Byrd, who has the constitutional authority as President Pro Tempore of the US Senate, expressed his and many Americans’ concerns with the unconstitutional ‘czardom’ in Obama’s White House:

“Obama’s czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress. The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House czars threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate, not appointees of the White House who operate with complete autonomy. These czars are accountable to no one but Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make.” View Entire Story Here & Here.

Senator Byrd is absolutely correct. Obama has taken the appointments of ‘czars’ to an unprecedented level wherein he is liable for acting against the US Constitution. The Constitution (Article II) commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but are subject to the “advice and consent” of the US Senate.

Thus, any person, for example, whose pay is deemed excessive by the Zionist Jew, Feinberg, or affected by any other Zionist ‘czar,’ could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have the court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then we all could just ignore these ‘czars’ – because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to even tie our shoes. View Entire Story Here, Here, & Here.

HERE IS A LIST of Obama’s leading ‘czars,’ (all Zionist Jews save one), and their Zionist agenda to install a Zionist inspired socialist system in America’s government:

Economic Czar – Larry Summers. Director of Obama’s National Economic Council. A Zionist Jew, Summers served as President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.

In a recent article: Is Larry Summers Taking Kickbacks From The Banks He’s Bailing Out?, Summers is exposed as acting in his own interests and not America’s in his role as Obama’s economic ‘czar.’ On June 12, 2009, Summers addressed the Zionist-led Council on Foreign Relations, defending his policies against the accusation of “backdoor socialism.”

Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein. Director of Obama’s Office of Regulatory Affairs. A Zionist Jew, Sunstein joined the faculty of the Zionist-run Harvard Law School and began serving as the director of its Program on Risk Regulation.

A leading architect of the Cyber Security Act of 2009, now before Congress, Sunstein stated that the Internet is a “threat to democracy.” Indeed, our last bastion of freedom, the Internet, may soon be under the dictatorial control of this Zionist Jew, Sunstein.

Pay Czar – Kenneth Feinberg. Appointed by Obama to “regulate the pay for over 175 US corporate executives.” Feinberg, a Zionist Jew and Washington lawyer, worked for President Bush to prevent lawsuits against the US by the families of victims of the alleged 9-11 terrorist attacks, thus assisting in the Zionist cover-up of 9-11′s “inside job.”

Guantanamo/Military Jails Czar – Daniel Fried. Appointed by Obama to plead “individual war on terror detainee cases” while ostensibly working to close Guantanamo Bay’s US torture & detention camp.

A Zionist Jew and Clinton retread, Fried is currently the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, responsible for the division that handles NATO enlargement and coordination with the European Union on the war on terror.

Acting on behalf of the US State Department, this Zionist Jew, Fried, opposed Congress’ Armenian Genocide Resolution. Fried stated that recognizing the 1915 Armenian genocide by Muslim Turks, (plotted by Zionist Jews), would “damage US interests.”

As Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during the Clinton administration, this Zionist Jew, Fried, supported the bombing of Christian Serbs during the Kosovo crisis in 1999.

Car Czar – Steven Rattner. Director of Obama’s Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. Rattner is a Zionist Jew and former executive with three Jewish banks: Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Lazard Freres.

Rattner, who reported his overall networth of between $188 million and $608 million, enjoys a close friendship with both New York Times owner, Arthur Sulzberger, and NYC Mayor and financial magnate, Michael Bloomberg.

How then could Rattner ever act on behalf of America’s interests and the common Gentile laborer with his intimate Zionist-Jewish ties? How then could Rattner, with his millions of Zionist-earned dollars, ever relate to the Gentile common laborer who has lost his UAW health-care benefits?

Border Czar – Alan Bersin. Director of Obama’s Special Representative For Border Affairs. Raised as a Talmudic Jew, Bersin’s appointment brings yet another Jew to America’s Department of Homeland Security, of which, Bersin is now a Zionist insider by serving as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs.

Climate Czar – Todd Stern. Named by Obama as Envoy for Climate Change. Stern is a Zionist Jew and longtime friend and advisor to both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton. Stern, a Clinton retread, served as his staff secretary.

Currently, Stern is a senior fellow at the Zionist “think tank,” Center for American Progress, funded & staffed by Zionist Jews. Stern promotes the Center’s Zionist ideology of perpetual war for perpetual peace in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East, all in the name of “US security.”

Global Warming Czar – Carol Browner. Appointed by Obama as Energy Coordinator. Browner, yet another Clinton retread as administrator of the EPA, was listed until recently as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group, Socialist International, that advocates “global governance.”

The Washington Times reported that Browner’s name was listed on the member’s Web page for Socialist International. But Browner, not wishing to prompt objections to her White House appointment due to her socialist ideology, asked the organization to remove her name and biography from their site. See More Obama ‘Czars” Here & Here.

THUS, WE HAVE NON-ELECTED ‘CZARS’ – Zionist Jews in the leading positions – who operate with impunity – who are backed by Obama – and who are given the tools and resources to implement their pernicious, Anti-American, Zionist agenda.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=407

From Bunker Hill to Baghdad

Pinter’s Dispatch to Obama…

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!
Poem by Pablo Neruda

About a month before Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared on PBS’s Charlie Rose Show and was asked whether he thought Obama would be a good choice for president. Brzezinski paused for a minute, peered at Rose out of the corner of his eye, and answered, “Just think of the symbolism.” As soon as he said that, Brzezinski and Rose broke out into laughter as though they were sharing a private joke.

Brzezinski was right, of course. Obama was the perfect choice for president. Not because of his experience. He had none. He was a two year senator with a resume’ small enough to fit on the back of a matchbox. Still Obama had what Brzezinski and Co. were looking for, symbolism; the kind of symbolism that connected him to people around the world and made them feel like one of their own had finally clawed their way to the top. Even better, Obama was a charismatic populist who could fill stadiums with adoring fans and put a benign face on America’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. What more could Brzezinski hope for? After 8 years of dragging “Brand America” through the mud, the country would finally get the emergency facelift it needed and begin to restore its battered image as the world’s indispensable nation.

For leftists, Obama has been a total bust. He’s escalated the war in Afghanistan, increased the cross-border bombings of Pakistan, hemmed and hawed about prosecuting war crimes, refused to actively lobby House members to make it easier for workers to organize (EFCA), and surrounded himself with bank industry reps who’ve committed $12.8 trillion to sinking financial institutions with no assurance that the money would be repaid. Apart from a trifling bill on stem cells, Obama has done absolutely zero to confirm his bone fides as a liberal. The truth is, Obama is neither liberal nor conservative; he’s simply an inspiring orator and a skillful politician who has no strong convictions about anything. If he achieves greatness, it will be because he was thrust into a crisis he couldn’t avoid and reluctantly acted in the best interests of the American people. That possibility still exists, although it seems more unlikely by the day.

Foreign leaders are clearly relieved to see the last of George W. Bush, and they appear to be willing to give Obama every opportunity to mend fences and break with the past. But Obama has made little effort to reciprocate or show that he’s serious about real change. The emphasis seems to be more on public relations than policy; more on glitzy photo ops, grandiose speeches and gadding about from one capital to another, than ending the chronic US meddling and militarism. Where’s the beef or is it all just empty posturing?

No one’s ready to write-off Obama just yet, but he needs to show he’s the real-deal by taking steps to ratchet-down the war machine and reign in the corporate elites and bank vermin. But is it really possible for one man–however well-meaning–to change the course of a nation by standing up the gaggle of racketeers who pull the strings from behind the curtain? Keep in mind, America’s history of violent interventions, unprovoked wars, color-coded revolutions and coup d’ etats has a long pedigree that stretches from Bunker Hill to Baghdad. That river of blood did not begin with George Bush and it won’t end with Barack Obama. Every generation has produced its own litany of crimes, from Wounded Knee to Nagasaki to My Lai to Falluja. In Harold Pinter’s Nobel acceptance speech, the playwright invokes one such incident which epitomizes the pattern of hostility which has been repeated over and over again wherever the Washington mandarins detect opposition to their iron-fisted rule.

Harold Pinter, Nobel Acceptance Speech:

“The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren’t perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilized. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighboring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about ‘a tapestry of lies’ which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.

But this ‘policy’ was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it.”

Pinter’s speech is a somber indictment of US foreign policy; a policy which is now cloaked behind the rock-star facade of Barack Obama. Nothing has changed and, perhaps, nothing will change. The same barbarous campaign that thrived under Bush has been passed along to Obama intact. Wherever there is resistance to US ambitions; there lies the enemy. Whether its Marxists in Bogota, nationalists in Kosovo, Bolivarians in Caracas, Shia militias in Beirut, Islamic moderates in Mogadishu or Quakers in Toledo. They’re all enemies, every one of them, and they need to be dealt with.

Obama is no fool; he knows he’s being used. He knows he wasn’t chosen for his enlightened views on health care and stem cells. He was picked because the men in charge needed a new posterboy to hide behind while they carry out their illicit activities. Obama is not so much of a Commander in chief as he is master illusionist, diverting attention from the stealth war that goes on relentlessly with or without his consent. Here’s Pinter again:

“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis…It’s a scintillating stratagem.”

Consider how the news was shaped to make it look like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were carried out for altruistic reasons. Thus, the war in Afghanistan became “Operation Enduring Freedom”, stressing the selfless generosity of bombing a country into oblivion and reinstating the thuggish warlords to power. The same strategy was used for the invasion of Iraq which was celebrated as “liberation from a brutal dictator.” Liberation which cost the lives of over 1 million Iraqis and the displacement of 4 million more. Still, no one in the UN or so called international community has pressed for removing the US from the Security Council or prosecuting its leaders for war crimes. It’s a testimony to the success of the US media in upholding the “tapestry of lies” of which Pinter speaks. Under Obama, the charade has only gotten worse. The coverage of the war has stopped entirely. War? What war? What matters now is Obama’s cheery banter with Jay Leno, or Michelle’s well-proportioned arms or Malia’s adorable Portuguese Waterdog. America is whole again. Let the killing resume.

Pinter: “What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what’s called the ‘international community’. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be ‘the leader of the free world’. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man’s land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticize our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You’re either with us or against us.”

Obama doesn’t need to solve the world’s problems. He doesn’t have to reverse global warming or slow peak oil, cure AIDS or end world hunger. All he needs to do is meet the minimal requirement of his job as president, which is to deliver justice to his people. That’s why the prosecution of Bush for war crimes is more important than any other issue on the docket. Justice precedes everything; it’s the thread that keeps the social fabric stitched together. Justice for the victims who were killed in their homes with their families while they were sleeping or eating dinner. Justice for the people who were bombed in wedding parties or going to work or at the mosque praying to God. That’s what people want from Obama. Justice, nothing more. The Reverend Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” It’s up to Obama follow that arc and take at least one step on the path of legitimacy, accountability and justice.

Pinter: “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.”

It’s highly unlikely that a black man with a background in community organizing really believes that expanding the war in Afghanistan is the right thing to do. Nor is it likely that he supports wiretapping, the crackdown on immigrants, penalizing sellers of medical marijuana, trillion dollar bank bailouts or “enhanced” interrogation. He is merely reading from the script that he has been given. But as the economic crisis deepens and the country becomes more radicalized and politically unstable, that script will have to be tossed aside. Obama will have plenty of opportunities to shrug off his handlers and show what he’s really made of. Perhaps he is great man after all.

Pinter: “When we look into a mirror, we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimeter and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.”

Go ahead, Barack. Smash the mirror.

Five Reasons Why Americans Won’t Resist

Protest (American, definitely not a verb): Wait for UFPJ or ANSWER to stage a parade (I mean, demonstration) on a weekend afternoon so no one misses work or school or in any way disrupts the flow of commerce. Don’t make a sign; the organizers will make one for you. March in an orderly fashion, be polite to the occupying army (I mean, cops), and be sure to stay in designated free speech zones. Blame the Republicans. Wear costumes. Make puppets. Exclude anarchists. Hold a candlelight vigil. Sign a petition. Chant. Vote for a Democrat and hope for change. Need I continue?

With the stakes never higher than they are now, why aren’t activists ramping up the pressure and looking beyond tactics that are allowed by those in power?

Here are my five guesses:

1. We are trained to believe that nothing major is wrong. Global warming? Economic meltdown? Epidemics of preventable diseases? Slavery, genocide, ecocide? You name it and we’re ready to downplay it. We’re Americans, goddammit, we’ll figure out a way to fix it. When the going gets tough, we’ll call the experts.

2. We are trained to leave it to experts. Rather than worry our little heads over why more than 100 plant and animal species go extinct each day, we rely on experts. Instead of learning what a “collateralized-debt obligation” is and how it contributed to the current economic depression, just let the professionals handle the mess. Besides, such delegation frees up much more time to watch TV and update our Facebook pages.

3. We are trained to embrace non-violence. All the real heroes would never raise a fist in anger: Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc. Sure, the government and its corporate owners are taking away all our rights and all our money. They’re poisoning our air, water, and food while crafting laws that make prison a looming possibility, but the moment we contemplate anything more than a non-violent response, we become worse than any of them. Ain’t that right?

4. We feel too damn privileged to risk prison (or worse). The average Gaza resident doesn’t have the luxury of wondering if their resistance could result in arrest and thus perhaps ruin their reputation. The average American? Well, that’s a different story. I can’t defy insane laws designed to squash protest. I might get arrested and that means close proximity to all those scary criminals and it also means hurting my chances of landing a good job and maybe even losing all my respectable friends. I mean, I’m an activist and all but that’s asking way too much. Who do you think I am, Mandela?

5. We’re fuckin’ cowards. Our acquiescence in a disturbingly broad range of areas-access to health care, tolerance for voting irregularities, directly funding the Israeli war machine, stomaching the groupthink behind saluting a flag, etc. etc. etc.-appears to have no limits. Americans love to talk the talk about being fearless and tough but when ordered to remove our shoes before going through airport security, it’s “yes sir” all the way.

We know things have passed the proverbial tipping point and that immediate action is 100% needed and justified, but we’re far too spineless to do anything that might get us in trouble. Somehow, it’s more terrifying for any of us to face down a cop than it is to contemplate the total destruction of our earthly eco-system.

If it’s true that action expresses priorities, we American activists aren’t overly concerned about the future.

We now return to our regularly scheduled slate of left wing articles…

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide released by human industrial activity is the cause of rising global temperatures today. The film argues that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide have nothing to do with climate change. Further, the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions may have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.