Film Review: Avatar, A Humanist Call from Mt. Hollywood

Avatar may well be the biggest anti War film of all time. It stands against everything the West is identified with. It is against greed and capitalism, it is against interventionalism, it is against colonialism and imperialism, it is against technological orientation, it is against America and Britain. It puts Wolfowitz, Blair and Bush on trial without even mentioning their names. It enlightens the true meaning of ethics as a dynamic judgmental process rather than fixed moral guidelines (such as the Ten Commandments or the 1948 Human Right Declaration). It throws a very dark light on our murderous tendencies towards other people, their belief and rituals. But it doesn’t just stop there. In the same breath, very much like German Leben philosophers (1), it praises the power of nature and the attempt to bond in harmony with soil, the forest and the wildlife. It advises us all to integrate with our surrounding reality rather than impose ourselves on it. Very much like German Idealists and early Romanticists, it raises questions to do with essence, existence and the absolute. It celebrates the true meaning of life and livelihood.

It is pretty astonishing and cheering to discover Hollywood paving the way to the victorious return of German philosophical thought.

To view trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyDQoXEBkGw

The year is 2154 and the RDA corporation is mining planet Pandora digging for Unobtanium, a unique mineral that defies gravity and sells for top cash. Pandora is a remote planet inhabited by the Na’vi, a species that shares some human features. Like humans the Na’vi have their own developed language and high culture. Yet unlike westerners they integrate with their surrounding reality searching for harmony in nature rather than looking for a means to exploit it. The Na’vi are a few feet taller than humans, they are extremely strong, they also possess a long impressive tail and a long plait with a unique bond at its end that operate as an organic USB connection. The bond allows the Na’vi to form a mental and spiritual union with their surrounding organic reality. The Na’vi cherish their planet, they look after it. They also worship a mother goddess called Eywa, who encompasses the integrated spiritual and physical centre of their universe and it’s past.

In order to penetrate into the Na’vi, human scientists genetically engineered human-na’vi hybrid bodies called Avatars. Like in all Western interventionalist and colonial wars, the foreign invader insists on convincing itself that it can create some false needs amongst the indigenous population. The RDA corporation takes pride in its attempt ‘to bring culture to Pandora’. The Avatars are there to communicate with the Na’vi. They are there to teach them English and Western values. They are there to maintain order so that the Na’vi fail to notice that their soil is raped and robbed by the Humans. But as we soon learn, such an attempt is in vein. The Humans have nothing to offer which the Na’vi are willing to take.

Jake Sully a paraplegic former marine is an Avatar. With the support of the appropriate advanced technology and machinery he operates a Na’vi/Avatar hybrid.

Pretty soon Jake, as an Avatar, manages to make contact with the Na’vi. He even manages to infiltrate into their civilisation. Colonel Miles Quaritch, the fierce mercenary leader of the security forces, offers Jake to have his legs repaired in exchange for providing intelligence about the Na’vi.

Though Jake is initially happy to provide the goods, it is just a question of time before the ex- marine, changes his league. Through the eyes of the Avatar, Jake sees truthfulness in harmony. However, through his training and life experience he knows what Human genocidal brutality is all about. He prefers harmony over racial brotherhood.

As the plot evolves, both Jake and the Avatar scientific team understand that the corporation and Colonel Quaritch are preparing for a total war against the Na’vi and their civilization. The scientific team unite together with Jake against the corporation and the mercenary force. They are committed to save the Na’vi. Augustine, the professor behind the Avatar project who is genuinely fascinated by the Pandora magic and motivated by true knowledge-seeking, makes up her mind; she says NO to technology. She betrays the company that finances her research and eventually gives her life to her subject of research instead.

As the movie reaches its dramatic peak, Jake, the Avatar, the ex-human spy is leading the Na’vi defensive war against the Humans. As the mercenary colonel is closing in on the sacred site, the Na’vi fight back fiercely against the superior technological might. The Na’vi suffer heavy casualties. When all hope seems lost, the Pandoran wildlife joins the Na’vi and attack the humans in great numbers, overwhelming them in the air and on the ground.

The film ends with Jake being successfully transplanted into his Na’vi Avatar. We also see the remnants of the human army marching to a sky shuttle that will transport them out of Pandora. The message of the 300 million cinematic spectacle is clear: NO to war, NO to greed, NO to intervention, No to throwing bombs, YES to nature, harmony and respecting the beliefs of others.

I recently learned that Avatar drew some criticism for its alleged ‘racist subtext’. “Na’vi might be blue aliens” says one British commentator “but they’re also blue aliens with Masai-style necklaces…acted by mostly black actors. They’re also rescued from destruction by a white character – played, of course, by a white actor – who becomes one of them”. The idea of a “white liberal man as the saviour of the so-called primitive natives” seems to deliver a ‘patronising’ message.

I find it hard to take these arguments seriously. The Sci-fi genre is creating an imaginary fantastic reality that thrives on familiarity. James Cameron, the man behind the Avatar spectacle, based the Na’vi on an amalgam of many non-white aspects: African tribal markings, Native American settings, Jamaican hair styles and so on. Yet, he manages to evoke empathy in us towards the so-called ‘alien’ rather than towards the Human. This alone should be enough to defy the politically correct accusation of ‘racist subtext’ behind the film.

However, the criticism against Cameron drew my attention to the role of the Avatar as a double agent. Towards the final scene Colonel Quaritch blames Jake for “betraying his race”. Jake indeed changes sides; he is doing it for a good cause. And as it seems, the Na’vi and Pandora couldn’t prevail without him, they needed his leadership. In order to win the battle they needed a leader that is deeply familiar with the enemy’s tactics and mode of thought.

One of the reasons that America is defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan is the obvious fact that many Iraqis and Afghanis had been educated in American universities and are familiar with the American way, yet, not many within the American elite or military command understand Islam. Not many amongst the American or British leadership are graduates of Kabul or Baghdad universities.

However, as in the case of Avatar, by the time America and Britain will start to train its forces to understand Islam, it may as well be ready for its new enlightened soldiers to change sides once they arrive on the battlefield.

I would maintain that to stand up against your own people for an ethical cause is the real meaning of humanism and liberty. Yet, it is pretty astonishing that such an inspiring message is delivered by Hollywood. We may have to admit, once again, that it is the artist and creative mind (rather than the politician) who is there to shape our reality and present a prospect of a better amicable future by the means of aesthetics.

(1) Lebensphilosophie- German, life philosophy, or philosophy of life. A term for the general emphasis on ‘life’ as an important philosophical vocabulary. Generally speaking the Leben Philosophers stood for paying philosophical attention to life as it is lived ‘from the inside’, as opposed to Kantian abstractions, scientific reductions, positivism and naturalism.

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.

Muslims In 21st Century America: Violent Clashing Culture

Part1: Basic incompatibility of Western thought and Muslim theocracy…

“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims,” said radio talk show host Peter Boyles last week on www.khow.com in Denver, Colorado.

Boyles’ remarks followed a horrific mass killing by Muslim U.S. Army Major Nadal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan blasted away at 42 military personnel and civilians as they stood defenseless in line awaiting deployment processing for the Middle East. He screamed, “Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar!” while unloading his firearms into the bodies of U.S. troops.

A female off-duty police officer waded into the chaos with her gun blazing until she brought him down with four shots. He lays in a Fort Hood hospital bed in critical condition.

His condition stands as a warning and a metaphor for the United States of America as it places itself in critical danger by importing millions from incompatible cultures and languages into America at breakneck speed. It reminds me of students in a chemistry class pouring unknown chemicals into a beaker and hoping it doesn’t boil over or blow up.

This incident isn’t the first time. U.S. Army Muslim Sergeant Hasan Akbar threw a grenade into a tent at the beginning of the Iraq War, which killed three U.S. Army officers.

The philosopher Emanuel Kant said, “Religion and language are the two great dividers of humanity.”

First of all, Islam’s basic tenant means, “Submission.” Imams say that Islam remains a religion of peace, but they fail to tell listeners that peace will arrive only when Islam becomes the sole religion in the world. Its prime directive in the Koran reads, “…convert or kill all non-believers, starting with the Jews.”

If you look at Islam in the modern world, its terror tactics began in Munich, Germany 1972 with the mass killings of Jewish athletes at the Olympics. From that point, every major mass murder, or killing attempt across the planet stems from Muslim terrorists at regional levels all the way to the 19 Muslims that brought down the World Trade Towers. Muslim terrorists brought down Pan American airlines at Lockerbie, blew up barracks filled with soldiers in Africa, bombed night clubs in Balli, killed Theo Van Gogh, train bombings in Madrid, Spain; subway bombings in London, 9/11, Fort Dix six, and dozens of other killings or attempted bombings. Muslims place ‘fatwa’s’, (a death threat for life) against writers, speakers and political leaders such as Hirsi Ali in Holland for standing up against Islam. Muslims do not tolerate free speech, free choice of religion and they do not tolerate women as equals.

Two weeks ago, in Detroit, Michigan, 11 Muslims fought FBI agents with calls to create a separate Muslim state in Michigan under Sharia Law. Muslims rioted in Sweden this summer against Jewish tennis players playing in that country. Muslims rioted in November 2007 in France.

Amil Imani , “Islam is Fire” , September 12, 2009, said, “The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.”

Most Americans sit and watch with total oblivion of the march of Islam into America. In 1990, only 100,000 Muslims inhabited the United States. Today, over eight million spread across the country with over 1,000 mosques and growing. We import over 1,500 Muslim refugees every thirty days into America. They stand in diametrical opposition to a republican form of government and equal rights for women.

At the same time, honor killings, female genital mutilation, violence toward women and hostility toward Americans accelerates.

“Immigrants devoted to their own cultures and religions are not influenced by the secular politically correct façade that dominates academia, news-media, entertainment, education, religious and political thinking today,” said James Walsh, former Associate General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. “They claim the right not to assimilate, and the day is coming when the question will be how can the United States regulate the defiantly unassimilated cultures, religions and mores of foreign lands? Such immigrants say their traditions trump the U.S. legal system. Balkanization of the United States has begun.”

For example, Muslims practice female genital mutilation (FGM). It’s 6th century Dark Ages barbarism alive in the 21st century. It occurs today in Detroit, Michigan, Freemont, California and Denver, Colorado, and wherever Islam grows in America. Seven years ago, hundreds of cases of little girls suffering from infected genitalia, after being slashed with razors and glass, landed in Colorado hospitals from the FGM ritual. Islamic practitioners, without sterile room technique or anesthesia, cut out the labia majora and minora as well as the clitoris of girls, usually less than nine years of age.

Led by Colorado House Representative Dorothy Rupert, lawmakers passed a new law to halt it. The practice didn’t stop; it torpedoed underground. What happens when Muslim culture becomes the majority and votes it into legal practice?

Have you seen a country devolve? In the Middle East today, Muslims stone women to death for adultery. They won’t allow women to drive. Women cannot go out in public without a male relative at their side. They demand separate swimming pool times for men and women. They make women hide their faces with a burka into ‘non-beingness’. They practice Sharia Law which proves harsh and diametrically opposed to parliamentary law.

Don’t think it can happen in America? Fox News, July 25, 2008 reported a Muslim honor killing in Garrett, Texas when a 12 year old girl called 911, screaming, “My dad shot me; I am dying.” She died before an ambulance arrived. Reason: father didn’t like her wearing western jeans and blouses.

In Clayton County, Georgia, July 10, 2008, a Pakistani immigrant father, Chaudry Rashid strangled his daughter for not accepting his choice of a husband. She wanted a divorce. She was 14 when she died.

In New York, February 16, 2009, FOX News, Joshua Rhett Miller reported, “The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her abusive husband,” her attorney said — and was found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York television studio. Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has reportedly been charged with second-degree murder. “She was very much aware of the potential ramification of her filing for divorce might have,” said attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. “But she wanted to proceed despite the potential for it to erupt.”

Under Sharia Law in the Middle East, such an ‘honor killing’ remains accepted in Islamic society. Ann Curry on NBC hosted a news piece, “Honor Killings in America.” She reported on the astounding rise of honor killings in America by Muslim immigrants.

Last week, in Glendale, Arizona, an immigrant father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, ran down with his Jeep truck and killed his daughter Noor for being too “Westernized.” Her crime? She liked to wear jeans. A sane person might ask, “Why did he immigrate to America and why did he bring his daughter?”

Worldwide, Muslim husbands and brothers kill 5,000 women every year, year in and year out—for disobeying them. (Source: Miami Herald, Leonard Pitts, November 8, 2009, “American dream doesn’t include this nightmare) And, they get away with it because Sharia Law condones honor killings. You see, Mohammed the prophet proved an illiterate tribal war leader who cut his enemies’ heads and fingers off if they disobeyed him. His barbarism remains with Islam today.

As their numbers grow in host countries, they displace laws, culture, language and finally, take over. America will prove the last stand of humanity and Christianity against Islam’s onslaught. So, far, the USA is losing its language, customs and culture—to Islam. Of course, you see the same nightmare occurring in Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Austria, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain and Germany.

Part 2: Three parts of ‘soft’ Jihad, political correctness and Robert Spencer

U.S. Sustainable Immigration Policy For All Americans

The United States races into the 21st century like a seasick captain at the helm of a battleship plowing into Hurricane Katrina. The more he vomits, the bigger the mess to clean up. The further he heads into the 50 foot waves, the sooner he could be washed overboard. The worse the storm grows, the more the windows fog up so he cannot see where he’s going in rough seas. The more he tries to maintain a steady rudder, the faster his ship takes on water to ultimately follow the Titanic’s fate.

Today, our country, the United States of America, charges full steam ahead into a Human Katrina in the 21st century that becomes fiercer, more powerful and more ominous with every year that passes. If ‘people’ represent the North Atlantic waters of Titanic’s sinking moment—and they do—the United States cannot maintain itself as to sustainability, clean water, food, energy and quality of life.

Every 30 days, the USA takes on 200,000 to 240,000 immigrants from a never ending line of an added 77 million annually of desperately poor from around the world. They add up to over 2.5 million annually pouring into the USA. They stress our infrastructure, overwhelm our water supplies, our food supplies, our hospital facilities, our educational systems and overload our prisons.

At the bow of the Titanic, our most populace state: California–adds 1,700 mostly immigrants net gain per day, seven days a week, 365 days a year on their way to adding 20 million to their already overloaded 38 million in 2009. They destroy 250,000 acres of wilderness annually to cope with their added human payload. They add 400 cars net gain daily. California represents everything happening to America—and none of it equates to good.

As Governor Schwarzenegger said, “We are out of money….” He’s not only out of money, but he’s loaded up with a $26 billion debt, gridlocked highways, toxic air, trashed schools, filled prisons, 86 bankrupted hospitals and ER wards and water shortages. The cause? Unrelenting, massive and unending legal and illegal immigration!

In Dr. Otis Graham’s “Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis”, he writes, “Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all–ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”

Al Gore, gracing Newsweek Magazine this week, pitches to stop global climate change. He pretends to solve the problem but he won’t whisper the cause.

The eminent US demographic expert, Dr. Albert Bartlett said, “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases of population, locally, nationally, or globally.”

Can you? Can adding 200,000 immigrants monthly to the USA solve our toxic air over our cities? Gridlocked highways? School crowding? Water shortages? Energy costs? Hospital facilities? Enhance our quality of life?

As Mike Matz said in a Denver Post article, we lose 6,000 acres daily to human encroachment and expect to lose another 1.26 billion acres of wilderness within 35 years, i.e, ‘ecological footprint’ or, the amount of land that must be destroyed to support one American. That number equals 12.6 acres of land.

“In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops.” ~Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness, 1971

Yes! I could present a dozen more examples of this “Human Katrina” swamping our country. You read about them daily, so you know what I speak about.

So how do we stop this mess without sinking our country as surely as the Titanic sank?

Dr. Jack Alpert said, “TEMPORAL BLINDNESS is a limitation in cognitive process. People with temporal blindness cannot gather and process available information into predictions of future conditions. Their processes cannot connect future conditions to a causing behavior. When their processes do create unpleasant predictions, and identify the causal behavior, they fail to create enough present meaning for the future conditions to motivate a change in that behavior.”

What’s causing our ship to sink? Fact: mass immigration.

What do we do about it? Take action!

Let’s propose a “US Sustainable Immigration Policy” of 100,000 or less annually in order to keep our country afloat today, next decade and throughout the 21st century.

Why 100,000? That many people egress the country annually. Voila! Net gain of zero!

Simple, smart, proactive, reasonable and sustainable!

Yes, you can become emotional citing that this nation’s greatness stemmed from its greatness via immigration. That was a mathematical possibility then, but now, a non-mathematical equation. We cannot continue with unrelenting immigration.

Thirty years from now our kids will ask two questions. If we fail to engage a “US Sustainable Immigration Policy”, they will be swimming in 100 million more people fighting for diminished water, resources, energy and clean air. They will gasp, “What were you thinking?”

Or, if we do enact an immigration policy, and we do not add 100 million people, and our kids enjoy quality of life, a decent living, and a balanced and thriving environment, they might ask, “Were my parents smart or what?!”

As a nation, as a culture, as a people, we must think about the 7th generation to come. How will they be able to live, eat, work, play and enjoy their lives if we fail to act responsibly?

Each of us carries a sacred trust to our children and the children of the future of this amazing United States of America as well as our planet. I urge every person reading this column to join www.numbersusa.com and become a faxer of prewritten letters to your Congress critters. Also, www.capsweb.org ; www.alipac.us ; www.firecoalition.com ; www.thesocialcontract.com and www.fairus.org .

This will prove THE single greatest issue facing our civilization in the 21st century. By our collective action, we can turn this Ship of America toward calmer, more peaceful and viable waters.

Bonaparte Blair & Co

Gordon brown urged European Socialist leaders last week to appoint Tony Blair as the European President. “Get real”, he told them, “This is a unique opportunity to get a strong progressive politician to be the president.”

Brown is obviously correct, nothing could be more refreshing, innovative ‘real’ and ‘progressive’ than assigning the job to a man who has more blood on his hands than any other person in Europe. It may also be right to argue that there is just one living person on this planet with more blood on his hands than Blair. That man dwells in Texas, his name is George and actually unlike our Bonaparte figure, he keeps relatively quiet. Unlike George, our Boney is craving for recognition, he cannot live without a crown or an official title. Someone should remind Boney that he already made it into history, he can really take a break. With more than one million fatalities in Iraq, he is not far behind Hitler and Stalin.

Murderers are, no doubt, a unique bunch of people, some criminologists insists that they are no less than psychopaths for psychopaths are people who disregard ethical principles. Psychopaths also lack any sense of conscience or compassion. Mass murderers are even more special, for they manage to evade, not just a couple of eyes, but rather very many. They even mange to turn deaf to public criticism and resentment towards their acts. Our Boney, is extraordinary by every possible means. Not only does he dismiss the pain he brought on millions, not only did he fail to show regret, he actually constantly demands our recognition of his imaginary greatness. He seems to lack any awareness or self-consciousness whatsoever.

While the majority of Europeans would prefer to see Boney schlepped to The Hague, face justice and hopefully locked up for life, he himself must be convinced that he possesses the necessary qualities for the European Presidency. From a united European perspective he was a light disaster. He managed to keep Britain out of the Euro, he also didn’t follow the Schengen open borders agreement. From a British perspective Boney was a total disaster. Together with his ‘best Treasurer ever’ he succeeded in ruining the Britain economy. He smashed the last pockets of British industry to infinitesimal pieces and on top of all that, he has managed to get all of us implicated in a war crime of a colossal magnitude. This was probably enough to make European leaders think again, They have now decided to restrain Boney’s self centric enthusiasm and relentless will to power..

However, Blair is not alone. As much as recent polls suggest that the vast majority of Brits find him unsuitable to the European presidency, in his rapidly disintegrating Nuevo Labour, he actually has some dedicated followers supporters and allies.

According to the British press he asked Lord Mandelson to act as his ‘chef de cabinet’. In the last decade alone, Mandelson has had to resign more than once for his misconduct. Mandelson has also recently been exposed as having close ties with one of Russia’s leading Oligarchs. A person of such a low ethical reputation at the hub of the European Union may well be a danger for the entire continent.

Another of Blair’s close allies and supporters is Foreign Secretary David Miliband who launched Boney’s campaign for presidency with the extraordinary claim that only Boney could ‘stop the traffic’ when he goes to foreign Capitals.

Like Boney, Miliband is rather enthusiastic about interventionism and ‘spreading democracy’. It is hard to believe but in Britain in 2009, the Wolfowitz doctrine is still making headlines especially amongst the so called ‘progressive’ politicians. I have learnt in recent days that Miliband is himself a leading candidate for the European Foreign office. I urge every European leader to look into Miliband’s Neoconservative ideology and amend their choice before it is too late.

Until recently Miliband managed to keep his Judeo-centric tribal affiliation to himself. This is not the case anymore. Facing an inevitable colossal electoral defeat for Labour, Miliband just couldn’t hold back. A few weeks ago he decided to pull the Jewish rabbit out of the of the Nuevo Labour sack. In a desperate and crude attempt to evoke public pity and empathy, he warned the British public that the coming Tory leadership is affiliated with notorious ‘Anti Semites and Neo Nazis’. Miliband has managed to drag Poland’s chief Rabbi into the British political discourse. From Miliband’s tribal perspective, it is down to a Polish rabbi to suggest to the British people who is kosher enough to vote for. At least Miliband’s philosophy of mutual intervention is consistent: As much as we, the Brits, should tell the world who is moral and what is wrong , it is down to a Polish Rabbi to tell us who to vote for.

Peculiarly enough, The Polish Rabbi has now changed his spots. He admitted that the leader of the Polish Law and Justice party, Michal Kaminski, is actually “against Anti Semitism”. Nevertheless, Miliband is yet to apologize for implying that the Tory leaders are Anti Semitic. Like his mentor Boney, Miliband seems to lack the elementary capacity of ethical judgment or conduct. Bearing in mind Miliband’s recent Judeo-centric assault, his enthusiasm for interventionism together with his ethical deficiency, we are entitled to regard the man as a danger to peace. Once in possession of power and influence we may end up being complicit again in a new genocide in the name of one liberal slogan or another (‘democracy’, ‘atheism’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘gay freedom’ etc’)

But the paddling in pseudo liberal Nuevo Labour chicken soup may not end just there. It would be intriguing to find out what kind of a job Boney has assigned to his Number 1 Lord Cashpoint Levy. I would also like to know whether ‘Liberal’ Jack Straw, the man who insisted to strip Muslim women of their Veil, had any potential assignment in Blair’s presidential administration. At the end of the day, Straw could extend and expand his dismissal of others to the entire continent.

Blair was sure that he had the presidency ‘in his pocket’. He was wrong, it is now rather clear that European leaders have woken up. The horrifying dream may be over. I guess that the idea they would have to stop the traffic in their Capitals just to let the convoy of a vile war criminal pass through was too much for them to cope with.

Blair as a European president could be a total farce, almost as sickening as him being ‘Peace Envoy’. I assume that all we have to do now is to pursue immediately the necessary action that would lead this criminal to face justice and to bear the consequences of his illegal war.

After all I am a Proper Zionist Jew

I am a Holocaust survivor…

Yes, I am a survivor, for I have managed to survive all the scary accounts of the Holocaust: the one about the soap (1), the one about the lamp shades, the one about the camps, the mass shooting, the one about the gas (2) and the one about the death march (3). I just managed to survive them all.

In spite of all these fear inflicting stories, that were purposely installed in my soul since I opened my eyes for the first time, I have become a functional and even a successful human being. I somehow survived the horror against all odds. I even manage to love my neighbour. In spite of all these fearful, traumatic indoctrination I miraculously managed to master my cheering alto saxophone rather than the sobbing violin.

In fact, I have already decided that in case the Queen, or any other member of the Royal Family should ever consider to make me into a ‘Sir’ for my bebop achievements, or even for facing Zionist barbarism with my bare pen, I will immediately change my surname from Atzmon to Vive, just to become the first and only Sir Vive.

I am also totally against Holocaust denial

I clearly resent those who deny the genocides that are taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example, Iraq is another and the one that is set for Iran, is probably too scary to contemplate.

The Holocaust is a relatively new religion (4). It lacks mercy or compassion, instead it promises revenge through retribution. For its followers, it is somehow liberating because it allows them to punish whoever they like as long they gain some pleasure. This may explain why the Israelis ended up punishing the Palestinians for crimes that were committed by Europeans. It is rather clear that the newly emerging religion is not just about ‘eye for an eye’; it is actually an eye for thousands and thousands of eyes.

A month ago, while visiting in Auschwitz, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak left a note in the official visitors book: ‘a strong Israel is both the comfort and the revenge’(5). No one could summarise the aspiration of the religion any better. The Holocaust religion doesn’t offer redemption. It is a crude violent manifestation of sheer collective brutality. It cannot resolve anything, for aggression can only lead to more and more aggression. In the Holocaust religion there is neither room for peace or grace. Take it from Barak, revenge is where they find comfort.

To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value.

I am also in total support of the Jewish National Project

Some believe that after 2000 years of ‘phantasmic Diaspora’ Jews are indeed entitled to an imaginary ‘national home land of their own’. The Zionists apparently meant it sincerely. The Jewish state is now realistic enough to have turned the entire Middle East into a ticking bomb.

Reviewing the Israeli record of crimes against humanity in the last six decades doesn’t leave much room for speculation. We are dealing here with a pathological sinister society. Hence, as much as some of us may agree that Jews should enjoy a hypothetical right for a land of their own, planet Earth is certainly not the ideal location for such an affair.

Hence, I would urge NASA to join in and to make a special effort to find a suitable alternative planet for the Zionist homeland in outer space or even in another galaxy. The Galactic Zionist project would signify the immediate move from ‘promised land’ to ‘promised planet’. I would enthusiastically stress that rather than searching for ‘a land with no people for a people with no land’, what we really want is a ‘lonely planet’. It can even be a ‘desert’ for they claim to know how to make the desert bloom. In a planet of their own the galactic Zionists wouldn’t need to oppress anyone, they wouldn’t ethnically cleanse either, they wouldn’t have to lock the indigenous people in concentration camps, for there won’t be any indigenous people around to abuse, starve, murder and cleanse. They wouldn’t have to pour white phosphorous over their neighbours for there won’t be any neighbours. I would highly recommend NASA to search for a planet with very low gravity just to make it light for people to wander around. After all, we want the new galactic Zionists to enjoy their futuristic project as much as the Palestinians and many others may enjoy their absence.

So here I am, a proper Jew after all: I am a survivor, I oppose Holocaust denial, I support the Jewish national aspiration. Even the chief Rabbi of Britain cannot ask for more than that.

(1) Acknowledged recently to be a ‘myth’ by the Israeli holocaust museum Yad Vashem

(2) A historical fact protected by European Law.

(3) A slightly confusing narrative. If the Nazis were interested in annihilating the entire European Jewish population as suggested by the orthodox Zionist holocaust narrative, then it is rather ambiguous as to just what led them to march what was left of European Jewry, into their crumbling Nazi fatherland at a time when it was clear that they were losing the war. The two narratives i.e. ‘annihilation’ and ‘death march’, seem to oppose each other. The issue deserves further elaboration. I would just suggest that the reasonable answers I have come across may severely damage the Zionist holocaust narrative.

(4) The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion’.

(5) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3790707,00.html

Russia’s Daring Vote

Russia’s vote to endorse the Goldstone Gaza report in the United Nations Human Rights Council last Friday was an important, milestone event both for Palestine and for Russia. For Palestine, this vote opened a way to try and sentence Israeli mass-murderers, and thus ushered Israel into a new era of responsibility after a long period of Wild West-style, Colt-45 justice. For Russia, this vote has proved to its own country and to the world that it is free from American and Zionist diktat and able to navigate its own policy.

This story began on Christmas with the Israeli onslaught on defenceless Gaza. Taking advantage of the holiday lull, the Israeli army killed hundreds of Palestinian children and other civilians by indiscriminate use of white phosphorus and artillery. The world was horrified, and the UN Human Rights Council appointed Judge Richard Goldstone, a former prosecutor for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, to find out the facts.

Many people doubted his impartiality: Goldstone is a Jew — a self-described Zionist, well-connected to Israel – he sits on the board of its University and his daughter even lived in Tel Aviv for a while. Goldstone was guided by his conscience and not by his blood. He went to Gaza, invested a lot of time and effort, and concluded: Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He recommended the case be transferred to the ICC court in the Hague. Israel did not cooperate and tried to undermine and block the report, but failed. That was the first Israeli defeat.

The second defeat occurred a few days later. The Fatah chairman, Ramallah PNA ruler Mahmud Abbas, was ready to do anything in order to remain in power after his electoral defeat. Netanyahu threatened him with taking away the broadcasting frequency for a second mobile phone provider – Abbas promptly called his representative in Geneva and ordered him to put the Goldstone report on a slow, very slow burner. Popular indignation was furious; he was called `traitor’ and worse. Facing revolt and sure political demise, Abbas u-turned once again and ordered his ambassador to proceed at full speed. Thus Bibi undermined and delegitimised his agent Abbas, while the report made its way to the council anyway. That was the second defeat.

Israel was infuriated by this development. The Jewish State considered itself invulnerable behind the triple defense of the Sixth Fleet, the US Senate and the Holocaust Museum. President Obama’s soft request to freeze the settlement building was met in Tel Aviv by what Internet chat calls “lol”. He was ridiculed. Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu even sped up their building plans in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to show that they could not care less. And now, all of a sudden, Jewish ministers of state are going to be judged as if they were Serbs or Sudanese.

Israeli leaders activated their main reserves, the US State Department and the Lobby. A few days ago I spoke with Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Tel Aviv, and he confirmed that the US State Department will do all it can to stop the Goldstone report before it gets to the Security Council. Another American veto would not look good. Worse, an insulted and hurt Obama might just forget to veto an anti-Israeli decision.

Israel began courting Russia, hoping to build bridges and to enlist Moscow in its cause. Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Moldova-born Foreign minister, met ten times with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov; Netanyahu flew to Moscow on a “secret mission” for a talk with Medvedev, and President Peres met with Medvedev in Sochi. They wanted Russian support for Iran sanctions and for silencing the Goldstone report. They said to the Russians that it would create a dangerous precedent: If today they judge Israeli ministers and generals for Gaza, tomorrow they will judge Russian ministers and generals for Chechnya. This is a false comparison: Chechens are Russian citizens with full rights, Gazans have no rights at all; Chechens are free to travel and live in Moscow or elsewhere, Gazans are not allowed to leave their concentration camp. Though Russia’s campaign against Chechen separatists was bloody and cruel, it could not be compared with the cold-blooded murder the Israelis unleashed on Gaza.

Moreover, the precedents were established a long time ago, when Milosevic the Serb was tried in The Hague. The question is whether the Jews are indeed above the law. Israeli observers were certain that Russia would stand by them. There is a small but profitable trade between the two countries; there is a Russian immigrant community in Israel; there are many bilateral relations. Beside, Russia has traditional interests in the Holy Land, and hundreds of thousands of Russian pilgrims make their way to the Holy Sepulchre.

On top of all this, Russia was interested in hosting a Moscow Middle East Peace Conference, in direct continuity with the Madrid Conference of 1989. There is also a powerful Zionist lobby in Moscow. True, some of the most obnoxious oligarchs are gone, whether to a Siberian jail or to exile in Tel Aviv or London. Power is now concentrated in the hands of Putin and Medvedev, and money is respected but not more than that. But there are many very wealthy Russian Jews who like to play the Jewish Lobby game.

Some arguments by the Zionist Lobby for supporting Israel were spectacularly feeble. They said that Russia should be forever grateful to Israel because it had allowed a few Russian wives to leave Gaza just before their homes were bombed to smithereens. If you buy that one, you may also buy their argument for bombing Iran: in 1836 (sic!), the Persians had lynched Russian playwright and diplomat Alexander Griboedov, who had sneaked into a harem and gotten caught.

Notwithstanding, the Russians disregarded the US and Israel’s overtures and stalwartly voted to endorse Goldstone’s report. They were joined by their three allies, China, India and Brazil, together representing the lion’s share of mankind’s human resources – of oil, of industry.

The Chinese sage Mencius (or Mengzi 372-289 BC) went to see t King Hui who said: “Old man, since you dared the distance of 1000 li to come here, you may know of a way to profit my state.” Mencius replied: “Why should you ever mention the word `profit’? What counts is benevolence and righteousness. If the King says `How can I profit my country?’ the high officials will say, `how can we profit our fiefs?’, and the intellectuals and the commoners will say: `How can we profit ourselves?’ If the upper and lower classes strive to snatch profit one from another, the state will be endangered.”

Apparently the Eurasian landmass of Russia, China and India prefer benevolence and righteousness, while the Anglo-American world prefers lust for gain. Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev were very outspoken in their objections to the Israeli plans to attack Iran. They spoke against the sanctions, too, and here they were fully supported by China. At the same time, Turkey refused to let the Israeli Air Force join its joint maneuvers with the US. The Zionist-run US immediately withdrew from the maneuvers as well. The position of Turkey is extremely relevant: This is the old imperial power that protected and controlled the Middle East for centuries. Turkey, together with Russia and Greece, are the main heirs to Byzantium. If we want to help Turkey to support the Palestinian cause we must not allow the Zionists to play the Armenian card right now. When Turkey joins Russia and China, they can decide quite a bit. They have put paid to the notion of Israeli impunity. One can’t overestimate the importance of the Russian vote:

1. This vote confirmed the principle of equality. All human beings are equal. If the ICC can judge Milosevic and Burundians and Sudanese, they can also judge Jewish ministers and generals.
2. This vote demonstrated that Russia is independent, not only of Washington, but even of Tel Aviv. The Zionist Lobby in Russia is powerful, but not omnipotent.
3. This vote saved innumerable children, women and men from death. After this vote, an Israeli general will have to think twice before dropping a bomb on a civilian target. This will save Israeli children as well from retaliation.
4. Russia regained its position lost by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Russia became again a leader of the free world, I mean the world free of US bases. Moscow’s position was decisive in forming China’s position as well.
5. It seems that the main weapon of Zionists, their voice, has worn out. Once upon a time they could convince individuals and nations as easily as the sirens by the charm of their persuasion. Now the witch of Zion had lost her charm.

A few years ago I wrote: “The world needs Russia, for since her star was obscured in 1990, for almost twenty years the runaway train of the US and the loose cannon of Israel made a mess on the planet. Russia must stop their orgy of aggression and regain its place as the ultimate protector of the weak and the meek. This is her manifest destiny”. The Geneva vote proved that Russia has done just that. We may once again connect our hopes with Russia in her friendship with China. They also can stop Israel from hurting itself and others.

So many people in the US and France, in Egypt and Palestine are tired of Israeli intransigence, egotism, hypocrisy and impunity. That is why so much hope was invested in Barack Obama after his Cairo talk. Obama had promised to cut Israel down to size, but meanwhile Israel cut him down to smaller-than-life. That is why the US is going down just like the Titanic, undermined by a Lobby iceberg and fleeced by financial wizards. Now Russia is coming under tremendous pressure from the US and other Zionist-led groups and states. We should pray she will withstand it and maintain her and our dignity.

Amnesty Assured To Create Added Illegal Immigration

A recent Zogby International discovered that, “…people in Mexico think that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would encourage more illegal immigration to the United States. As the top immigrant-sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants, views on immigration in Mexico can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty.”
I spent last weekend in Washington, DC meeting with Dr. Steve Camarata and Mark Krikorian at www.cis.org . You may find the results with Dr. Steve Camarata at: Center for Immigration Studies’ website.

Among the findings:

• A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go illegally.
• Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.
• Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States.
• Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. This is consistent with a recent Pew Research Center poll which found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.
• An overwhelming majority (69 percent) thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States.
• Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States.
• A plurality, 39 percent, of Mexicans thought that in the last year fewer people they know had gone to the United States as illegal immigrants compared to previous years. Only 27 percent thought more had gone.
• A plurality, 40 percent, also thought that in the last year more of the illegal immigrants they know had returned to Mexico compared to previous years. Only 25 percent thought the number returning had fallen.
• Both the bad economy and increased immigration enforcement were cited as reasons fewer people were going to America as illegal immigrants and more were coming back to Mexico.

Krikorian said, “As the nation begins debates the issue of immigration, the perspective of people in Mexico is important because Mexico is the top sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants. In 2008 one of six new legal immigrants was from Mexico and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, 6 out of 10 illegal immigrants come from that country. Asking people in Mexico their views on immigration can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty for illegal immigrants and other questions related to immigration.”

Dr. Camarata reported, “This survey is the first to ask people in Mexico if they thought legalizing illegal immigrants in the United States would encourage more illegal immigration. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2009 and consisted of 1,004 in-person interviews of adults throughout Mexico. The findings show that a majority of people in Mexico think that an amnesty would make it more likely that people in Mexico would come to the United States illegally. This is especially true for people who have a member of their households living in the United States. It is important to note that respondents were asked specifically about whether an amnesty would make illegal immigration more likely, not just immigration generally. Other questions in the survey explore attitudes about migration to United States generally, recent trends in migration, and loyalty to the United States.

“The results may give pause to those lawmakers who think that an amnesty/legalization for illegals immigrants would reduce illegal immigration in the future. The findings of this survey indicate that an amnesty would encourage more illegal immigration, at least from Mexico.”

While the political winds blow toward a new amnesty against the American people by the representatives elected to work in their interest, these findings illustrate the human juggernaut Americans face with any amnesty. Demographic projections show Mexico adding 40 million more people to their population by 2050. If they cannot sustain them in 2009, you can bet millions of poor along with other migrants around the world cannot help but see a green light to overload Americans shores with sheer numbers.

With California already sinking into water shortages, air polluted cities, electrical shortages, gridlocked roads and worse—can they survive their projected added 20 million people to hit 58 million in 30 years? Can the USA withstand the projected 70 million immigrants within 30 years?

“Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all–ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.” Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates

Perfect Storm Approaching The United States

While Leaders Snore and Citizens Sleep…

In this ongoing series with Dr. Jack Alpert, we hope to educate, enlighten and activate American citizens toward a sustainable future. In all great social change, it takes an educated citizenry to create “consciousness shift” which moves to “critical mass shift” that ends with a paradigm shift via “tipping point.”

When you look back on history, the good things that made your life better started with the Magna Carta for human rights. From there, humans fought and died to establish the U.S. Constitution. Gandhi guided India and all humanity toward peace. Susan B. Anthony won the right to vote for women in the United States. In most of the Middle East with their ancient cultures, women cannot vote, drive or enjoy an education. Martin Luther King marched for equal rights for people of color. Yes, the human race faces a great deal of educational challenge to move past antiquated paradigms.

But along the way, we need to change our energy, population and environmental paradigms sooner rather than later.

In Dr. Jack Alpert’s, “Civilization’s Perfect Storm”, he illustrates our current dilemma with the movie starring George Clooney, “Perfect Storm”. www.skil.org

“The “Perfect Storm” is a movie about down-on-their-luck fishermen who went fishing in a storm because they needed to make a living,” Alpert said. “Unfortunately it was not just a simple storm. It was a perfect storm. A perfect storm forms at the intersection of several colliding weather fronts. High winds and gargantuan waves sank the boat and drown the crew.

“Is it possible that global problems could join together to make a perfect storm and sink human civilization? Could fights over hunting grounds, famines, mal-distribution of wealth, slavery, genocide, ethic cleansings, religious or economic competitions, deforestations, fishery depletions, oil exhaustion, climate change, species extinction and global terrorism, combine to make the perfect storm that kills the human experiment?

“On fishing boats, people take precautions to weather storms. They close watertight doors, and wear safety harnesses and cold water survival suits. And they usually come home safe even in bad weather. However, in the “Perfect Storm,” none of these actions were enough to save their ship or their lives.

“Maybe we should ask, “Will our recycling, driving a fuel efficient car, insulating our house, sequestering our CO2, having only two children, and investing in technology to produce more with less, be enough to get us through a perfect storm of global problems?” Is it possible that if everyone copied our behaviors, “It would not be enough to survive that storm?”

“Is it possible that six and a half billion people don’t see global problems integrating into a perfect-storm? Is it possible they don’t see their politically correct, social justice, and green behaviors as being impotent to address these conditions?

“Is it possible they don’t see that civilization surviving the perfect storm conditions will require rapid population decline? They don’t see that each couple on earth must have at most one child per family. And they don’t see that even if everyone does, the ride to a nice future is going to be bumpy for some and dreadful for others.”

I find interviewing with Dr. Jack Alpert a study in certitude born from his scientific models that combine our current energy use, carbon footprint, Peak Oil, species extinctions now running over 100 per day planet-wide and climate destabilization.

Our predicament encompasses our refusal to manifest changes fast enough to guide us out of the approaching “Perfect Storm” rolling toward the United States as well as worldwide. As you might have read in my reviews of Chris Steiner’s $20 PER GALLON, we allow ourselves to run out of time and ability to outrun the approaching energy crisis, let alone climate destabilization.

When you include the multitude of predicaments facing our civilization—such as water shortages for starters—doesn’t it dawn on you that while our leaders push for population growth by adding 3.4 million people to this country annually mostly by immigration—that those in power to make positive change continue snoring even while awake?

When humans add 77 million more people to the planet annually, and those that suffer in overpopulated civilizations instead of practicing birth control— escape to other countries while continuing their profligate population increases—it doesn’t take a sixth grader to figure out the equation cannot continue.

The result, as Alpert said, we face a “Perfect Population Storm” that engulfs our ability to survive it no matter how much we might ‘think’ we can avoid it. We shake hands with the devil with a Faustian Bargain that leads to Hobson’s Choice.

Today, the United States ‘storms’ toward adding 100 million people in 26 years by 2035. Yet, we sleep, we snore, we yawn into our perilous future! It’s almost beyond comprehension how this ‘educated’ civilization allows itself to follow in the footsteps of China, India, Bangladesh, Mexico and others—without blinking any eyelash!

To continue pushing the solutions off into the future until we find ourselves left with two choices: door number #1 or #2. Door #1 allows you to walk over a cliff and door #2 allows you to step into quicksand.

While our leaders snore and we sleep, our civilization moves toward a “Perfect Population Storm” and only Hobson’s Choice to save us.

Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates, said it best, ““Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all–ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”

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.

Next Page »