The revolution will not be subsidized or absurd failure of the left (an interview with Cory Morningstar)

July 8, 2016

[English version. Read the original article in French here.]

We recently interviewed Cory Morningstar, a Canadian investigative journalist specializing in ecology and politics. Her outstanding work is available online freely, on her website (in English) . We published two articles on our site, namely 350.org, AVAAZ and the World March for the Climate – How the Empire Made Us Walk (by Cory Morningstar), and 350.org, Bill McKibben (& Naomi Klein): Ecology Made in Wall Street.

LePartage: How dire does our current predicament, as a species living on planet Earth, seem to you, and why?

Cory Morningstar: It is so dire, we are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to even comprehend the magnitude. Even those who do have the capacity to comprehend the magnitude of our predicament, are often unable to accept it fully. By this I mean we continue making long term plans for things we’ve established will not be plausible/possible at some point in our lifetime. We are so indoctrinated and conditioned to insanity, it appears we are not able to break free. Further, even if we did muster such courage to break free, the system that enslaves ensures we cannot. If one assembles the science in a way such as Guy McPherson has done, it is clear we have surpassed the utmost limits (1C) to which we warned by the United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (UNAGGG) published in 1990. A document which I might add was purposely buried in order to continue to grow the industrialized capitalist economic system. And of course this does not even include the further warming to which we are firmly committed yet will not show up for a few decades due to lag.

If one needs more proof to appease their doubt, they need not look further than Natalia Shakhova’s apocalyptic warning that the shallow water column and a weakening permafrost which serve as a seal for methane could go at any time.^[1] Shakhova, one of world’s foremost experts/scientists on methane hydrates has seen her publications essentially blacklisted from media for years. Also, one must consider leading scientists began to employ the term “anthropocene” decades ago to describe a distinct geological epoch from the Holocene – a transition/change caused by human impacts. We collectively ignore this incredible turning point.^[2]

Those are some of my main observations, but I think what I find most dire is what I observe in my day to day life. The simple observations of how people treat 1) each other, 2) sentient beings, 3) non-human life forms and 4) our Earth mother. And the ugly truth is that most people treat all four like disposable garbage. Hell, they even treat their bodies like garbage and are more than willing to poison their own children in a multitude of ways. One has to contemplate if this is sheer ignorance or rather, self-hatred. Regardless, we continue to rapidly devolve. The level of cognitive dissonance becomes clear when you consider every civilization that has ever existed has fallen, yet the civilization that exceeds all others in regard to plunder of our natural environment upon which we absolutely depend, is considered exempt from this same prophetic fate.

LePartage: In the West, inside industrial societies, the main political opposition toward the dominant culture, which may not be as much in opposition as it likes to pretend or think, and that I’ll call “the left”, in order to be succinct, appears to be a huge failure, doesn’t it?

Cory Morningstar:

Yes, this is very true. I would agree that it is a huge failure. There are many reasons for this I believe. I will name a few. The majority of our “left” is comprised of privileged, almost exclusively white middle class. The same 1% class of people creating 50% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. It is incredibly difficult to persuade someone to look in the mirror when all those who surround him/her are demonizing fossil fuel corporations as though industry is somehow separated from society and the system itself.

After years of work on climate and ecological issues, I’ve concluded Western environmentalism is dead, having been replaced by 21st century anthropocentrism. The word “activist” in the west is a term that simply refers to a self-absorbed anthropocentrist – willfully blind to the horrors of imperialism and racism that hums beneath the entire system. Much of our language has been co-opted by the non-profit industrial complex including environmentalism, activism, radical, and even the word capitalism – a vogue word that provided an effective discourse to actually protect and expand the same socio-economic system that is killing us.

Revolutionary ideology in America is dead. A process is now fully underway now via the “new economy” (the financialization of nature) and even this does not invoke meaningful, fierce, necessary resistance. As much as Deepface (Facebook) may play a role in conveying information, social metrics in this way are like money. 500k followers has nothing to do with revolutionary actions, just as money is backed by nothing. Yet they both dominate the modern fucked-up Brave New World we live in today. I would argue social media is ultimately a great detriment to society as a whole, the ultimate wet dream of every oligarch and advertiser alive today. Like my WKOG comrade Forrest Palmer says, like Latin, truth is a dead language in this world – as is critical thinking. There is simply no appetite for radical change if it impairs privilege. And the radical change necessary to even slow climate change down would require the most radical (yet empowering) sacrifice that would tear down the institutions that oppress those who pay the price for the privilege of the Euro-American West. I’ve come to terms with the fact that privilege in any form will never be relinquished by those who have it – it would have to be taken via force. Any legitimate attempts to dismantle current power structures, or even slow down our multiple crises and ultimate self-annihilation would only come from the working class.

LePartage: Why? What are the main reasons for its failure?

Cory Morningstar: I think we fail to recognize the level of our own indoctrination. Pivotal questions put forward centuries ago in the paper The Politics of Obedience by Étienne de La Boétie continue to go unanswered. There is little to no interest in delving into such a critical barrier to this critical issue which serves to insulate current power structures. Facts grounded in reality observed by real revolutionaries, such as Assata Shakur who pointed out “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them”, go ignored.

I believe the main reason for our collective failure is the success of the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC) which is financed to the tune of trillions by those who oppress us. Those at the helm of the NPIC appeal to the worst traits of humanity, rather than the best. Individualism, narcissism, ego, want, hunger for power and recognition/fame. They tell the lies that we need to hear in order to live with ourselves and continue our rapacious plunder. They allow us to bask in our privilege without guilt. The “dead left” follows those they identify with, such as 350’s McKibben and Klein – white, wealthy “leaders” appointed by the elites. The Marilyn Bucks no longer exist. Revolutionaries such as Omali Yeshitela – who the “dead left” does not identify with – are ignored. In 1966 revolutionary leader Stockley Carmichael stated “And that’s the real question faction the white activists today. Can they tear down the institutions that have put us all in the trick bag we’ve been into for the last hundreds of years?” Exactly 50 years we can answer with an unequivocal no. White activists were not/are not prepared to tear down the institutions as these institutions have granted this class privilege that they are not prepared to give up at any cost. Even the cost of their own children. And as Forrest Palmer notes often, today, the black bourgeoisie seek to assimilate into this oppressive system rather than destroy it. Even using the word destroy in the same breath of activism is deemed unacceptable. Self-defense is not recognized as legitimate by those of privilege while violence by the police state is generally accepted. The belief that the world’s most powerful capitalists will give up any power or wealth voluntarily is absolutely asinine.

LePartage: It seems to me like the left is a confused mix of many different ideologies, more or less controlled and created by the dominant culture, which it thinks it is challenging, and that we can thus point out several major contradictions/inconsistencies that are preventing it from being an effective force of resistance, of change. What are your thoughts on this, and what would these major contradictions/inconsistencies be?

Cory Morningstar:

I thought this to be true years ago. That is, if “the left” could fully understand that they are continually being reabsorbed back into the very systems they claim to oppose, we could be militant against such manipulation. By fully embracing both discipline and critical thinking, we could stop this from happening over and over again. But western society has taught us the opposite. It celebrates the opposite. Don’t think critically. Don’t learn your history. Believe in the 10-second sound bites delivered to you from the corporate superpowers echoed through the NPIC/media chambers. But when I started writing the ugly truths about the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who form the NPIC, I discovered people believe in these institutions. The belief is powerful – akin to the belief in man’s white, blue-eyed male god.

When John D. Rockefeller stated “the ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun“, he knew then what it would take decades for the left to come to terms with. With what they have yet to come to terms with. The idea that we can shift the balance of power through organizations financed by – and in many cases created by – the most powerful institutions in the world, is ludicrous. And yet it continues to be a most powerful force that promises our own self destruction and ultimate annihilation. And when we look at what the dead left in the West continues to “demand” (demands where the solutions are already written and waiting for us behind closed doors), “solutions” that have nothing do with protecting nature or non-human life forms, but only western lifestyles, perhaps our eradication is a good thing.

And that’s the saddest part of the story as we come to the final chapter. The irony being that if man had of placed non-human life first and foremost ahead of human life, by default, we would have saved ourselves. The is the ultimate contradiction. And what has lead to our ultimate demise. There is good news though. In all and every likelihood that we are unable to stop climate change, let alone slow it down, it is never too late to further our knowledge and pursue truth and justice. If we could garner even a shred of dignity as nature closes in, I think this is most worthwhile.

[1] “The total amount of the methane (CH4) in the current atmosphere is 5 gigatons. The amount of carbon preserved in the form of methane in the East Siberian Arctic shelf is approx. 100’s-1000’s gigatons. Only 1% of this amount is required to double the atmospheric burden of methane (which is approx. 23x more powerful than CO2). There is not much effort needed to destabilize just 1% of this carbon pool considering the state of permafrost and the amount of methane currently involved. What keeps this methane from entering the atmosphere is a very shallow water column and a weakening permafrost which is losing its ability to serve as a seal. It could happen anytime. “Natalia Shakhova is one of the world’s foremost experts on methane hydrates.

[2] The Holocene is the geological epoch that began after the Pleistocene at approximately 11,700 years before AD 2000 and officially continues to the present.

Jul 08

2016

newWKOGadnim

Avaaz, Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Rockefeller Foundation, TckTckTck

Avaaz: un écran de fumée occultant les bombes libératrices à uranium appauvri [2012]

Liberterre

November 14, 2012

by Dominique Guillet

Peu de temps après l’opération psychologique spéciale dénommée 9/11, le Général Wesley Clark, ancien général en chef de l’OTAN (Organisation Terroriste de l’Atlantique Nord) rencontre, au Pentagone, un officier d’état-major qui le convie à consulter un document confidentiel émanant du Ministère de la Défense US et stipulant que, dans les 5 années suivantes, sept pays seront envahis (“libérés” dans le langage Orwellien) par les USA : l’Irak, la Syrie, le Liban, la Libye, la Somalie, le Soudan et l’Iran. Le Général Wesley Clark, en retraite, s’est exprimé publiquement plusieurs fois à ce sujet: «C’était une déclaration stupéfiante : l’armée servirait à déclencher des guerres et à faire tomber des gouvernements et non pas à empêcher les conflits. Nous allons envahir des pays. Mes pensées se bousculaient. J’ai mis ça de côté, c’était comme une pépite que vous conservez. Un groupe de gens a pris le contrôle du pays avec un coup d’État politique, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld… je pourrais nommer une demi-douzaine d’autres collaborateurs du Projet pour un Nouveau Siècle Américain (PNAC). Ils voulaient que le Moyen-Orient soit déstabilisé, qu’il soit chamboulé et placé sous notre contrôle». (1)

Est-ce donc une coïncidence si l’organisation dénommée Avaaz a soutenu les interventions militaires en Libye (19 / 20 / 21) et en Syrie (25 / 26 / 27 / 28)? Est-ce donc une coïncidence si Avaaz se mêle des affaires internes de la Somalie (2 / 3 / 4)? Est-ce donc une coïncidence si Avaaz se mêle des affaires internes du Soudan (5) en accusant, par ailleurs, le très diabolisé Iran de livrer des armes (7 / 8)? Est-ce donc une coïncidence si Avaaz se mêle des affaires internes de l’Iran (9 / 10)?

Qui sont donc ces “activistes Avaaz” impliqués très concrètement, en 2012, dans des opérations de déstabilisation de la Syrie (11)?

L’organisation Avaaz n’est-elle pas tout simplement une tête de pont de la CIA, un gigantesque écran de fumée occultant les bombes libératrices à uranium appauvri de l’Impérialisme Occidental?

A l’automne 2009, en rédigeant mes quatre articles sur l’arnaque du réchauffement climatique anthropique (13), je découvris que cette organisation sollicitait les activistes pour récolter des fonds, en l’espace de quelques jours, à hauteur de 150 000 dollars afin de créer un blog durant le Sommet de Stockholm. «Il ne nous reste plus que quelques jours. Si d’ici lundi, nous pouvions collecter 150 000 dollars, Avaaz pourrait engager les grands moyens sur ce projet: construire une carte du monde et un blog dans le style de Twitter permettant de relier tous les événements organisés pour le climat le 21 septembre; mettre en place une base de données téléphoniques mondiale pour permettre à des milliers d’entre nous d’inonder nos dirigeants de coups de téléphone; et enfin engager une équipe de professionnels pour faire la différence sur le terrain médiatique, face aux puissants lobbys industriels et pétroliers».

150 000 dollars financés par des militants naïfs pour créer un blog!! On croit rêver. A l’époque, je pensais qu’Avaaz n’était qu’une ONG frauduleuse, une de plus, une Organisation pour Niaiser les Gogos, dont l’objectif unique est de soutirer beaucoup d’argent aux activistes et dont l’outil principal est fondé sur des pathologies modernes, la pétitionnite aiguë et la conjugaison débridée du verbe “cliquer”. Et il est clair qu’Avaaz excelle en tant que gigantesque machinerie à cliquer/glaner des dollars/euros. Il n’est que de consulter, sur internet, l’une de ses campagnes, en 2009, pour lever des fonds, à grands renforts de petits montants:

«C’est un moment d’une importance cruciale pour l’Iran et pour le monde. Nous pouvons aider à faire connaître la vérité en organisant de toute urgence un sondage post-électoral rigoureux auprès des citoyens iraniens, en leur téléphonant pour leur demander pour qui ils ont voté et en publiant les résultats dans les médias. Plus d’un tiers des votes sont en jeu – et notre sondage pourra ainsi prouver qui dit la vérité . Si nous arrivons à recueillir 119 000 € dans les prochaines 24 heures, nous pourrons publier les résultats avant que le Conseil des gardiens de la Constitution ne rende publics les résultats de son propre recomptage des voix. Si nous arrivons à recueillir plus d’argent, nous pourrons étendre la portée de cette campagne. Nous avons un besoin urgent que 10 000 d’entre vous donnent un petit montant. Aidez à financer le sondage dès maintenant en utilisant le formulaire sécurisé fourni ci-dessous.» (10)

On se demande d’ailleurs ce qui est sécurisé chez Avaaz car la phrase suivante apparaît en rouge gras: «$228,449 ont fait un don pour aider financer un sondage pour la vérité en Iran». Où apparaît-elle? Sur le site d’Avaaz France car aujourd’hui, en novembre 2012, il est toujours possible d’appuyer sur le bouton Paypal pour contribuer financièrement à ce sondage, pour le moins, très “post-électoral”. Après vérification de la même campagne sur son site US, il s’avère que la maison mère s’est répandue en plates excuses, en 2009, à propos de l’impossibilité d’effectuer le dit sondage à cause de la corruption en Iran. A l’époque, Avaaz proposa aux ponctionnés, en toute sincérité bien entendu, de récupérer leur dû – en envoyant un mail – ou de le mettre à disposition d’une autre campagne qu’ils venaient juste de lancer pour sécuriser un internet libre en Iran!! (12)… et pour sécuriser la cagnotte chez Paypal.

Car Avaaz a besoin d’argent, de beaucoup d’argent, pour organiser ses pétitions virtuelles à partir de quelques ordinateurs, et surtout pour les rémunérations de ses cadres. Car affirmons-le, haut et fort, les cadres chez Avaaz ne sont pas rémunérés avec des cacahuètes virtuelles: le fondateur et directeur exécutif, Ricken Patel, a ainsi touché, en 2010, la modeste somme salariale de 183 264 dollars (15 200 dollars par mois) – en légère augmentation par rapport à ses salaires de 120 000 dollars des années précédentes – tandis que le directeur de campagne, Ben Wikler, a touché 111 384 dollars de salaire. Cette même année 2010, Avaaz a déclaré sur sa feuille de revenu (form 990): 921 592 dollars de “frais de campagnes et de consultance”, 182 196 dollars de “frais de voyages”, 262 954 dollars de “frais de publicité”, 404 889 dollars de “frais de technologie d’information”, etc, etc. Tout cela pue l’arnaque financière et le copinage archi-dollarisé. Parmi ses quelques frais de gestion, Avaaz a payé Milena Berry (et son mari Paul), pour un travail de consultance IT (technologie d’information), la bagatelle de 245 182 dollars en 2009 et de 294 000 dollars en 2010. Malgré la très haute rémunération de Milena Berry, qui se présente comme la technicienne en chef de la gestion informatique de l’organisation, Avaaz a fait appel à la générosité des dons, afin de renforcer son système informatique, suite à une prétendue cyber-attaque en mai 2012. Sans commentaires.

L’organisation Avaaz ne semble d’ailleurs pas très pressée de publier sa déclaration de revenus pour 2011, ce que l’on comprend fort bien de par la pléthore d’articles, émergeant sur internet, afin de dénoncer cette organisation frauduleuse. A la mi-novembre 2012, la “form 990” est toujours absente de son site alors que l’audit du rapport financier a été délivré par son cabinet comptable de New-York (Lederer, Levine et Associates), le 19 juin 2012.

Avaaz a été créé en 2006 par MoveOn.org et Res Publica. “Avaaz”, dans différents langages de l’Asie et de l’Europe de l’est signifie “la voix”. La voix silencieuse, derrière Avaaz et Res Publica, est celle de trois individus: Tom Perriello, un ancien membre du Congrès US, Ricken Patel, consultant chez de nombreuses entités contrôlées par les psychopathes prédateurs, et Tom Pravda, un ancien diplomate d’Angleterre consultant pour le Ministère de l’Intérieur US.

Parmi les autres fondateurs d’Avaaz se trouvent Eli Pariser (le directeur exécutif de MoveOn), Andrea Woodhouse (consultant pour la Banque Mondiale), Jeremy Heimans (le co-fondateur de GetUp! et de Purpose), et l’entrepreneur Australien David Madden (le co-fondateur de GetUp! et de Purpose).

MoveOn, le co-fondateur d’Avaaz, a distribué, en 2002, par le biais de son Comité d’Action Politique, 3 millions et demis de dollars à 36 candidats politiques au Congrès US. En novembre 2003, MoveOn reçut 5 millions de dollars du spéculateur milliardaire George Soros. Ricken Patel a, d’ailleurs, déclaré publiquement que l’Open Society Institute de George Soros (renommé Open Society Foundation en 2011) était l’un des membres fondateurs d’Avaaz.

Qui est George Soros? L’un des prédateurs psychopathes à la direction du CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) et l’un des membres du Groupe Bilderberg. Le CFR et le Groupe Bilderberg sont deux des pseudopodes de la baudruche dénommée “Nouvel Ordre Mondial”. Le CFR et le Groupe Bilderberg ont été créés par les Rockefellers, la famille responsable de nombreux maux qui sévissent sur la planète. Pour mémoire, la Fondation Rockefeller a promu les lois eugénistes aux USA dès le début du siècle passé; elle a financé le Nazisme avant et durant la seconde guerre mondiale; elle a financé les recherches génétiques, dès 1945, et donc tout le secteur des chimères génétiques; elle a lancé la dévastatrice Révolution Verte…

Avaaz fut, en juin 2009, l’un des partenaires dans la campagne Tcktcktck lancée par Havas, aux côtés d’EDF, de la Loyds Bank… et de 350.org, une organisation financée par la Fondation Ford, la Fondation Rockefeller, le Rockefeller Brothers Fund et le milliardaire George Soros.

George Soros est le financeur incontournable de toute cette mouvance d’ONGs aux objectifs occultes. Durant l’été 2009, l’Open Society Institute (de Soros) donna une subvention de 150 000 dollars à Avaaz. En sus de cette subvention, Avaaz reçut de Res Publica (financée par Soros) 225 000 dollars en 2006, 950 000 dollars en 2007 et 500 000 dollars en 2008. La Foundation to Promote Open Society (de Soros) donna à Avaaz, en 2008/2009, 300 000 dollars de soutien général et 300 000 dollars pour la campagne (sur l’arnaque) climatique durant laquelle Avaaz a particulièrement brillé dans son expertise pour susciter de l’argent non virtuel afin de combattre un réchauffement climatique virtuel avec des pétitions tout aussi virtuelles. Ricken Patel ne précise d’ailleurs, nulle part, dans sa croisade contre le réchauffement climatique anthropique, comment il effectue la rédemption de “l’empreinte carbone” générée par les émoluments grandioses de ses bons amis au sein d’Avaaz (une redistribution des libéralités généreuses de la clique de Soros alors qu’Avaaz prétend effrontément que l’organisation ne reçoit de l’argent que de dons individuels!!!) et de “l’empreinte carbone” générée par ses très hauts salaires chez Avaaz! Il s’agit vraisemblablement d’une rédemption virtuelle.

Et, qui plus est, nous ne sommes pas allés vérifier si les multiples casquettes de Ricken Patel généraient de multiples “empreintes carbone” liées à de multiples salaires. En effet, il est le co-fondateur et co-directeur de Faith in Public Life (une grosse organisation chrétienne); il est consultant pour International Crisis Group, pour la Fondation Rockefeller, pour la Fondation Bill Gates, pour l’ONU, pour l’Université Harvard, pour CARE International, pour International Center for Transitional Justice; il est le co-fondateur et co-directeur de DarfurGenocide.org; il est le co-fondateur et directeur de Res Publica. Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Dans la clique des fondateurs d’Avaaz – dont l’idéologie est fondée sur la pratique du clic-clic et le syndrome du petit montant – Patel n’est pas le seul à arborer de multiples casquettes. On retrouve Tom Perriello dans la consultance ou la direction chez: National Council of Churches of Christ, Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Faithful America, Faith in Public Life, Center for a Sustainable Economy, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Youth and Environmental Campaigns, E-Mediat Jordan, International Center for Transitional Justice, Res Publica, The Century Foundation, l’ONU, Open Society Institute, etc, etc. Il oeuvra avec le Reverend Dr. James Forbes sur des concepts de “justice prophétique”. Tom Perriello soutient l’opération psychologique spéciale dénommée “guerre à la terreur” qui fut lancée par Bush et prolongée par Obama. Sa vision d’Israël participe du conte de fée: il considère ce pays comme l’une des «créations les plus spectaculaires et excitantes de la communauté internationale» au 20 ème siècle et est convaincu qu’il «existe une relation stratégique et morale permanente entre les USA et Israël». Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Le grand amour que Tom Perriello éprouve pour Israël n’empêche nullement Avaaz de lancer une pétition pour soutenir les malheureux Palestiniens persécutés par l’Etat Sioniste! Et c’est là que réside le grand génie stratégique d’Avaaz pour enfumer les militants et activistes sincères: Avaaz promeut, de temps en temps, de “nobles” causes: les abeilles, les Palestiniens… et même Kokopelli. Avaaz a même lancé une pétition pour mettre les banquiers en prison, ces mêmes banquiers qui ont promu avec Avaaz la législation “cap and trade” (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America… ) ou avec lesquels les fondateurs d’Avaaz collaborent dans l’International Crisis Group (Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank Group…).

Avaaz atteint des sommets de grand guignolesque lorsque l’organisation lance une campagne pour stopper la “guerre contre les drogues”. Le 3 juin 2011, la marionnette Ban Ki-moon reçoit des mains de Ricken Patel – accompagné de Richard Branson, le fondateur de Virgin – une pétition de 600 267 personnes: “End the War on Drugs”. De quoi parle-t-on ici? D’une campagne de dépénalisation du cannabis, de l’ayahuasca, des champignons psilocybes et du peyotl? Ou bien d’une campagne pour stopper la guerre contre la gangrène sociale que constitue la commercialisation tout azimut de l’héroïne et de la cocaïne? Gageons qu’il s’agit bien de la seconde alternative. L’héroïne et la cocaïne constituent les deux sources les plus généreuses des caisses noires de la mafia des psychopathes prédateurs tout autant que des liquidités des grandes banques internationales. La présence de l’Alliance Occidentale en Afghanistan s’explique, entre autres, par le contrôle de l’opium dont 95 % de la production mondiale est concentrée dans ce pays. Quels sont les journalistes, dignes de ce qualificatif, qui ont informé le public quant au scandale gigantesque du blanchiment de centaines de milliards de dollars de l’argent de l’héroïne et de la cocaïne par les grandes banques internationales (23 / 24): HSBC, Wells Fargo, Bank of America….?

Toutes ces campagnes ne constituent qu’un gigantesque écran de fumée pour occulter toutes les finalités odieuses qu’Avaaz soutient au service de l’Impérialisme Occidental: la destruction de la Libye, la déstabilisation de la Syrie, la déstabilisation de l’Iran, la déstabilisation de la Bolivie d’Evo Morales.

Toutes ces opérations de destruction et de déstabilisation de pays souverains sont promues par Tom Perriello dont les visions bellicistes (“pro-war”) ne sont un secret pour personne.

Dans une vidéo (14), Tom Perriello, est présenté comme l’honorable directeur de E-Mediat Jordan, une organisation localisée en Jordanie, un pays limitrophe de l’Irak et de la Syrie. Il s’adresse aux jeunes de cette organisation (“un centre d’entraînement, de technologies et d’outils”) qui sont prêts, déclare-t-il, «à se sacrifier pour leur pays», à savoir à servir de chair à canon pour l’avancement de l’Impérialisme Occidental.

En mai 2009, alors que 60 membres du Congrès US votèrent contre l’attribution de 97 milliards de dollars supplémentaires dans les guerres d’Irak et d’Afghanistan, Tom Perriello vota pour.

En mars 2010, une réception fut organisée par deux organisations de coloration pseudo-verte “League of Conservation Voters” et “Environmental Defense Action Fund” pour lever des fonds pour la réélection de Tom Perriello au Congrès US. MoveOn.org, le co-fondateur d’Avaaz, lui attribua 100 000 dollars pour sa campagne de réélection.

En mars 2010, alors que 60 membres du Congrès US votèrent contre la prolongation de la guerre en Afghanistan, Tom Perriello vota pour.

Le 27 juillet 2010, Tom Perriello vota contre le retrait des troupes US du Pakistan.

Le 27 juillet 2010, alors que 115 membres du Congrès US votèrent contre l’attribution de 33 milliards de dollars supplémentaires dans la guerre d’Irak, Tom Perriello vota pour.

Le 30 juillet 2010, Tom Perriello vota contre les régulations (HR 3534) visant à encadrer les forages de pétrole en haute mer et vota en faveur de la suspension d’un moratoire imposant des gardes-fous sur les dits forages en haute mer.

Le 15 décembre 2011, Tom Perriello devint le directeur de CAP Action, l’une des branches du Center for American Progress. Dans la revue Democracy Journal, après avoir vanté le “succès” de l’intervention militaire en Libye, il déclara:

«Aujourd’hui, Kadhafi est mort et le peuple Libyen peut, pour la première fois depuis des décennies, jouir de l’opportunité d’une gouvernance responsable et démocratique… Il n’y a pas eu de décès dans les troupes Américaines. Les combattants insurgés et la vaste majorité de la population ont célébré la victoire comme une libération et les Syriens courageux, qui quotidiennement risquent la mort en s’opposant à leur propre régime répressif, se sont réjouis de la chute de Kadhafi. Tous ces accomplissements ne sont pas de petits exploits pour ceux qui se soucient de la dignité, de la démocratie et de la stabilité…»

Ce sont effectivement de grands exploits qui caractérisent la “libération” de la Libye qui fut le pays le plus riche de l’Afrique: un chaos social généralisé, des attentats quotidiens, des luttes intestines continuelles, sans oublier les 50 à 100 000 civils Libyens libérés à jamais de “l’oppression” de Kadhafi en mourant sous les bombes à uranium appauvri de l’Occident.

Que ce soit au travers des conceptions bellicistes de ses fondateurs ou de ses propres campagnes de déstabilisation et d’invasion militaire de pays souverains, Avaaz est clairement une organisation complice de crimes de guerre.

Je n’ai ni le temps ni l’envie de sonder plus avant les profondeurs d’immoralité de cette organisation crapuleuse. Je renvoie les lecteurs et lectrices à de nombreux articles et témoignages qui commencent à poindre sur internet (29 / 30 / 31 / 32) et, en particulier, aux quatre excellents rapports d’investigation rédigés au Canada par Cory Morningstar. (15 / 16 / 17 / 18).

Ce dont je suis convaincu, c’est que l’énorme rideau de fumée mis en place par Avaaz par le biais de campagnes “humanistes” en faveur des Palestiniens, des abeilles, de la forêt Amazonienne ou de Kokopelli… est en train de s’estomper rapidement. Avaaz est la “voix” occulte du complexe militaro-industriel qui cherche à semer le chaos de la guerre sur toute la planète.

Avaaz, bas les masques!

Jul 05

2016

newWKOGadnim

350.org / 1Sky, Avaaz, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Purpose [Public Relations Arm of Avaaz]

350.org Avaaz CERES-WE MEAN BUSINESS opportunistic collaborators Purpose The New Economy The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) Tides

The Collaborators

Medium

June 18, 2016

by Jay Taber

“We Mean Business” [September, 2014, People’s Climate March]

In the summer of 1999, as I traveled by train through France for three weeks, I saw numerous memorials to the French Resistance. While staying in Cauterets, the entrance to the Pyrenees National Park, I observed a commemoration ceremony in front of town hall to these valiant volunteers—many of whom sacrificed their lives fighting fascism in the 1930s and 1940s.

Revered as these solid citizens of the French Republic are, there is a residue of resentment—well-deserved—for the opportunists who sold their souls to the fascists during that horrific fight for freedom. These were, and are, known as the collaborationists (a.k.a. the collaborators)—still a poignant term of derision in France today, particularly in Paris.

I was reminded of this recently, when looking at a group photo in my Jan. 2016 article Heart of Darkness at Wrong Kind of Green (under New World Order-Same Old Crimes) of Wall Street-funded NGO representatives to Paris 2015–where “the agenda of the financial elite at Paris was to subsume human rights to the all-encompassing ‘clean energy’/New Economy regime”. Reading the caption, I could not help thinking that these are the collaborators of climate change.

Video: The ideologies espoused by “We Mean Business” are transparent in the interview with Avaaz & Purpose co-founder Jeremy Heimans by We Mean Business. “We’ve been talking in a broader way about the future of consumer activism, of organizing people not as citizens but as consumers.”—Jeremy Heimans, Purpose, 2011

“The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) plays a fundamental role within the [We Mean Business] coalition, building on its policy and strategic work advocating for climate change solutions and leveraging the efforts of its EU and global business members.” [Source]

Coincidentally, I was simultaneously reviewing the art and manuscripts of the Situationist International (SI)–the artists, intellectuals and writers that precipitated the May 1968 uprising against capitalism that ‘brought the entire economy of France to a dramatic halt’. Perusing the writing of two principal leaders of SI, Michele Bernstein and Guy DeBord, I wondered what these members of the 20th Century avant-garde would have done at COP21, where the 21st Century architects of the final solution gathered to ‘carve up the world for capitalism’.

As I observed in the opening section by the same name in my article Netwar in the Big Apple, published at CounterPunch (July 2014),

For ubercapitalists like Bill Gates and their sycophants like William Jefferson Clinton—who promote the false hope of neoliberal globalization—terminating the collective ownership of Indigenous nations, in exchange for totalitarian corporate control of the planet’s resources, is a dream coming true. As architects of the final solution, they?—?along with the World Bank, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations—view the UN Millenium Development Goals as a blueprint for annihilation of the world’s Indigenous societies.

In Pathways to Spectacle/Consumerism as “Activism” (Feb. 2016), I noted that ‘The driving force behind privatization through social engineering is the non-profit industrial complex’. As I observed in Social Capitalists: Wall Street’s Progressive Partners (Feb. 2015), CERES-WE MEAN BUSINESS, TIDES & 350—opportunistic collaborators working for Wall Street ‘to dislodge the United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations, and prevent enforceable rules governing the operations of multinational corporations’—‘received millions from Wall Street corporations and foundations’.

We Mean Business Twitter status, October 5, 2015

In Hijacking the Environmental Movement: Just Say No to 350 (April 2016), I wrote, ‘The “new economy” they promote is essentially what used to be called fascism’, and that “The ongoing social disintegration of industrial civilization that produces pseudo-citizens signing online petitions created by ruling class entities like Avaaz, Purpose and 350, is indicative of the unbridled power of seamless spectacle, begun in the era of television, and culminated in the reign of the Internet. Controlling Consciousness through public relations has generated a ‘discursive monoculture’, where self-organized democratic renewal is unimaginable”.

rare earths are the key to a greenwashed, technotopian future

Illustration: Stephanie McMillan

Six years ago, Cory Morningstar, in Suicidal Tendencies or Addiction: Earth Day Hijacked by Climate Wealth Opportunists, observed that Earth Day has ‘become nothing more than a day of greenwash opportunism and will mark the fall of the mainstream environmental movement’. As the French philosopher Guy DeBord observed in his 1967 treatise The Society of the Spectacle, we now live in a culture of imbeciles ‘in which advertising has become the only factor’.

[Jay Thomas Taber is an author, an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal. Since 1994, he has served as communications director at Public Good Project, a volunteer network of researchers, analysts and journalists defending democracy. As a consultant, he has assisted Indigenous peoples in the European Court of Human Rights and at the United Nations.]

Jun 10

2016

newWKOGadnim

350.org / 1Sky, Indigenous Environmental Network

350.org Assimilation IEN Indigenous Environmental Network Tides

Divide and Conquer: 350 Apologists

Public Good Project

June 10, 2016

by Jay Taber

2011: Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and Canadian author, Naomi Klein. Photo by Josh Lopez.

As I wrote in my op-ed Degrees of Evil: Savoring the Nuances of Co-optation, spectacle celebrities like Naomi Klein count on infantile consumers to maintain their activist credentials. As a board member of 350–funded by Rockefeller Brothers Fund and TIDES Foundation (Warren Buffett, et al)–Klein and her cohort Bill McKibben are in bed with CERES and Goldman Sachs. Yet, despite this blatantly obvious hypocrisy by the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of Climate Evangelism, the myth of 350 as a ‘grassroots’ organization persists.

This myth might be an amusing entertainment, were it not for the fact that 350 is complicit with Wall Street in Hijacking the Environmental Movement, and guilty as Agent Saboteur of the World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.

So it is disappointing, but not surprising, when people like Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN)–funded by TIDES–perpetuate the myth of 350 as a small organization responsive to indigenous interests. While IEN has done some good things, they nevertheless know where their bread is buttered, and this leads them to speak half truths–which amount to whole lies. The Goldtooth interview Divide and Conquer, while enlightening about REDD, also serves as a warning about the insidious corruption of Wall Street-funded NGOs–IEN included.

[Jay Thomas Taber is an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal. Since 1994, he has served as communications director at Public Good Project, a volunteer network of researchers, analysts and journalists defending democracy. As a consultant, he has assisted Indigenous peoples in the European Court of Human Rights and at the United Nations.]

Jun 09

2016

newWKOGadnim

350.org / 1Sky, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Foundation

350.org Break Free Campaign Buffett Conditioning Gates McKibben Rockefeller

Shearing Sheep

Endurance

May 29, 2016

by Jay Taber

A trial of the new automatic sheep shearing machine at the government’s agricultural experimenting station at Beltsville, Maryland, circa 1927. Getty Images.

When in Ireland, I witnessed a sheep farmer and his Border Collies herding sheep into an enclosure. Using whistle commands, the farmer instructed the Collies on which way to turn the sheep, when to bunch them, and when to move them into the pen.

I was reminded of this witnessing the Break Free ‘fossil-free’ campaign events, May 14-16. Assuming the role of the sheep farmer, 350 (led by Bill McKibben) blew the whistle commands, while Break Free organizers barked at environmental activists (the sheep)–herding them into protest encampments at oil refineries.

It was astonishing to witness such precision in action. Of course, this entertaining choreography would never have taken place without the enticement of a payoff for McKibben and his herders from the ‘wool merchants’, i.e. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the Rockefeller Brothers.

1948 — a sheepherding demonstration at the Rockefeller Center

Now, all that remains is the sheep shearing by on-the-take politicians–the wool taking the form of U.S. Treasury funds for nuclear-powered electrical generating stations, along with large scale solar and wind turbine farms, using highly toxic chemicals from the oil industry in their manufacture.

Now that’s an efficient, vertically-integrated operation.

Jun 09

2016

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

Amnesty International Exploitation

Amnesty International Confirms it No Longer Supports Women’s Human Rights

Feminist Current

May 26, 2016

by Meghan Murphy

Amnesty International has formally adopted a policy calling for the legalization of prostitution around the world. The organization’s senior director for law and policy, Tawanda Mutasah, said:

“Sex workers are at heightened risk of a whole host of human rights abuses including rape, violence, extortion and discrimination. Far too often they receive no, or very little, protection from the law or means for redress.”

He fails to mention that, under legalization, these human rights abuses are amplified, nor does he consider how or why the law would address said abuses, once sanctioned under law. Mutasah adds:

“We want laws to be refocused on making sex workers’ lives safer and improving the relationship they have with the police, while addressing the very real issue of exploitation. We want governments to make sure no one is coerced to sell sex, or is unable to leave sex work if they choose to.”

“LOL,” said feminists across the globe.

This neoliberal policy, in the works for some time but now formalized, was developed, in part, by pimps and traffickers. Despite the fact that the system of prostitution exists in direct conflict with the human rights of women and girls, and despite ample evidence to show that legalization only increases abuse and exploitation, Amnesty International pushed forward with this policy, effectively abandoning any semblance of respect for women.

Men’s rights activists around the world can rest easy knowing that organizations like Amnesty International have their penises interests first in mind.

[Meghan Murphy, founder and editor of Feminist Current, is a freelance writer and journalist. She completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog. Follow her @meghanemurphy]

Jun 08

2016

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

Adam Smith Institute Exploitation Framing Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP) Jacobin Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAIDS) Linguistics Prostitution World Health Organization (WHO)

The Dangers of Rebranding Prostitution as ‘Sex Work’

June 7, 2016

by Kate Banyard

In an extract from her new book, Pimp State, activist Kat Banyard argues that prostitution is sexual exploitation. Decriminalising this industry only legitimises the abuse of women.

‘Using the term “sex work” as if it was an adequate and appropriate shorthand serves a deeply political goal. ‘ Photograph: Paul Popper/Popperfoto/Getty Images

The steady creep of “sex work” into 21st-century vernacular is neither incidental nor accidental. The term didn’t just pop up and go viral. The Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP), an organisation that openly campaigns for brothel-keeping and pimping to be recognised as legitimate jobs, credits itself as largely responsible for “sex work” replacing “prostitution” as the go-to terminology for institutions such as the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAIDS) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

“More than mere political correctness,” the NSWP proudly states, “this shift in language had the important effect of moving global understandings of sex work toward a labour framework.” The fact that prostitution involves sexual acts and some kind of payment is a given. However, engaging with it first and foremost as a labour issue, using the term “sex work” as if it was an adequate and appropriate shorthand for what takes place in strip clubs, on porn sets and in brothels, serves a deeply political goal. Not only does this framework shrink the field of analysis to the seller (to the exclusion of men’s demand and its social impact), it hides what should be front and centre of our response to the transaction: the inherent sexual abuse.

The notion that being paid to perform sex acts should be recognised as a kind of service work is the rationale underpinning legalised prostitution regimes. It’s an idea that has managed to unite an eclectic mix of left and rightwing voices. Peter Frase – a member of the editorial board of Jacobin, a magazine billed as a leading voice of the American left – is in favour of “legalising all forms of sex work for adults”. He claims: “Not only does sex work destabilise the work ideology, it also conflicts with a bourgeois ideal of private, monogamous sexuality.” Tim Worstall, writing for British rightwing thinktank the Adam Smith Institute, shares Frase’s policy conclusion, though his reasoning contrasts somewhat. As a type of commercial activity, Worstall insists the prostitution trade is “obviously free market” and that “renting out body parts is and should be no different from lending them out for fun or for free”.

The whole point of the sex industry is that it offers men the chance to buy sexual access to women who do not want to have sex with them – otherwise they wouldn’t have to pay. Masking its fundamental purpose thus becomes the primary PR challenge for the prostitution, pornography and strip club trades if they are to survive – maybe even thrive – in a society that has decided, at least in principle, that women are not subordinate sex objects and rape is a bad thing.

Perhaps the single most effective strategy hit upon so far is to pump out the myth contained in the term “sex work”: the myth that it is possible to commodify consent.

How can sexual consent be a thing that can be bought and sold, yet we can still talk with a straight face about there being such concepts as healthy sexual relationships and meaningful consent? If, while having sex with someone, you feel repulsed by them touching you, afraid of what they might do, degraded and humiliated by the sexual acts, hurt by the hateful words they’re whispering in your ear, sore because he’s the fifth man you’ve had sex with today, exhausted from it all, traumatised, abused – the fact that you’ll get a bit of cash at the end does not change anything. There is no invisible hand in the prostitution market that magically disappears the lived experience of sexual abuse.

‘The term “sex work” is a myth: the myth that it is possible to commodify consent.’ Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

Poverty can, of course, play a highly influential role in women’s entry into prostitution. However, bluntly asserting that poverty is the singular cause of the prostitution trade fails to acknowledge that men’s poverty has not begot a global demand from women to pay them for sex acts, that without men’s demand there would be no trade at all, or the highly specific abuses that so commonly characterise women’s entry into it.

Research by the British Medical Journal found that, in three UK cities, half of women in outdoor prostitution, and a quarter of women in indoor prostitution, reported having been subject to violence by a sex buyer in the previous six months. Of the violence they had ever experienced at the hands of sex buyers, women on the streets most frequently reported being kicked, slapped or punched, while women in saunas or flats most frequently reported attempted rape (17% of women based indoors had experienced this, as had 28% of women on the streets). A separate study, in Sociology of Health and Illness, involving more than 100 women engaged in flat-based prostitution in London, highlighted how an indoor setting can have its own particular coercive influence. Each day women had to pay up to £250 in rent, as well as up to £60 a day for a maid (who, in practice, often operated like a pimp, sometimes controlling which sex buyers the women saw), plus a range of other expenses. On average, a woman was paid for sex by 76 men each week.

The Economist’s 2014 article, titled A personal choice, warding off “puritans and do-gooders” from meddling with the sex trade, insists that governments should “leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online”. This builds on the claim that prostitution is sex work by attempting to frame that work simply as a series of individual, private exchanges set apart from the rest of society. Milton Friedman, the late economist and proponent of unbridled free-market capitalism, implied much the same when asked about prostitution in 2006. “You put a willing buyer [with] a willing seller, and it’s up to them. You can argue with them that it’s foolish, you can argue with them that it’s a bad thing to do, but I don’t see any justification for bringing the police into it.” But the sex industry, like any market, doesn’t operate in a vacuum, leaving the rest of society miraculously untouched by its presence. Markets are,as philosopher Debra Satz says, social institutions: “All markets depend for their operation on background property rules and a complex of social, cultural, and legal institutions.” Markets are a matter for everyone.

Neon sign advertising a live model or prostitute. Photograph: Photofusion/UIG via Getty Images

Trades weave themselves into the fabric of society. We know this. We place all kinds of restrictions and prohibitions on markets precisely because of this. Because the risks, particularly to the most vulnerable and marginalised in society, are just too high. Commercial exchanges that people may agree to participate in without a gun being held to their head – such as sales of human organs, voting rights, bonded labour contracts – are nonetheless deemed legally off limits. It’s the line in the sand that societies draw to say that the harm to those directly involved, to third parties, or to the bedrock principles necessary for equal citizenship, is simply too great. Some trades are too toxic to tolerate.

A basic principle that is utterly indispensable to ending violence against women, not to mention to our fundamental concept of humanity, is that sexual abuse is never acceptable. Not even when the perpetrator has some spare cash and the person he’s abusing needs money. Cheerleaders of brothels, porn sets and strip clubs would have us believe that the sex trade levitates above the level of social values and cultural beliefs. But no one can opt out of its effects. A market in sexual exploitation, accepted and tolerated, influences who we all are as individuals, and who we are as a people.

A society that acts in law and language as if men who pay to sexually access women are simply consumers, legitimately availing workers of their services, is a society in deep denial about sexual abuse – and the inequality underpinning it.

[Pimp State: Sex, Money and the Future of Equality by Kat Banyard (Faber & Faber, £12.99). To order a copy for £10.39, go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call the Guardian Bookshop on 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min. p&p of £1.99.]

May 30

2016

newWKOGadnim

350.org / 1Sky, Avaaz, Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Purpose [Public Relations Arm of Avaaz], The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

350.org Afghanistan Avaaz Democracy Now Iraq Libya Netwar Nuclear privatized activism Purpose Social Engineering social media metrics Syria

Culture-Jamming Social Media: A Public Health Measure

May 30, 2016

by Jay Taber

As I noted in my comments about the unjust transition of the Break Free campaign, sponsored by 350, it is urgent to stop fossil fuel export for a couple reasons: it creates expedited demand for fracking and new terminal development, and it exhausts our reserves for our own future needs–making it more likely we will turn to nuclear power. Indeed, the idea–promoted by 350–of ending fossil fuel use altogether is a charade used to cover for nuclear power development plans.

The financial backers of 350 and other Wall Street, hedge fund and private equity investors know from intensive studies that oil and gas use is going to continue increasing for a long time, so what we get by following the Break Free game plan is increased fossil fuel use, increased toxic pollution from solar cell manufacture, and an increased likelihood of nuclear power dependence.

The only workable plan is to decrease consumer demand for gasoline and petroleum-based plastic products, and to decrease military usage for wars used to maintain access and control of foreign mineral deposits. Anti-consumerism and anti-war campaigns are the two things that promise the largest climate change payback, and they are omitted from the 350 agenda.

There is, unfortunately, little public discussion about social engineering through social media, which indicates there is little learning taking place–when there is much to be learned.

In the digital era, we live in a society where thought control is consolidated to such a degree, that few recognize how pervasive social engineering has become in our lives. The constant drumbeat by corporate media (mainstream and alternative) to panic the multitudes into actions orchestrated by corporate NGOs, i.e. Avaaz, Purpose, and 350, stampedes many to react according to these campaigns–choreographed by these marketing agents on the payroll of the financial elite.

Public relations (PR) firms, such as 350, and corrupt alternative media such as Democracy Now!, adhere to the prescribed art of manipulating public opinion on behalf of the financial elite, without anyone questioning, for instance, how it is that millions of people–on several continents–could be reacting in exactly the same way, on the same date, chanting the same slogans. It is, I observe, because the herded are not self-organized, participating in action based on independent research and discussion. Rather, they have ceded their judgment to the central authority of NGOs funded by corporations, laundered through private foundations.

In this aspect, privatized activism subservient to Wall Street–just like government, academia, and media–comprises organizers in it for a career, not as a duty of citizenship, who cater to the agenda of corporate philanthropic funders. This is not democracy in action; it is social tyranny.

The Break Free quotes in the media are a mix of official organizers working for the corporations, and the followers that participated in the staged 350 events. For the most part, they repeat mantras about the salvation of ‘clean energy’ that are corporate fabrications, but widely and uncritically accepted, due to the network drumbeat. This is what Netwar (networked psychological warfare) is all about–drowning out other perspectives, and dominating all forms of communication.

This creates a sense of panicked urgency that, in turn, drives followers to believe they are on a holy mission–one that exempts them from both social conventions and the law, and that limits the choices for public response to those composed by corporate decision-makers, in order to benefit the corporations. What we need to do is take the time for more discussion, research and education–that doesn’t begin by adopting the assumptions prepackaged by the financial elite.

I think it might help to recount other examples where the public has been coerced or seduced by corporate PR firms into accepting or supporting actions contrary to the public interest, yet very much in the interest of those who pay the PR firms, that stand to profit from public ignorance or complacency. The Gulf War, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan, War in Libya, and War in Syria were all based on PR fabrications–intended to mislead public opinion, and to stampede public officials into urgent actions–that later turned out to be harmful to the public interest.

The same thing happened with the bank bailouts, and is now repeating itself in the false hope of 350s corporate-funded propaganda about climate change adaptation. One might get the impression from all this that the public never learns, has given up, or doesn’t care.

On the other hand, perhaps the majority of citizens are now either addicts, cynics or fanatics, resulting in an impossible organizing task for sober, constructive engagement in public affairs. Either way, culture-jamming social media–that promotes hysteria–is a public health measure.

May 17

2016

newWKOGadnim

350.org / 1Sky, Avaaz

"Sustainable Capitalism" 1Sky/350.org Avaaz Bill Gates Bill McKibben Buffett COP21 Divestment Indigenous Peoples Jeremy Heimans KXL Naomi Klein New Economy NoVo privatization Purpose Tides UN Wall Street

Breaking Free

A New Age Ghost Dance

Salish Sea Maritime

May 15th, 2016

By Jay Taber

Clean Energy

As I noted in the introduction to Hijacking the Environmental Movement: Just Say No to 350, in 2011, when the oil industry tycoon Warren Buffett poured $26 million into TIDES foundation—funder of 350–he was making a strategic long-term investment in public relations (PR), while simultaneously scheming to cash in on the gullibility of young, impressionable activists.

Most recently, 350 has come out with new propaganda to mislead climate activists. As they did with the KXL charade and the fossil fuel divestment hoax, 350 is promoting ineffective disobedience as a means of diverting activist energy from reality-based social change that might actually threaten the 350 funders’ fossil fuel investments.

As a fossil fuel industry-financed organization, 350 is the most insidious Wall Street Trojan Horse since Avaaz and Purpose. The 350 followers, like most activists, are utterly clueless.

The 350 break free moral theatrics, as a follow-up to the college campus fossil fuel divestment fraud, is not going to shut down Pacific Northwest oil refineries any more than divestment was going to shut down the oil industry. Divestment made the oil industry more powerful, and the break free scheme is part of Wall Street’s clean energy scam to build nuclear power plants.

New Economy

The ‘New Economy’ unveiled by the global financial elite at COP21 has two main components: 1. ‘clean energy’, and 2. ‘sustainable capitalism’. These, in turn, comprise two of the elements of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the 21st Century–a partnership project between Wall Street, the UN and international NGOs, i.e. Avaaz, Ceres, Purpose and 350.

The primary promoters of the ‘New Economy’, ‘clean energy’ and ‘sustainable capitalism’–that form the core of the UN SDGs–are Bill Gates, Jeremy Heimans (Avaaz & Purpose) and Bill McKibben (350). Economic development under the SDGs relies on financial investment from the World Bank, and compliance enforcement from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)–in partnership with Wall Street and regional investment banks.

The results of this ‘sustainable capitalism’ can already be seen in the form of mega-dams, mega-plantations, and mega-mining projects in South America, Africa and Asia. This industrial development–while profitable to the investors–has unfortunately resulted in major deforestation, toxic pollution of fresh water, and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples who formerly called these territories home.

Adjacent to the mega-dams, mega-plantations, and mega-mines of the ‘New Economy’ are makeshift camps for the industrial laborers, as well as rural shanty towns for displaced farmers and fishermen. The Indigenous peoples–those that aren’t murdered by corporate security personnel working in tandem with the police and military–are frequently relocated to urban slums far away, where many die a slow death of poverty and substance abuse.

The mega-dams provide electricity for industry, including the processing of minerals from the mega-mines, as well as the GMO soy and palm oil produced on the mega-plantations. The ‘clean energy’ minerals include gold, copper, and lithium, which are used in consumer electronics, solar panels, wind mills, and batteries for electric vehicles. They also include coal, oil, and uranium that is used to fuel the electrical grids in countries such as France, Japan and the UK.

The ‘clean energy’ plan of the UN, Wall Street and NGOs–that championed the financial elite at COP21–relies on two primary projects: 1. a global nuclear power renaissance, and 2. privatization of Indigenous and public resources worldwide.

Enchanting as the chimera of clean energy might be, it doesn’t scale to meet energy demand, and its use by marketing agencies like Avaaz, Purpose and 350 is to perpetuate the misbelief that Wall Street — which caused all our social and environmental problems — is our only hope for salvation. Sort of a New Age Ghost Dance.

Bomb Trains

The reason for the glut of Bakken crude now rolling into the March Point and Cherry Point refineries in Washington State goes back to 2012, when Obama opened up millions of acres for gas and oil in 23 states, ushering in the fracking boom that brought us the ‘bomb trains’ owned by Obama’s friend Warren Buffett since 2009, when he purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) for $34 billion–the same year TIDES Foundation funded 350.

In 2010, 350 launched the campaign to reject KXL; by 2014, crude-via-rail in the US soared to 500 thousand car loads per year, up from 5 thousand in 2008, with trains exploding across Canada and the US.

To refresh readers’ memories, the KXL ‘grassroots’ hoax was funded in large part by TIDES (flush with Buffett money) with 350 at the helm. Funds laundered through Buffett’s foundation NOVO and the TIDES Foundation — a money laundry used by Tar Sands investors and other elites to control NGOs — helped finance the KXL NGO charade, thus eclipsing any discussion about shutting down the Tar Sands, and making possible the explosive growth of bomb trains and other pipelines.

Divestment

When Klein and McKibben herded thousands of college students across America to fight climate change by forcing their schools to divest in fossil fuels, no one stopped to ask if that would make any difference. Using the emotive force of the idea of divestment as people power — based on an intentional association with its use in South Africa and Palestine — 350 inducted hypnotic behavior that omitted any critical judgment.

The fact that apartheid was opposed by a combination of boycott, divestment and sanction by national and international institutions in support of armed insurrection was lost on the climateers. Instead, they were hypnotized into believing that colleges selling back fossil fuel shares to Wall Street (where unscrupulous investors could then make a killing) was part of a magical social revolution. The same could apply to the nonsensical demand to end fossil fuels.

As a Wall Street shell game, the global fossil fuel divestment campaign — exposed by Cory Morningstar in Divestment as the Vehicle to Interlocking Globalized Capital — is a PR masterpiece.

As noted in the November 4, 2014 Harvard Business Review,

Were divestment ever to succeed in lowering the valuations of fossil fuel companies, an unintended consequence could be a shift from public markets to private markets… Such a shift could hurt transparency; companies that go private have minimal reporting obligations and they typically become very opaque. This could limit everyone’s ability to engage the management of these companies in a discussion around climate change.

As an indicator of the scale of fraud perpetrated by the divestment campaign led by 350, Exxon in 2014 spent $13.2 billion buying up its own stock. As I noted previously,

Discursive monoculture is the result of investment in private equity media, university endowments, and NGOs. The energy industry understands production and consumption cycles, and makes just as much on low prices as high. When the glut from fracking is burned up by frolicking consumers, they’ll double the price again, and make a killing on the divested shares.

Using hedge funds and other non-transparent private equity trading firms, the aristocracy – that is heavily invested in fossil fuels – is betting on increasing oil and gas consumption, long into the future. Corporate media rarely discusses the American aristocracy and how their agenda affects society. Consumers blame banks, but they have no idea how financial institutions are used by private equity traders to constantly replenish aristocratic wealth at our expense.

Private equity funds are not openly traded in any public stock exchange system, and therefore face considerably less regulatory oversight from institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission than their publicly traded counterparts.

Buying energy assets on the cheap as a result of fossil fuel divestment by universities and pension funds, investors such as Goldman Sachs Capital Partners “wield an immense amount of political influence” that divestment on college campuses helps to increase. While students celebrated divestment at their schools, private equity in 2015 raised $34 billion for oil and gas funds—a 94% rise from 2012.

Meanwhile, 350 promotes its ongoing Wall Street-funded revolution. As someone wise once said, “A half-truth is a whole lie.”

Tilting at Windmills

The kids mobilized by 350 don’t understand how they are being manipulated, but that’s the reality of the power elite behind the 350 hoaxes. They might get some token windmills and solar panels–which require fossil fuels to make, maintain, and replace–but those won’t come anywhere near to meeting the electrical demand now met by burning fossil fuels.

The funders of 350 know all this, which is why they finance 350 campaigns that don’t address the consumerism or militarism that drive fossil fuel demand. Instead, they promote the idea that Americans can continue consuming vast quantities of minerals for electricity and electronics, car and jet travel at the expense of the rest of the world. If the kids think Americans are going to tolerate them shutting down refineries, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

The oil trains are a problem that can be addressed as a public safety issue, but the refineries will still receive oil by ships and pipelines. Our society would collapse without it. Imagine no fossil-fueled shipping by air, land or sea of food, medicine, clothing or building materials. Where do they think their coffee, kayaks, bicycles, polar wear and yoga mats come from?

France went for fossil-free electricity, and they have nuclear power plants and radioactive waste instead. They have to invade African countries to get uranium, and now they have nuclear contamination to deal with. That’s the reality of breaking free.

Recommended viewing

Green Illusions

Earth Economics

Running with Bad Company

Public Good Project

May 6, 2016

By Jay Taber

Earth Economics–founded by Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard–is a partner with the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), which is in turn a partner of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). CERES funders are associated with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. WBCSD is part of a Wall Street strategy to dislodge the United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations, and prevent enforceable rules governing the operations of multinational corporations.

May, 2013: “CalSTRS CEO Jack Ehnes, Generation Investment Management Co-Founder David Blood (formerly of Goldman Sachs) and 350.org’s Bill McKibben have a lively conversation about how investors can influence the transition to a low-carbon economy.” Ehnes also serves on the Ceres board of directors.

As noted in The Social Capitalists–Part VIII of an investigative report documenting the corruption of the non-profit industrial complex by Wall Street–researcher Cory Morningstar revealed that one third of the CERES network companies are in the Fortune 500, and that since 2001, CERES has received millions from Wall Street corporations and foundations. Further, she observed that CERES president Mindy Lubber is a promoter of so-called “sustainable capitalism” at Forbes. Bill McKibben (founder of 350) was an esteemed guest of CERES conferences in both 2007 and 2013.

1Sky, which merged with 350 in 2011, was created by the Clinton Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Betsy Taylor of 1Sky/350 is on the CERES board of directors. In 2012, Bill McKibben and Peter Buffett (oil train tycoon Warren Buffet’s son) headlined the Strategies for a New Economy conference. Between 2003 and 2011, NoVo (Buffet’s foundation) donated $26 million to TIDES Foundation, which in turn funds CERES and 350. Suzanne Nossel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton, is on the TIDES board of directors.

As reported in Axis of Evil, the 2016 Investor Summit on Climate Risk—co-hosted by CERES, the United Nations Foundation and the United Nations Office for Partnerships—focused on the ‘New Economy’ unveiled by the financial elite at COP21. The ‘New Economy’–promoted by CERES and the Wall Street-funded social media marketing agencies Avaaz, Purpose and 350—forms the core of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promoted by Bill Gates, Jeremy Heimans (Avaaz & Purpose), and Bill McKibben (350). The ultimate target of the SDGs is the privatization of Indigenous and public resources worldwide.

In Building Acquiescence for the Commodification of the Commons under the Banner of a “New Economy”—Part XII of Morningstar’s investigative report—she says, the goal to commodify the commons under what has come to be known as ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘Natural Capital’ will look to the private sector for investment. “The scheme,” she remarks, “promises corporations, private investors and the world’s most powerful financial institutions both ownership and control (i.e. expansion of power) of Earth’s natural resources.”

“The implementation of payment for ecosystem services,” Morningstar observes, “will create the most spectacular opportunities that the financial sector has ever witnessed.” This new mechanism for generating profits for the wealthy, she says, represents “the commodification of most everything sacred,” and “the privatization and objectification of all biodiversity and living things that are immeasurable, above and beyond monetary measure”—a mechanism that, “will be unparalleled, irreversible and inescapable.”

In Hijacking the Environmental Movement, I wrote that the ‘New Economy’ privatization cheerleaders, i.e. 350, Avaaz and CERES, all have fundamental ties to Wall Street moguls and finance sector criminals, and are “currently pressing for changes in international law that would give the finance sector carte blanche in privatizing all of nature.” What this so-called ‘sustainable capitalism’ is in reality sustaining, I observed, “is totalitarian corporate control of world governance and human survival.” Earth Economics, initially founded by TIDES, is a key player in promoting this scheme.

Earth Economics: “We Take Nature Into Account”

As I noted in Architects of the Final Solution, “For ubercapitalists like Bill Gates and their sycophants like William Jefferson Clinton, who promote the false hope of neoliberal globalization, terminating the collective ownership of indigenous nations in exchange for totalitarian corporate control of the planet’s resources is a dream coming true.”

←

→

Archives

The revolution will not be subsidized or absurd failure of the left (an interview with Cory Morningstar)

Avaaz: un écran de fumée occultant les bombes libératrices à uranium appauvri [2012]

The Collaborators

Divide and Conquer: 350 Apologists

Shearing Sheep

Amnesty International Confirms it No Longer Supports Women’s Human Rights

The Dangers of Rebranding Prostitution as ‘Sex Work’

Culture-Jamming Social Media: A Public Health Measure

Breaking Free

A New Age Ghost Dance

Clean Energy

New Economy

Bomb Trains

Divestment

Tilting at Windmills

Recommended viewing

Recommended reading

Earth Economics

Running with Bad Company