Progressives – part 2

I now and then go through my bookmarks and change the status of orgs and individuals where that has become called-for. What’s the use of being organized if you don’t stay organized? Websites of progressive orgs that I find to be not so progressive, or for some other reason (I’m banned for example), get moved to a folder called “Selected Mainstream Media” or simply deleted. I have hundreds of bookmarks and, if I just delete a bookmark, there’s a good chance I’ll forget why and will re-bookmark that website when I happen to one day read something else from it, which isn’t what I always want to do. I also take advantage of the naming feature for bookmarks. In parentheses I may note that, for example that (this site is funded by George Soros) or (this site disappears all of my comments) or (this supposedly progressive org says zero re White Helmets). One other positive about organizing my bookmarks this way is that I can give credit where it’s due. My 3 part series (1. Lawlessness / Ruined 2. Professional Scam Artists 3. The Avalanche Snapshots) include links, with excerpts, to articles from the mainly alternative/progressive media, which is what I’m trying to do. Out of sight means out of mind. If I’ve moved your bookmark to the mainstream folder in my collection of bookmarks, then, when I’m looking for new material to blog about, I won’t likely notice you because I don’t want to notice you at the expense of sources in the alt/progressive media.

This isn’t always fun work. Sometimes those sites that I have to remove from my “Alt/Progressive” folder are new finds, which is very frustrating. I can’t keep up. I no sooner bookmark what looks like a great find, when, after checking on its funders, I’m forced to re-consider that site’s status. (If you have nothing to hide, then don’t. Have a decent ‘about’ on your website. Too few websites have useful ‘abouts’.)

I thought I’d quickly check on the funders for a couple of the orgs that are a relatively new finds for me, namely Criminal Legal News and Too Much. CLN is part of a family of sites. It turns out that there’s groups within groups within groups here. I felt a little like Alice In Wonderland when I started to follow the links. But it became clear before too long that funders for CLN and related sites are problematic. And I emailed them about it. They were courteous enough to engage me but were annoyed at my comments to them about their funding sources. (See below) The argument that PLN’s Alex Friedmann made to me was that the kind of work that they do isn’t flashy and doesn’t therefore garner much in the way of donor support. Therefore, they take it where they can get it. (PLN, or Prison Legal News, is connected with Criminal Legal News, being a part of Human Rights Defense Center.) Okay. I understand. But yikes!!

John Dinges (https://twitter.com/jdinges) and Sergio Orlando Letelier del Solar (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/orlando-letelier-pinochet-nixon-kissinger)

Then there was another site that I thought I’d add to my “sites for scam artist posts” called “Too Much” which presented me with the same problem, with a connection between that org and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). ‘Problematic’ is too mild a description to describe my response to what I discovered here (IPS), which I’ll explain. IPS, apparently, was founded by Richard Barnet and Marcus Raskin. There’s a little bit about Marcus Raskin in the NYT write-up about his death, below. I found that when trying to find the “Too Much” website again via a search (forgetting that I had the link in the draft of this post), after having deleted my bookmark. That org, as a standalone org, has been absorbed into “Inequality.org,” an IPS organization. When I tried searching for “Too Much” (using Start Page) I found a reference to it at this link: https://toomuchonline.org/subscribe/. The ‘about’ for IPS includes the financials and a large list of funders and supporters. Some of the names I know. The majority of institutional and individual funders and supporters of IPS I do not know.

The site also includes a blurb about some of the progressives/scholars who contributed to IPS. Orlando Letelier’s name jumped out at me. He and his assistant Ronni Moffitt were employees of IPS. This is interesting in view of who one of the individual supporters of IPS is. I’m referring to John Dinges, who, in his book on Operation Condor, does not do the story of Letelier’s and Moffitt’s murder by DINA (Chilean secret police) justice at all. Go figure. I blogged about his ‘damage control’ book on Operation Condor. (See: “Condor World”) His book is titled “The Condor Years – How Pinochet And His Allies Brought Terrorism To Three Continents.” It’s pure apologetics for the American Empire. I first learned of the book from watching Democracy Now! back when I did. Of course, I know longer watch Democracy Now! since they started doing White Helmets propaganda, which Chomsky seems to have no problem with. If I had only read John Dinges’s book, I would have been in the dark. But I’ve also read books by Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Douglas Valentine and others that allowed me to understand easily that Dinges’s book was damage control and apologetics for the American Empire.

Here’s some of the ‘stellar’ institutional funders of IPS: Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation (George Soros), Open Society Institute (George Soros), Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

George Soros is a huge player and a source of serious trouble on this planet. Here’s one example of that person’s troublemaking: “Mozilla Joins George Soros’s Efforts In Launching A Strike Against “Fake News”” by Aaron Kesel (Activist Post)

Funders I was disappointed to find included: Denis Halliday, David Vine, Phyllis Bennis and Mark Weisbrot. Funders I noticed who I know and don’t consider progressive include Katrina vanden Heuvel and Robert Reich. Katrina vanden Heuvel oversees the fake progressive organization The Nation. It was one of the first progressive journals I read. Eventually, I realized that it was fake progressive, pushing the Democratic Party as the solution to the Republican Party, which is to say offering fascism as the solution to fascism. Noam Chomsky talks about Denis Halliday and his principled stand on the United State’s treatment of Iraq in “Failed States – The Abuse Of Power And The Assault On Democracy,” on page 57:

“That Iraqis might have taken care of their own problems had it not been for the murderous sanctions regime was suggested by the Westerners who knew Iraq best, the respected international diplomats Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who administered the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq and had hundreds of investigators reporting from around the country. Halliday resigned in protest in 1998, condemning the sanctions as “genocidal.” Von Sponeck resigned two years later, for similar reasons.”

“Marcus Raskin, Co-Founder of Liberal Think Tank, Dies at 83” by Richard Sondomir (New York Times)

The organization that Mark Weisbrot works for, namely Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is linked to in my sticky. They have an excellent Haiti watch section. Evil is powerful and it reaches everywhere. I always wanted to read David Vine’s book about globe-straddling American bases, but this sours me on that. And besides, it’s not like I don’t have much, much else to read. As for Phyllis Bennis, I have watched her hold forth on this and that over the years on various alt/progressive sites and have not found anything alarming in her statements. Nevertheless.

Orlando Letelier and his friend and associate Ronnie Moffitt, were assassinated by operatives of the DINA under the aegis of Operation Condor. Letelier was not evil, which is why, with the US’s blessing, he was murdered by evil people. US Empire apologists like John Dinges would like us to not remember or never learn that his country, the United States, is very responsible for the terrorism unleashed in the US-backed National Security States of South America back in the 70s (which NSSs are returning now). But there are historians and researchers who don’t have the same twisted needs that people like John Dinges possess. The late Edward S. Herman wrote “The Real Terror Network,” whose title riffs off of rightwinger Claire Sterling’s book titled “The Terror Network.” In Herman’s book we learn who Orlando Letelier was and about his assassination.

From pages 69-72 of “The Real Terror Network” by Edward Herman:

“In 1967 six National Security States of Latin America – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay – entered into a system for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in member countries. The program was directly initiated under the sponsorship of Chile and its head of the secret police (DINA), Manuel Contreras. Chile provided the initial funding, organized a series of meetings in Santiago, and provided the computer capacity and centralized services. However, the United States deserves a great deal of credit for this important development, partly as the sponsor and adviser to DINA and other participating security services, but also because Operation Condor represented a culmination of a long sought U.S. objective – coordination of the struggle against “Communism” and “subversion.” In 1968, U.S. General Robert W. Porter stated that “In order to facilitate the coordinated employment of internal security forces within and among Latin American countries, we are… endeavoring to foster interservice and regional cooperation by assisting in the organization of integrated command and control centers; the establishment of common operating procedures; and the conduct of joint and combined training exercises.” Condor was the fruits of this effort.

“Under Operation Condor, political refugees who leave Uruguay and go to Argentina will be identified and kept under surveillance by Argentinian “security” forces, who will inform Uruguayan “security” forces of the presence of these individuals. If the Uruguayan security forces wish to murder these refugees in order to preserve western values, Argentinian forces will cooperate. They will keep the Uruguayans informed of the whereabouts of the refugees; they will allow them to enter and freely move around in Argentina and to take the refugees into custody, torture and murder them; and the Argentinians will then claim no knowledge of these events…

“This murder network soon extended its operations beyond the borders of the six participating countries. A secret report of an FBI agent assigned to Buenos Aires, describing Operation Condor, called attention to “a more secret phase” which “involves the formation of special teams from member countries to travel anywhere in the world to non-member countries to carry out sanctions, [including] assassinations, against terrorists or supporters of a terrorist organization from Operation Condor member countries.” It is worth noting that the FBI agent reporting on this matter not only approves the enterprise (which he thought “a good operation”) but falls easily into accepting the notion that the victims of its murder squads are “terrorists.” Data are lacking on the scope of this global phase of Operation Condor, which is difficult to distinguish from unilateral international terrorism carried out by the Argentine or Chilean secret police or one of their contract agents, often members of the Cuban exile terrorist network. Kidnappings, murders and attempted murders in Mexico and Italy have been proclaimed by the Cuban Squad Zero from 1975 onward, some surely under contract with DINA, although others were apparently to divert attention from the real (DINA) killers. Orlando Bosch has worked for and been protected by DINA. The Letelier-Moffitt murders in Washington, D.C. were carried out by a Cuban-Chilean agent team that may have been part of Operation Condor.

“The CIA was well aware of the internal (member country) use and global extension of Operation Condor and headed off its activities in several allied countries like France and Portugal by informing the authorities. The CIA did not head off the Moffitt-Letelier murders, although it knew that DINA trigger-men had entered the United States. Why? It is possible that the CIA knew of the prospective murders, and let them happen because it was murder of the right people – people such as Operation Condor and the Free World’s secret police kill daily. It is also conceivable that the CIA suspected something fishy about to happen but chose not to inquire, because of their “faith” in the choice of their fascist counterpart. It is also possible that the CIA bungled and made no inquiry, and that Pinochet and DINA murdered on the streets of Washington, D.C. assuming that Washington would not mind; after all, both DINA and Operation Condor are U.S. offspring. How was [Augusto] Pinochet to know that bringing death squads right into the heart of the Free World was unseemly?”

Posters of Edward Snowden, left, and Julian Assange, right. Shuttershock/AP | Mashup by MintPress

“Edward Snowden’s Julian Assange is an Unfamiliar Julian Assange” by Patrick Anderson (Mint Press News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

:||:-
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks’ former editor Julian Assange have a complicated relationship. On the one hand, they share important similarities: both are perceived as dangerous enemies by the United States government, and both have been documentary subjects of filmmaker Laura Poitras. On the other hand, they clearly disagree when it comes to the means of achieving government transparency and accountability. After all, if Snowden had agreed with Assange about publishing practices, it is likely that he would have followed Chelsea Manning’s example and sent the NSA documents he collected and disclosed in 2013 to WikiLeaks.

The recent publication of Permanent Record, Snowden’s 336-page memoir, takes the Snowden-Assange dynamic to new—and problematic—heights. When Assange was forcibly dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in early 2019, Snowden was among the leading voices condemning the arrest of the WikiLeaks founder, calling it a dangerous assault on journalism. But in his memoir, Snowden uses rhetorical tricks to present Assange and WikiLeaks as his deceitful and irresponsible foils in a blatant and seemingly self-serving effort to highlight his own trustworthiness and accountability. Indeed, reviewers at the Washington Post and New Yorker have already seized upon Snowden’s anti-Assange rhetoric to serve their own anti-Assange agendas.

Proponents of press freedom have become accustomed to Pentagon and national security state attacks on Assange, but Snowden’s puzzling claims about the white-haired Australian and his transparency organization are exceptionally dangerous because they come from an otherwise highly respectable and trustworthy source, and at a time when there is otherwise a virtual media blackout on WikiLeaks. To be sure, Snowden deserves recognition as a courageous whistleblower and as a global champion of privacy rights, but in Permanent Record, Snowden appears willing to use a political prisoner for personal gain, deliberately distorting the truth and perpetuating the imperialistic propaganda that threatens not only Assange’s health but also his very life—just like the corporate media and national security state he exposed in 2013.
-:||:

Before I say more about Edward Snowden, may I direct the reader to my condensed version of Yasha Levine’s chapter 7 of his book “Surveillance Valley”: “Tor? Exercise Caution!” It relates to Edward Snowden, as I will explain below.

Class traitor, Sibel Edmonds, has the right take on Edward Snowden, in my view. Whereas, the principled, progressive Patrick Henningsen is happy to promote Tor, indirectly, by promoting the Brave browser. That’s the world we live in. I did email 21st Century Wire about it but, while the response I got was somewhat reassuring, it wasn’t terribly reassuring. I do appreciate the predicament that 21st Century Wire is in with Google playing its role as the enemy of free speech and killing 21st Century Wire’s revenue stream through its ad service, but so does the war-making State appreciate 21st Century Wire’s predicament, which Patrick needs to be aware of. I emailed the Brave browser team on June 3, 2019 to ask them what their connection to Tor was. They never responded.

Yasha Levine explains how Edward Snowden was used by Jacob Appelbaum and his boss John Dingledine, to sell the government-funded surveillance browser (aka the anti big brother privacy browser), Tor, to the progressive community. Ironically, Levine unjustifiably smeared Julian Assange on page 245 of his book, stating, without qualification, that “Assange kept firm control of Wikileaks, even after he was forced to go into hiding at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to escape extradition back to Sweden to face an investigation of rape allegations.” That’s not what happened but it is what the fascist establishment says happened. I emailed Levine about that, but he never responded. Did he get my email? Who knows? And Wikileaks, supposedly savvy about all things internet and privacy-related, still promotes Tor. At this point, it’s extremely hard to understand why they would continue to do so. It’s not believable that they would not, by now, know about Tor’s origin and purpose.

From pages 251-253 of “Surveillance Valley” by Yasha Levine:

\\|\
“The post-Wikileaks years were good for the Tor Project. With the government contracts flowing, Roger Dingledine expanded the payroll, adding a dedicated crew of developers and managers who saw their job in messianic terms: to free the Internet of government surveillance.

“Jacob Appelbaum, too, was doing well. Claiming that harassment from the US government was too much to bear, he spent most of his time in Berlin in a sort of self-imposed exile. There, he continued to do the job Dingledine had hired him to do. He traveled the world training political activists and persuading techies and hackers to join up as Tor volunteers. He also did various side projects, some of which blurred the line between activism and intelligence gathering. In 2012, he made a trip to Burma, a longtime target of US government regime-change efforts. The purpose of the trip was to probe the country’s Internet system from within and collect information that was then used to compile a government report for policymakers and “international investors” interested in penetrating Burma’s recently deregulated telecom market.

“Appelbaum continued to draw a high five-figure salary from Tor, a government contractor funded almost exclusively by military and intelligence grants. But, to the public, he was a real-life superhero on the run from the US surveillance state – now hiding out in Berlin, the nerve center of the global hacker scene known for its nerdy mix of machismo, all-night hackathons, drug use, and partner swapping. He was a member of the Internet Freedom elite, championed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, given a board seat on eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Freedom of the Press Foundation, and occupied an advisory role for London’s Centre for Investigative Journalism.

“In Berlin, Appelbaum caught another lucky break for the Tor Project. In 2013, his good friend and sometimes-lover Laura Poitras, an American documentary filmmaker who also lived in the German capital in self-imposed exile, was contacted by a mysterious source who told her he had access to the crown jewels of the National Security Agency: documents that would blow America’s surveillance apparatus wide open. Poitras tapped Appelbaum’s knowledge of Internet systems to come up with a list of questions to vet the possible leaker and to make sure he really was the NSA technician he claimed to be. This source turned out to be Edward Snowden.

“From the start, the Tor Project stood at the center of Snowden’s story. The leaker’s endorsement and promotion introduced the project to a global audience, boosting Tor’s worldwide user base from one million to six million almost overnight and injecting it into the heart of a burgeoning privacy movement. In Russia, where the BBG [Broadcasting Board of Governors] and Dingledine had tried but failed to recruit activists for their Tor deployment plan, use of the software increased from twenty thousand daily connections to somewhere around two hundred thousand.

“During a promotional campaign for the Tor Project, Snowden said:

Without Tor, the streets of the Internet become like the streets of a very heavily surveilled city. There are surveillance cameras everywhere, and if the adversary simply takes enough time, they can follow the tapes back and see everything you’ve done. With Tor, we have private spaces and private lives, where we can choose who we want to associate with and how, without the fear of what that is going to look like if it is abused. The design of the Tor system is structured in such a way that even if the US Government wanted to subvert it, it couldn’t.

“Snowden didn’t talk about Tor’s continued government funding, nor did he address an apparent contradiction: why the US government would fund a program that supposedly limited its own power.

“Whatever Snowden’s private thoughts on the matter, his endorsement gave Tor the highest possible seal of approval. It was like a Hacker’s Medal of Valor. With Snowden’s backing, no one even thought to question Tor’s radical antigovernment bona fides.”
\|\\

It’s early days still since Snowden’s book was released and people started talking about it. I have read little therefore. But in the few places I saw it discussed, the tone depended, it seemed, on the thrust of the article that people were discussing. One article about Snowden’s book, on Off Guardian (“REVIEW: Permanent Record by Edward Snowden” by Hope Kesslring), was positive in tone and the comments were as well. In another article, on Mint Press News (linked to here), the tone was negative, at least in certain respects. Snowden isn’t portrayed as ‘a hero, period’. I think that Patrick Anderson has the right take on Snowden and his behavior and thinking.

I myself initially took the view that, while Edward was stupid about the world, his actions (whistleblowing) were principled and courageous. Over the years since that action by Edward, there have been snippets of information here and there that caused me to question Edward’s integrity. He performed a courageous and principled act when he passed his info on the American police State to Laura Poitras and Pierre Omidyar’s representative, Glenn Greenwald, but he isn’t principled. He is quite pro American empire, with his admirers spinning that as patriotic and loyal. In their view, for him to have, say, passed his cache to Wikileaks instead of First Look would have made him disloyal. I guess that makes sense in a way. But usually when we call someone ‘principled’ it means something specific. It means that they possess positive qualities like honesty, loyalty and a sense of fairness but also compassion and equality. Darth Vader has dark principles, if you like, but we don’t say that he’s principled, Do we? Snowden’s ‘belief’ – Even if he’s politically naive, is he that stupid about America’s history? – that Silicon Valley is the answer to Big Brother is seriously ridiculous and scary. And his precious American Empire has given us things like The CIA and the Chicago school of economics (which the psycho CIA helps to impose on societies all around the world), out of which we get things like neoliberal capitalism. With neoliberal capitalism, everything’s on the market. If you can’t afford to participate in the economy in a positive fashion, then die like a dog on the street. Social safety nets are shredded. A minority of parasites get incredible prosperity and the majority, including the working class, gets austerity and repression when they squawk about it. Governments are merely glorified police forces, not really there for the people but for transnationals and investors. At the core of neoliberalism is inequality, not equality and fairness.

“Throughout the 1970s, the Trilateralists developed a common agenda for restructuring the global economy and nation states. This agenda, says UBC sociologist Patricia Marchak, was based on two strategic objectives. First, in order to create conditions required for the restructuring of national economies in the global marketplace, the internal relationships between governments and peoples had to be completely reorganized. For the Trilateralists, this meant strengthening the hand of governments relative to citizens’ movements and public interest groups. Second, in order to ensure greater freedom for the movement of transnational capital, changes were required in the international structures of nation states. In particular, the international monetary and trading system needed to be restructured to accommodate global capital. On both fronts, the common obstacle that had to be dismantled was the Keynesian model of the nation state and the international economy…

“In short, the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of democracy…

“…The solution to the crisis, they said, was a stronger government in a weaker democratic framework. In order to effectively coordinate and plan changes in national economies required to facilitate transnational investment, governments needed to have more centralized authority and be less susceptible to the diverse demands of citizens’ movements.” – pages 44 & 45 of “Silent Coup – Confronting The Big Business Takeover Of Canada” by Tony Clarke

“Historic climate strike just pulled the fire alarm” by Dylan Penner (The Council of Canadians)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

======= =
A tectonic shift in climate politics just happened.

Millions of people mobilized to demand climate justice, a just transition, and a Green New Deal. The recent climate strike was the largest climate protest in history, with an estimated 7.6 million people participating on every continent around the world from September 20-27.

In Canada, on September 27 upwards of a million protested from coast to coast to coast including a staggering 500,000 in Montreal at a demonstration led by Indigenous peoples and joined by Greta Thunberg.
= =======

Way to go progressive Council of Canadians! They can now add to their record, which includes helping to push the myth of Lester Pearson the peacemaker, backers of the corporate-inspired and -led Green New Deal. If the COC was a tech company, it would be promoting Tor. (It probably does use it.)

Greta Thunberg is being used and abused and it’s unacceptable. (But children are so easy to use and abuse, for profit and to satisfy the twisted needs and desires of those who have self-modified themselves into believers in inequality and eager players in the great game of ‘riches for the strongest’. Bana al-Aabed got this exploitation treatment. Malala Yousafzai got it. Omran Daqneesh almost got it but his father stepped in and put his foot down. But COC couldn’t care less. Cory Morningstar isn’t the only principled person to have looked deeply into the Green New Deal, but she’s probably done more research on it than anyone else. At least that’s the way it looks to me. Her five-part series titled “The Manufacturing Of Greta Thunberg – For Consent” is a must read. No one is suggesting that we don’t have a climate crisis. But to suggest that those who put us in that position will work with us to fix it is nuts.

Greta’s role, and she’s coached and rehearses her (spontaneous) lines, is to convince people that this push for a Green New Deal comes from her and them. The goal, as can be seen from statements of those behind this campaign, is to stampede citizens with the house on fire meme until the stampede is so huge that, when governments step in and do war-time-like mobilization for dealing with climate crisis it will ‘clearly’ be an example of democracy and sanity in action, with governments finally responding to the people and carrying out their will in this critical area. Thunberg, who may be scarred for life from all of this craziness, has succeeded beyond investors’ wildest dreams.

Some quotes from Cory Morningstar:

“This series is about new financial markets in a world where global economic growth is experiencing stagnation. The threat and subsequent response is not so much about climate change as it is about the collapse of the capitalist economic system. This series is about the climate wealth opportunity of unprecedented growth, profits, and the measures our elite classes will take in order to achieve it – including the exploitation of the youth.” – Act I

“On August 20, 2018 a tweet featuring a photo of “a Swedish girl” sitting on a sidewalk was released by the tech company, We Don’t Have Time, founded by its CEO Ingmar Rentzhog:

“One 15 year old girl in front of the Swedish parliament is striking from School until Election Day in 3 weeks[.] Imagine how lonely she must feel in this picture. People where [sic] just walking by. Continuing with the business as usual thing. But the truth is. We can’t and she knows it!”

“Rentzhog’s tweet, via the We Don’t Have Time twitter account, would be the very first exposure of Thunberg’s now famous school strike…

“Tagged in Rentzhog’s “lonely girl” tweet were five twitter accounts: Greta Thunberg, Zero Hour (youth movement), Jamie Margolin (the teenage founder of Zero Hour), Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and the People’s Climate Strike twitter account (in the identical font and aesthetics as 350.org). [These groups will be touched upon briefly later in this series.]

“Rentzhog is the founder of Laika (a prominent Swedish communications consultancy firm providing services to the financial industry, recently acquired by FundedByMe). He was appointed as chair of the think tank Global Utmaning (Global Challenge in English) on May 24, 2018, and serves on the board of FundedByMe. Rentzhog is a member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders, where he is part of the European Climate Policy Task Force. He received his training in March 2017 by former US Vice President Al Gore in Denver, USA, and again in June 2018, in Berlin.

“Founded in 2006, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project is a partner of We Don’t Have Time…

“Mårten Thorslund, chief marketing and sustainability officer of We Don’t Have Time, took many of the very first photos of Thunberg following the launch of her school strike on August 20, 2018. In the following instance, photos taken by Thorslund accompany the article written by David Olsson, chief operating officer of We Don’t Have Time, This 15-year-old Girl Breaks Swedish Law for the Climate, published August 23, 2018…

“”The “one kid immediately got twenty supporters” – from a Swedish network for sustainable business. What is going on – is the launch of a global campaign to usher in a required consensus for the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal and all climate-related policies and legislation written by the power elite – for the power elite. This is necessary in order to unlock the trillions of dollars in funding by way of massive public demand.

“These agreements and policies include carbon capture and storage (CCS), enhanced oil recovery (EOR), bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), rapid total decarbonisation, payments for ecosystem services (referred to as “natural capital”), nuclear energy and fission, and a host of other “solutions” that are hostile to an already devastated planet. What is going on – is a rebooting of a stagnant capitalist economy, that needs new markets – new growth – in order to save itself. What is being created is a mechanism to unlock approximately 90 trillion dollars for new investments and infrastructure. What is going on is the creation of, and investment in, perhaps the biggest behavioural change experiment yet attempted, global in scale. And what are the deciding factors in what behaviours global society should adhere to? And more importantly, who decides? This is a rhetorical question, as we know full well the answer: the same Western white male saviours and the capitalist economic system they have implemented globally that has been the cause of our planetary ecological nightmare. This crisis continues unabated as they appoint themselves (yet again) as the saviours for all humanity – a recurring problem for centuries.” – Act I

Speaking of saviours, Who is going to save us from progressives ‘saving’ us from fascists? (Readers of my blog know my answer to that rhetorical question.)