Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 30, 2011

Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70′s and strengthened through the 80′s and 90′s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970′s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

Desarrollo Sostenible: Genocidio Hecho una Necesidad

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
30 de abril 2011

Muchas veces, escuchamos que el desarrollo sostenible y la sostenibilidad se originaron en los años 70 y que fueron fortalecidos a través de los años 80 y 90. En cualquier esfuerzo de investigación, la mayoría de las publicaciones afirman que la preocupación por mantener los recursos naturales como herramientas para las generaciones actuales y futuras nació en 1972, cuando una Conferencia de Naciones Unidas en Suecia promulgó tres principios: la interdependencia de los seres humanos y el medio ambiente, los vínculos entre el desarrollo económico, desarrollo social y protección del medio ambiente y la necesidad de una visión global y principios comunes. Crédito por el desarrollo de esos principios se da a la Comisión Mundial sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de 1987.

Las Naciones Unidas es la institución que más impulsa las políticas creadas por los Nazis para promover la despoblación.

La sabiduría popular retrata la visión colectivista que la sostenibilidad y el desarrollo sostenible son políticas e iniciativas para proteger el medio ambiente frente a los abusos de la humanidad y con ello promover el beneficio de las masas. Hoy en día, la protección del medio ambiente se ha convertido en la lanza más luminosas levantada por cualquier persona, independientemente de su raza, condición social, edad o religión. De hecho, el ecologismo se ha convertido en la religión predilecta para muchos. El apoyo de ambientalistas a la sostenibilidad está casi intrínsecamente arraigado en nuestra vida, más de lo que parece. Se ha aplicado a la economía, la construcción, planificación comunitaria, la agricultura, la seguridad, la natalidad y así sucesivamente.

Innumerables reuniones se organizaron en los últimos 50 años con el fin de convencer a las masas que no hay futuro sin un enfoque sostenible para la existencia humana. En primer lugar, el Club de Roma publicó documentos como “Límites del Crecimiento” y “Un Nuevo Camino para el Desarrollo Mundial“, que tienen como baluarte políticas para globalizar el planeta e ingeniar la sociedad en todos sus aspectos; los valores, el empleo, el comercio, la demografía, política, economía, etc, todo en un esfuerzo para desindustrializar el planeta y convertirlo en lo que las organizaciones predecesoras como la Liga de Naciones- querían. Junto con los grupos de cabildeo como el Club de Roma, otras organizaciones igualmente prominentes operar a fin de lograr un nuevo orden social, económico y de desarrollo. Las Naciones Unidas, una criatura de los globalistas quienes también crearon la Liga de las Naciones con la intención de “poner fin a conflictos bélicos”, tiene su propia lista de manuales y documentos a favor de la desindustrialización. Por ejemplo, El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo (UNEP), predica los principios y políticas ambientalistas fracasadas y la imposición de ‘economías verdes’. La Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de 1992, mejor conocida como la Cumbre de la Tierra, promueve planes como la Agenda 21, la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre la Diversidad Biológica que se proponen, y poco a poco logran el sueño ecofacista de Kurt Waldheim para despoblar el planeta.

¿Dónde se originó el ‘desarrollo sostenible’?

Aunque hay un montón de documentación con respecto a cómo el ecologismo está vinculado a la llamada “ala verde” del Partido Nazi, nadie se mete en la historia en profundidad. Historiadores y ecologistas por lo general deciden hacer caso omiso de ella y el público que es engañado al creer los dogmas genocidas del desarrollo sostenible tampoco la conocen. Algunas preguntas pertinentes para hacer sobre el origen nazi del movimiento verde es, ¿Cuál es su inspiración? ¿Cuáles fueron los objetivos que se querían lograr? ¿Cómo la ideología genocida del Partido Nacional Socialista dio paso a lo que es en apariencia un amor sin precedentes para la naturaleza?

Alemania no sólo fue el lugar donde nació la política genocida de la sostenibilidad, pero también fue la tierra donde se convirtió en realidad. Los alemanes nazis y sus seguidores adoptaron muchas de las políticas verdes que vemos en las sociedades modernas. La ciencia y el estudio de las criaturas y su entorno se ‘descubrió’ por primera vez en Alemania durante los años que precedieron la llegada de los nazis al poder. El carácter genocida del ambientalismo se originó de un amor loco por la naturaleza. (1)

Pensadores nazis y algunos predecesores querían que los seres humanos fueran igualado a las plantas, animales e insectos con el fin de tener un equilibrio en el mundo. Estas línea de pensamiento se ha visto en la mente de ambientalistas modernos, como el presidente boliviano Evo Morales y el promotor de la teoría Gaia, James Lovelock, que creen que grandes cantidades de personas deben morir a fin de obtener el equilibrio natural. Recientemente, el autor y ambientalista Keith Farnish utilizó uno de sus libros para promover de actos de sabotaje y terrorismo ambiental, como derrumbar represas y la destrucción de las ciudades para regresar al planeta a su forma pre Revolución Industrial. Junto con Farnish, otros supuestos científicos muy respetados, como el Dr. James Hansen de la NASA aprobaron esta línea de pensamiento.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

Uno de los padres de lo que llamamos ambientalismo hoy es Ernst Moritz Arndt. Junto con Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt tenía odio infinito por la Ilustración. Ambos eran bien conocidos por sus puntos de vista extremos nacionalistas que se utilizaban para avanzar los ideales del Estado Benefactor. Estos dos hombres, pero sobre todo Arndt fue identificado como el primer pensador ecológico. Arndt escribió en un artículo de 1815 que “Cuando uno ve la naturaleza en una conexión necesaria y de interrelación todas las cosas son igualmente importantes – arbustos, gusanos, plantas, piedras, humanos; todos como una sola unidad.” (2 ) Lo que separaba las ideas de Arndt con las de otros ecologistas es que él mezclaba estrechamente sus pensamientos sobre el respeto de la naturaleza con discursos xenófobos y la existencia misma de los alemanes y Alemania. Si bien defendió el medio ambiente en la mayoría de sus escritos, también llamó a la pureza racial y condenó otras razas, como los Judios y los franceses. Fue ese amor por la naturaleza y ese odio hacia los Judios lo que más tarde sería la guía de la persecución y asesinato de aquellos que no eran Arianos.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, un graduado de la escuela de pensamiento de Arndt se aseguró que el trabajo de su maestro no se perdiera en el tiempo. En un artículo del 1853, Riehl mostró su fuerte oposición al industrialismo y dijo: “Hay que salvar el bosque, no sólo para que nuestros hornos no se enfríen en invierno, pero también para que el pulso de la vida de la gente siga latiendo cálido y alegre, de modo que Alemania siga siendo Alemania. ” (3) Se opuso a cualquier tipo de urbanización mientras usaba anti-semitismo para aprobar la forma de visa campesina. Tanto Riehl como Arndt tuvieron ideas que fueron adoptadas más tarde por el movimiento völkisch, que era una mezcla de populismo nacionalista y un loco amor por la naturaleza. Los dirigentes völkischs abogaban por un movimiento de vuelta a la vida simple, mientras que culpaban a la vida urbana y el racionalismo de la destrucción del medio ambiente. (4) En el centro del odio estaba un elemento significativo que había impulsado los grupos antisemitas como los völkischs durante mucho tiempo: el pueblo judío. ¿Por qué? Los Judios fueron la clase media de aquel tiempo, y el amor enfermo por la naturaleza y el medio ambiente incluían un odio igualmente repugnante para cualquier persona y cualquier cosa que ponía en peligro su pensamiento o forma de vida. (5)

Después de establecer su muy ansiada relación entre el antisemitismo y el amor hacia la naturaleza, los völkischs extendieron su perjuicio a través de los siglos 19 y 20. La lucha contra la industrialización, el sentimiento anti-judío se adjuntó al discurso de pureza racial y la superioridad Ariana justo a tiempo para el surgimiento del Partido Nazi.

La ecología Nazi y el vínculo con el Racismo

En 1867, Ernst Haeckel, un zoólogo alemán utilizó por primera vez el término “ecología” y lo vinculó con el estudio de las criaturas y sus entornos. Haeckel fue fuertemente influenciado por el darwinismo social, a un punto que se convirtió en el padre de una especie de darwinismo social conocida como “monismo”. Fundó la Liga Alemana Monista, una organización guiada por los principios völkisch. Haeckel, así como Riehl y Arndt creían en la superioridad racial y se opusieron firmemente a la mezcla social. Además, aprobaban también la eugenesia racial. Sus pensamientos fueron la base para lo que más tarde sería conocido como el socialismo nacional antisemita en Alemania. De hecho, Haeckel se convirtió en un orador destacado en pro del racismo, el nacionalismo y el modelo alemán de imperialismo. (6) Hacia el final de su vida, Haeckel se convirtió en un miembro de la Sociedad Thule, una organización que más tarde sirvió como la base política para la creación del Partido Nazi. (7) Haeckel, como el creador de la ecología, Riehl y Arndt como sus predecesores y otros pensadores como Willibald Hentschel, Bölsche Wilhelm y BrunoWille, reciben todo el crédito por el bien enhebrado enlane entre el ecologismo y el socialismo nacional, el racismo, el antisemitismo y las políticas ambientales que todos conocemos, influenciaron Alemania antes y después de la Primera Guerra Mundial.

Uno de los hechos más reveladores sobre el autoritarismo ecológico actual y antiguo es la creencia de los sus creadores que los seres humanos deben ser encapsulados en “categorías biológicas” y vivir en “zonas biológicas” sobre las que una autoridad tecnocrática con puño de hierro debe ejercer su poder. Haeckel dijo que las civilizaciones y la naturaleza deben regirse por las mismas leyes. El origen de esta forma de pensamiento es un estado reaccionario anti-humanista. Los monistas, creían que los humanos -aunque no ellos- eran insignificantes en comparación con la grandeza del medio ambiente. Ideas similares se observan en las iniciativas modernas patrocinadas por el Club de Roma, la Fundación Carnegie, la NASA, las Naciones Unidas, así como algunos colegios y universidades que son financiados por globalistas que apoyan la eugenesia en aras de la limpieza del planeta. Tomemos por ejemplo el texto de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre Biodiversidad, que ha sido nombrada como la política y la religión del ecologismo moderno. Entre otros objetivos, el Convenio tiene la intención de “reorganizar” la civilización occidental mediante la exclusión de toda actividad humana a partir en el 50 por ciento del continente americano. Se quiere dividir la tierra en “bioregiones”, “zonas de aislamiento” y “corredores”. Bajo este plan, los seres humanos vivirán en áreas fuertemente vigiladas y controladas en gran medida, de las que nunca podrán salir. Esta agenda globalista verde es promovida por las Naciones Unidas desde 1992, cuando fue presentado oficialmente durante la primera Cumbre de la Tierra en Río de Janeiro. La misma política se llevará a cabo en Asia, África y Europa.

Escritos de la Fundación Carnegie también fomentan la aplicación de políticas como la Agenda 21 y el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. La fundación ha expresado su orgulloen las prácticas que se ejercitan asesinatos en masa por los poderes existentes en un esfuerzo para limpiar las tierras de las personas indeseables. La Institución Carnegie promociona la obra del emperador Gengis Khan y valida su trabajo como “emperador verde ” debido a acciones que incluyen el asesinato de 40 millones de personas. Según sus escritos, esto ayudó a reducir las emisiones de carbono y mantener fresco el planeta.

Ernst Haeckel

Monistas utilizaban su sentimiento anti-humanista junto con las ideas völkisch para discriminar en contra del progreso, el urbanismo y los que pensaban diferente. En su Lebensgesetze (Leyes de la Vida), el biólogo Raúl Francé, escribió que el orden natural determina el orden social. Dijo que el mestizaje no era natural. Francé es hasta hoy uno de las fundadores del aclamado eco-fascismo contemporáneo “pionero del movimiento ecologista.” (8) Francé también promovió una supuesta conexión entre la pureza del medio ambiente y la “pureza racial”. Francé y sus discípulos exigieron un cambio hacia la vida campesina y dijeron que la modernidad significa la degradación de la raza y que las ciudades eran diabólicas e inorgánicas. (9)

En los primeros años del siglo XX un argumento ‘ecológico’, saturó el contenido político de derecha, que se convertió en uno respetados dentro de la cultura Alemana. Durante el período turbulento que rodea la Primera Guerra Mundial, la mezcla de fanatismo etnocéntrico, el rechazo regresivo de la modernidad y la genuina preocupación ambiental resultaron ser una mezcla mortal.

El Ambientalismo Nazi en Acción

Algunas personas lo ven como una contradicción que los eugenistas modernos aunque aún presionan para que el ecologismo estilo nazi se adopte también pertenescan a la élite tecnocrática empresarial. Esto no es una sorpresa porque las élites que apoyaron el Tercer Reich fueron también los industriales que, como suele ocurrir, controlaban muchos segmentos de la población y las clases intelectuales. Esta práctica siempre ha dado frutos, ya que garantiza el control total, no importa cuál es el resultado. Hombres como Fritz Todt, un peso pesado del movimiento Nacional Socialista en Alemania, así como Albert Speer, su sucesor a partir de 1942, participaron en la construcción de infraestructura como la autopista Autobahn, uno de los proyectos más grandes en la historia de la ingeniería en Alemania . Todt quería construir la autopista de una manera que más beneficiara su clase social, pero que al mismo tiempo promoviera y mantuviera la sensibilidad hacia la naturaleza. (10)

Todt, exigió de los trabajos realizados tuvieran armonía con la naturaleza y el paisaje, cumpliendo así los principios modernos de la ingeniería ecológica, así como principios “organológicos” de su propia era, junto con sus raíces en la ideología völkisch. (11) Como sucedió con Arndt, Riehl y Darré, Todt y sus socios tenían un lazo infinito e inseparable de nacionalismo völkisch. Todt dijo una vez: “El cumplimiento de los fines de transporte no sólo es el objetivo final de la construcción de carreteras alemanas. La autopista alemana debe ser una expresión de su paisaje y una expresión de la esencia alemana.”(12) Uno de los ayudantes de Todt, Alwin Seifert, fue defensor del Paisaje en el Tercer Reich. En el desempeño de sus funciones oficiales Seifert hizo hincapié en la importancia de la vida silvestre y se opuso enérgicamente a los monocultivos, drenaje de humedales y la agricultura química. Criticó a Darré como demasiado moderado, y pidió una revolución agrícola hacia una vida campesina natural, el uso de métodos simples de agricultura, y que estos fueran independientes del capital. “(13)

El lugar destacado que la naturaleza había ganado en el Partido Nazi ayudó a promulgar la promoción industrial y militar que permitió a Hitler intimidar al resto de Europa por un tiempo. En otras palabras, se promovía la conservación mabiental y la pureza racial mientras se explotaban los recursos por el bien de la raza para fabricar armas, prisiones y equipamiento pesado. Las iniciativas más radicales que se crearon, siempre recibieron el sello de aprobación de los más altos funcionarios del Estado Nazi. Otro miembro influyente de la era fue el Canciller del Reich Rudolph Hess, que fue el punto fuerte del ‘ala verde’ dentro del partido. El poder de Hess en las instituciones gubernamentales del régimen Nacional Socialista fue hizo que se convirtiera en asistente personal de Hitler. Muchos incluso lo consideraban la mano derecha del Führer. Hess se convirtió en integrante del Partido Nazi en 1920 y rápidamente se abrió camino hasta la cima. Fue el segundo hombre en la lista de espera para tomar el poder si Hitler y/o Göring no fueran capaces de asumir el deber. Todas las nuevas leyes que fueron aprobadas por el gobierno pasaron por las manos de Hess en primer lugar, antes de ser promulgadas.

En la foto: Adolf Hitler, Göring y atrás, Rudolph Hess.

En los años treinta, una serie completa de leyes y ordenanzas fueron aprobadas bajo el patrocinio de Hess. Una de las ordenanzas se asemeja más a las políticas de hoy, es la creación de reservas naturales. Pero quizás el logro más exitoso del ambientalismo nazi en Alemania fue el Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. Esta ley estableció directrices para salvaguardar la flora, la fauna, y los monumentos naturales, así como restringió el acceso de personas a tales reservas. Políticas similares han sido escritas hoy en día bajo la Agenda 21 de las Naciones Unidas y el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. Al igual que sucede con estos dos documentos, los funcionarios nazis exigían permisos antes de que cualquier funcionario local realizara modificaciones en las tierras reservadas aunque estas pertenecieran a un individuo. Junto con el Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, la contribución más importante que los nazis hicieron al movimiento de eugenesia moderna y el ecologismo fue la la integración del ambientalismo y el lado empresarial Nazi.

El Desarrollo Sostenible de Hoy

La página 350 del Informe de Diversidad Biológica de las Naciones Unidas, dice que el ganado, como vacas, ovejas, cabras y caballos no son sostenibles. Las personas y organizaciones que apoyan el desarrollo sostenible quieren que los seres humanos dejen de comer carne, porque los animales contaminan el medio ambiente. El programa completo de sostenibilidad se basa en un esfuerzo por cambiar el comportamiento humano a otro estado que normalmente los seres humanos no aprobarían o disfrutarían. Este cambio en el comportamiento humano son en su mayoría instigados con el miedo. El temor del calentamiento global, cambio climático, los desastres naturales, guerras, hambrunas, sequías, etc.

¿Qué tipo de cosas el desarrollo sostenible quiere hacer en realidad? La sostenibilidad y los cambios en el comportamiento humano no sólo están relacionados con el medio ambiente, la agricultura y la contaminación. Es un paquete completo de reformas que en última instancia implementan el cambio de comportamiento social en una escala global. Es común encontrar programas educativos que patrocinan y enseñan a los niños cómo prepararse para vivir en un mundo sostenible. Pero cuando las tácticas no funcionan correctamente, los globalistas a cargo del programa, las fundaciones y organizaciones de apoyo financiero como corporaciones globalistas recurren a tácticas de miedo.

Junto con los sistemas educativos, el desarrollo sostenible también actúa directamente en las economías, los sistemas de salud, agricultura, asuntos sociales y culturales, así como la seguridad pública. En los últimos 50 años hemos visto una carrera para crear alianzas entre las empresas y el gobierno, que ha dado lugar al fascismo corporativo bajo el cual todos vivimos. En cuanto a la propiedad privada, las ordenanzas y leyes se crean para poner fin al derecho de comprar y mantener cualquier tipo de terreno sin los auspicios de las autoridades. Es por eso los propietarios son obligados a pagar impuestos a la propiedad a pesar de que ya han pagado por la compra de la propiedad. Bajo las directrices de la Agenda 21 y la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre la Diversidad Biológica, las mayores masas de tierras, es decir, parques nacionales, reservas naturales y áreas de conservación se han donado a las Naciones Unidas para que esta las administre.

La pandemia de obesidad que se originó principalmente en el mundo anglosajón se ha extendido a países de América Latina y Europa, donde el estilo de vida anglo sajón ha sido adoptado.

La pandemia de obesidad que asola el planeta hasta hoy, promovida por las campañas de propaganda masiva pagadas por la industria alimenticia es la excusa para presentar leyes y directivas que, básicamente, permiten al gobierno decirle a la gente lo que puede comer o beber. En los Estados Unidos, escuelas ahora no permiten a los padres preparar y empacar los almuerzos de sus hijos, pues el gobierno “no confía” en los padres cuando se habla de la salud de sus hijos. Mientras tanto, las nuevas regulaciones introducidas a través del Codex Alimentarius, prohíben la venta y el uso de suplementos naturales y la plantación de cultivos en granjas pequeñas y medianas, al tiempo que las grandes corporaciones agrícolas que contaminan el medio ambiente con semillas, plantas y animales genéticamente modificados. Este tipo de políticas han causado el suicidio de cientos si no miles de agricultores indios que se endeudaron hasta el pescuezo para comprar semillas genéticamente modificadas de Monsanto las cuales no solo destruyeron los suelos, sino que también redujeron la cantidad de alimentos que se producen (algodón bt).

En los aspectos sociales y culturales, el discurso políticamente correcto ha sido adoptado de forma masiva y el disenso es visto como una forma de racismo y terrorismo. Las políticas de inmigración han pasado de levemente proteger la propiedad privada y los derechos de la persona a patrocinar la apertura indiscriminada de fronteras, los acuerdos de falso libre comercio que destruyen la industria y la producción y que cuesta el empleo de millones de personas en todos los continentes. La crítica religiosa de las prácticas de la homosexualidad y otras formas de vida se etiqueta como homofóbica, mientras profundas creencias religiosas son vistas como extremistas. La movilidad en las áreas urbanas también han sido afectadas por las políticas del falso ambientalismo. La especulación y la manipulación de los precios del petróleo por la OPEP hace que el costo del transporte aumente exponencialmente. Lo mismo ha sucedido con los precios de los alimentos. El compartir viajes en coche, así como el uso de autobuses y trenes es drásticamente recomendado con el fin de reducir la contaminación de por emisiones de CO2, mientras que las élites que piden el final de la industrialización viven en palacios lujosos y vuelan alrededor del planeta en sus jets privados y yates que consumen grandes cantidades de combustible.

En lo que respecta a la seguridad social, las políticas de desarrollo sostenible adoptadas por los gobiernos siguen extirpando las constituciones de los estados soberanos que estos dicen representar y defender. La libertad de expresión, la libertad de circulación y los derechos a la privacidad son continuamente violados con la creación de un complejo industrial tecno-militar que controla los movimientos de todo el mundo, los registros financieros, los comportamientos, la salud, los hábitos, la política, creencias religiosas, etc, todo en el nombre de la seguridad.

¿Cuál es el objetivo último de las políticas de desarrollo sostenible actuales? Reducir la población. El desarrollo sostenible es, en efecto un plan que se aplicará através de toda la existencia humana. Es un plan creado por alguien para que sea aplicado en usted, sus hijos, nietos y bisnietos. La creencia detrás de la supuesta necesidad de reducir masivamente la población del planeta es la idea equivocada de Thomas Malthus de que el crecimiento de la población supera la disponibilidad de alimentos. Malthus pensó que la superpoblación se produjo debido a las reducciones en las tasas de mortalidad y que el mundo se quedaría sin alimentos en 1890. Luego recomendó matar a los pobres, los ancianos y los enfermos, y dejar el resto morir de hambre. Las ideas de Malthus fueron recogidas más recientemente por Paul Earlich en 1968. Earlich dijo que el comportamiento reproductivo irresponsable dejaría el planeta sin comida en la década de 1970. Esta crisis imaginaria ha sido pospuesta por globalistas y sus marionetas en las comunidades intelectuales cada vez que esta no acontece como fue previsto. Según cálculos del Instituto de Investigación de Población hoy en día la población del mundo puede vivir cómodamente con suficiente comida en un área del tamaño del estado norteamericano de Texas.

La verdad es que con la tasa de natalidad actual, muchos países de Europa y Asia están experimentando problemas relacionados con el envejecimiento de la población que no está siendo adecuadamente sustituida con nuevos ciudadanos. En Norte, Centro y Sur América, los gobiernos luchan por mantener a flote sus programas del Estado Benefactor debido al hecho de que más personas se están jubilando y menos personas están contribuyendo a las arcas del gobierno central, la seguridad social y los programas de salud. Irónicamente, el crecimiento demográfico se estabilizará de manera natural, es decir que dejará de crecer y comenzará a disminuir una vez que la suma de todos los seres humanos llegue a cerca de 9 mil millones. Aprenda más sobre la ciencia de crecimiento de la población aquí.

Bueno, ¿y qué si hay suficiente masa de tierra para vivir? ¿Hay suficientes alimentos para todos? Si usted es un creyente apenas de las informaciones y estadísticas“oficiales”, le gustará saber según la Organización para la Alimentación y Agricultura de las Naciones Unidas, así como el Programa Mundial de Alimentos actualmente existe suficiente comida para alimentar el planeta. El problema es que no todos tienen acceso a los alimentos. ¿Por qué? Varias razones. La especulación de precios, el uso de alimentos como el maíz y la caña de azúcar para producir combustibles ineficientes y, por supuesto, la creación de escasez artificial de alimentos.

Las técnicas modernas de cultivo, incluso permitirían plantar cultivos en las zonas más áridas de África. Muchos creen que el continente africano puede ser capaz de alimentar a todo el mundo si estas técnicas se aplican con la debida diligencia. Así que, ¿por qué son más las personas que pasan hambre todos los días? En pocas palabras, la pobreza, los conflictos y la poca infraestructura agrícola en los países pobres, donde viven la mayoría de las personas que padecen hambre. La guerra es una de las principales causas de destrucción de cultivos. ¿Y quiénes son los patrocinadores de la guerra y los conflictos? El complejo militar industrial controlada por los mismos globalistas que quieren que las poblaciones sean respetuosas del medio ambiente. Reducir el número de personas en el planeta no resolvería un problema de sobrepoblación, si existiera. Eso es sólo otra táctica de miedo utilizada por los globalistas que hasta hoy quieren perpetuar el sueño Nazi. Para una explicación detallada sobre cómo las Naciones Unidas implementa su programa de eugenesia bajo la mentira de promover iniciativas de salud reproductiva, acabar con la pobreza y disminuir la aparición de enfermedades, vea el informe de cuatro partes a continuación. (Parte 1) (Parte 2) (Parte 3) (Parte 4)

Fuentes para este artículo incluyen:

 (1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

Massive tornados in the U.S. are not due to Climate Change

AFP
April 29, 2011

- US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

This massive tornado touched down and advanced over Tuscaloosa, Alabama just 24 hours ago.

“If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it’s agreed upon by the tornado community that it’s not a real increase,” said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

“It’s having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we’re seeing them more often,” Dixon said.

But he said it would be “a terrible mistake” to relate the up-tick to climate change.

An aerial view of Tuscaloosa serves to measure the magnitude of the disaster.

The tornadoes that ripped through the US south this week killed over 250 people, in the worst US weather disaster in years, with residents and emergency workers sifting through the rubble on Thursday.

Violent twisters that famously rip through the US south’s “Tornado Alley” are formed when strong jet winds bringing upper-level storms from the north interact with very warm, humid air mass from the Gulf of Mexico, said David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma.

On Wednesday, a particularly potent storm was whipping up around the heart of that tornado-prone corridor where the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, eastern Texas and northwest Louisiana meet, noted Kristina Pydynowski, a senior meteorologist at the AccuWeather.com website.

Sparking the severe thunderstorms from that point was the much warmer air arriving from the south, over the tropical Gulf. The combining winds at differing altitudes, said Pydynowski, created “significant twisting motion in the atmosphere, allowing the strongest thunderstorms to spawn tornadoes.”

The tornado that passed over Pratt City, a suburb of Birmingham flattened everything on its path.

Such a mixture would not be prevalent along the US eastern seaboard, so rough weather in that region Thursday would not also spawn tornadoes, at least on the same scale, she said.

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: “Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,” he said.

“Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley’ and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer.”

Wednesday’s deadly tornadoes, according to Imy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were unusual for being “long track,” meaning they were on the ground for a longer period of time than usual — in this case, roiling across the land for 30 miles (48 kilometers) or more.

An average track would be less than five miles, said Imy.

However, the stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet’s climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.

“We knew it was going to be a big tornado year,” he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: “It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”

Libya and the Imperial Re-Division of Africa

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
April 26, 2011

Plans to attack Libya have been longstanding. The imperial war machine of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, and their NATO allies is involved in a new military adventure that parallels the events that led to the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq. The war machine has been mobilized under the cover of “humanitarian intervention.”

In fact what the Pentagon and NATO have done is breach international law by intervening on the side of one of the combating parties in Libya in a civil war that they themselves have encouraged and fuelled. They have not protected civilians, but have launched a war against the Libyan regime in Tripoli and actively assisted the Benghazi-based Transitional Council in fighting the Libyan military.

Before the rapprochement with Colonel Qaddafi, for years the U.S., Britain, France, and their allies worked to destabilize Libya. Confirmed by U.S. government sources, Washington attempted regime change in Tripoli several times.[1] According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander, the Pentagon had active plans for launching a war against Libya.
The U.S. and its NATO allies are now embroiled in a new war that has the patented characteristics of the wars and invasions of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

A large naval armada off the shores of Libya has been bombing Libya for weeks with the declared objective of ousting the Libyan regime. At the same time, Libyan internal divisions are being fuelled.

Misinformation is systematically being spewed. Like Saddam Hussein before him, the U.S. and the E.U. have armed and helped Colonel Qaddafi. It is, therefore, important to hold the U.S. and the E.U. accountable for these weapon sales and the training of Libyan forces.

Also, like in Iraq, another Arab dictator was befriended by the U.S., only to be subsequently betrayed.

Prior to Iraq’s rapprochement with the U.S., at the outset of the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein was a Soviet ally and considered an enemy by Washington.

Today's friends are tomorrow's foes

The case of Colonel Qaddafi is in many regards similar. Ironically, Qaddafi had warned Arab leaders in 2008 at a meeting in Damascus under the auspices of the Arab League about regime change. He pointed to the U.S. government’s “bad habit” of betraying its Arab dictator friends:

Why won’t the [U.N.] Security Council investigate the hanging of Saddam Hussein? How could the leader of an Arab League state be hanged? I am not talking about Saddam Hussein’s policies or our [meaning the other Arab leaders] animosity towards him. We all had our disagreements with him. We all disagree with one another. Nothing unites us except this hall. Why is there not an investigation about Saddam Hussein’s execution?

An entire Arab government is killed and hung on the gallows – Why?! In the future it is going to be your turns too! [The rest of the Arab officials gathered start laughing] Indeed!

America fought alongside Saddam Hussein against Khomeini [in the Iraq-Iran War]. He was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, the [U.S.] defence secretary during the bombing of Iraq [in 2003], was a close friend of Saddam Hussein.

At the end they sold him out. They hung him. Even you [the Arab leaders] who are the friends of America – no I will say we – we, the friends of America, America may approve of our hanging one day. [2]

At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately encouraged open revolt against Saddam Hussein’s regime, but stood back and watched as Saddam Hussein put down the Iraqi revolts by force.

In 2011, they have done the same thing against Qaddafi and his regime in Libya. Not only was the revolt in Libya instigated by Washington and its allies, the rebels have been supplied with weapons and military advisers.

When the U.S. and its allies triggered the anti-Saddam revolts in Baghdad in the wake of the Gulf War, “no-fly zones” over Iraq were established by the U.S., Britain, and France under the pretext of protecting “the Iraqi people from Saddam.” For years Iraq was systematically attacked. The Iraqi Republic was bombed and its capabilities to defend itself were eroded.
Today, the U.S. and its allies have imposed a no-fly zone over Libya with the pretext of protecting “the Libyan people from Qaddafi.” If they wanted to protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi, why did they arm Qaddafi in the first place? Why did they enter into business transactions in the wake of the 2006 and 2008 anti-government riots in Libya? There is much more to this narrative, which is part of a broader march to war.

A New Imperial Re-Division of Africa: The London Conference

The London Conference on Libya reveals the true colours of the coalition formed against Libya. In a clear breach of international law, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and their allies are making decisions about the future of Libya ahead of any changes on the ground. [4] Democracy is a bottom-up process and Libyan governance is an internal matter to be decided upon by the Libyans themselves. These decisions can not be made by foreign powers that have been the staunch supporters of some of the worst dictatorships.

Current chiefs of state such as Sarkozy and Berlusconi befriended the man they call today a dictator.

The nations gathered at the conference table in London have no right whatsoever to decide on whether Qaddafi must stay or go. This is a sovereignty right that only Libyans alone have. Their involvement in the civil war is a breach of international law, as is their siding with one of the camps in the civil war.

The London Conference on Libya can be likened to the Berlin Conference of 1884. Unlike 1884, this conference is aimed at dividing the spoils of war in Libya, instead of the direct carving up of an entire continent. Also, Washington, instead of staying away like in 1884, is the leading power in this new conference involving the affairs of the African continent.
The position of the U.S. and its Western European allies is very clear:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and British Foreign Secretary William Hague led the crisis talks in London between 40 countries and institutions, all seeking an endgame aimed at halting Gadhafi’s bloody onslaught against Libya’s people.

Although the NATO-led airstrikes on Gadhafi’s forces that began March 19 aren’t aimed at toppling him, dozens of nations agreed in the talks that Libya’s future does not include the dictator at the helm.
“Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go. We’re working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome,” Clinton told reporters.

As she spoke, U.S. officials announced that American ships and submarines in the Mediterranean had unleashed a barrage of cruise missiles at Libyan missile storage facilities in the Tripoli area late Monday and early Tuesday — the heaviest attack in days.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle echoed Clinton’s point.

“One thing is quite clear and has to be made very clear to Gadhafi: His time is over. He must go,” Westerwelle said. “We must destroy his illusion that there is a way back to business as usual if he manages to cling to power.” [4]

The London Conference on Libya, however, not only deals solely with Libya, but holds the blue prints to a new imperialist re-division of the entire Africa continent. Libya, which became a holdout when Qaddafi changed his mind, will be used to complete the “Union of the Mediterranean” and as a new bridgehead into Africa. This is the start of major steps that will be taken by the U.S. and the E.U. to purge the growing Chinese presence from Africa.

A New Imperial Re-Division of Africa: “Operation Odyssey Dawn”

The name “Operation Odyssey Dawn” is very revealing. It identifies the strategic intent and direction of the war against Libya.

The Odyssey is an ancient Greek epic by the poet Homer which recounts the voyage and trails of the hero Odysseus of Ithaca on his way home. The main theme here is the “return home.”

The U.S. and the imperialist powers are on their own odyssey of “return” into Africa.

This project is also intimately related to the broader military agenda in Southwest Asia and the drive into Eurasia, which ultimately targets Russia, China, and Central Asia.

Washington’s military agenda pertains  to the African and the Eurasian landmass, namely a supercontinent known as the “World-Island.” It is control of the World-Island that is the object of U.S. strategies.

The U.S. and NATO have triggered a civil war in Libya, as their pretext for longstanding plans of military aggression. A systematic media disinformation campaign, similar to the one used against Iraq from 1991 to 2003, has been launched.

In fact, the media has led the way for the war in Libya as it did in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The U.S. and its cohorts have also used the atmosphere of popular revolt in the Arab World as a cloud to insert and support their own agenda in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

The Libyan Prize of the Mediterranean

There is an old Libyan proverb that says “if your pocket becomes empty, your faults will be many.” In this context, Libyan internal tensions are not dominated by breadbasket issues. This sets Libya apart from Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, and Jordan. [5] In Libya, the lack of freedom as well as rampant corruption has created opposition to the regime, which has been used by the U.S. and its allies as a pretext to justify foreign intervention.

Libya has come a long way since 1951 when it became an independent country. In 1975, the political scientist Henri Habib described these conditions:

When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence. [6]

According to Habib the state of poverty in Libya was the result of the yoke of Ottoman domination followed by an era of European imperialism in Libya. [7] Habib explains: “Every effort was made to keep the Arab inhabitants [of Libya] in a servile position rendering them unable to make any progress for themselves or their nation.” [8]  He also explains:

The climax of this oppression came during the Italian administration (1911 – 1943) when the Libyans were not only oppressed by the [foreign] authorities, but were also subjected to the loss and deprivation of their most fertile land which went to colonists brought in from Italy. The British and French who replaced the Italians in 1943 attempted to entrench themselves in [Libya] by various divisive ways, ultimately to fail through a combination of political events and circumstances beyond the control of any one nation. [9]

Despite political mismanagement and corruption, Libya’s oil reserves (discovered in 1959) were used to improve the standard of living for its population. Libya has the highest standards of living in Africa.

In addition to its energy reserves, the Libyan state played an important role. Libyan energy reserves were nationalized after the 1969 coup against the Libyan monarchy. It should be noted that these Libyan energy reserves are a source of wealth in Libya that if fully privatized would be a lucrative spoil of war.

To a certain extent, the isolation of Libya in the past as a pariah state has also played a role in insulating Libya. As most of the world has become globalized from an economic standpoint, Libyan integration into the global economy has in a sense been delayed.

Despite having vast sums of money stolen and squandered by Qaddafi’s family and their officials, social services and benefits, such as government housing, are also available in Libya. It has to be cautioned too that none of this means that neo-liberal restructuring and poverty are not afoot in Libya, because they very much are.

Until the conflict in 2011 ignited, there was a huge foreign work force in Libya. Thousands of foreign workers from every corner of the globe went to Libya for employment. This included nationals from Turkey, China, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the European Union, Russia, Ukraine, and the Arab World.

Neo-Liberalism and the New Libya: Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi and Rapprochement

From 2001 to 2003, a process of rapprochement began between Libya and the U.S. and its E.U. partners. What changed? Colonel Qaddafi did not stop being a dictator or change his behaviour. Rapprochement brought an end to Tripoli’s defiance to its former colonial masters. Libya had bowed to U.S. and E.U. pressures and a modus vivandi came into effect.
Qaddafi’s credentials as a democrat or a dictator were never an issue. Nor was the use of brute force. Subservience was the real issue.

The force used against the riots in 2006 and 2008 did not even faze the E.U. and Washington, which continued their “business as usual” with Tripoli. Even U.S. government sources implied that economic interests should not be jeopardized by issues of international law or justice; for example, BP pressured the British government in 2007 to move forward with a prisoner exchange with Libya so that a Libyan oil contract could be protected. [10]

Almost overnight, Libya became a new business bonanza for U.S. and E.U. corporations, especially in the energy sectors. These lucrative contracts also included military contracts of the order of $482 million (U.S.) in military hardware, training, and software from E.U. members (including chemical and biological agents). [11]

Yet, two more things were demanded by Washington, namely the imposition of an imperial tribute as well as the the opening up of the Libyan military and intelligence apparatus to U.S. influence. As a result Libya ended all support for the Palestinians and handed the U.S. government its dossiers on resistance groups opposed to Washington, London, Tel Aviv and their allies. This turned Libya into a so-called “partner” in the “Global War on Terrorism.” Washington would get involved in all aspects of Libyan state security:

Although U.S. sanctions on Libya were lifted in 2004 and terrorism-related restrictions on foreign assistance were rescinded in 2006, Congress acted to limit the Bush Administration’s ability to provide foreign assistance to Libya as a means of pressuring the Administration and the Libyan government to resolve outstanding terrorism claims. The Bush Administration’s October 2008 certification [...] ended standing restrictions on the provision of U.S. foreign assistance contained in appropriations legislation for FY2008 and FY2009. Assistance requests submitted by the Bush and Obama Administrations for FY2009 and FY2010 included funding for programs to reengage with Libyan security forces after “a 35-year break in contact” with their U.S. counterparts and to support Libyan efforts to improve security capabilities in areas of common concern, such as border control, counterterrorism, and export/import monitoring. [12]

Libya has also become active in global banking and finance. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York even made 73 loans to the Arab Banking Corporation (ABC), which is a bank mostly owned by the Central Bank of Libya, totalling an amount of $35 billion (U.S.). [13] According to Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont in a complaint to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke, the mostly Libyan-owned bank received over $26 billion (U.S.) in near zero interest rate loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it has been lending back to the U.S. Treasury at a higher interest rate. [14] The Arab Banking Corporation is currently exempted from sanctions on Libya and may serve in creating a fiscal link between Wall Street and Benghazi.

Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi was vital in this process of opening up Libya to trade with Washington and the European Union. In 2000 Saif Al-Islam graduated from a university in Austria and became heavily tied to foreign associates who became his policy advisors and friends.

Prince Andrew of Britain reportedly became a close friend of Said Al-Islam: so close that Chris Bryant, a senior Labour Party politician, demanded in the British House of Commons that Prince Andrew be removed from his position as special trade envoy at the start of the conflict with Libya. [15]

Western advisors to Tripoli played an important role in shaping Libyan policy. A “New Libya” started to emerge under Saif Al-Islam, who pushed for the adoption of IMF-style neo-liberal economic reforms.

Starting in 2005-2006, significant social and income disparities started to emerge in Libya. The Libyan Revolutionary Committees Movement was in large part disbanded by Saif Al-Islam. Had the Committees Movement remained, they would most probably have sought to prevent the present conflict from escalating.

Moreover, Saif Al-Islam went to London and established ties in Britain with Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). [16] He became friends with Benotman.

Supported by Saif Al-Islam, Benotman and Ali Al-Sallabi, a Libyan citizen based in Qatar (who was on Tripoli’s terrorist list), negotiated a truce between the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the Libyan government.

It is also worth noting that all the ministers and ambassadors who defected or left Libya were chosen by Saif Al-Islam.
As in the case of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the neo-liberal reforms applied in Libya created social and income disparities which in turn contributed to political instability.

Rapprochement with Tripoli and Imperial Extortion

In late-2008, the U.S. government got Tripoli to pay what was tantamount to an “imperial tribute.” Libya capitulated and agreed to an uneven reparation agreement with Washington. The agreement is called the “Claims Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab.” Under the agreement Libya would concede $1.3 billion U.S. dollars to Washington, while Washington would give the Libyans $300 million U.S. dollars. Article 4 of the agreement’s annex states:

Once contributions to the Fund Account reach the amount of U.S. $1.8 billion (one billion eight hundred million U.S. dollars), the amount of U.S. $1.5 billion (one billion five hundred million U.S. dollars) shall be deposited into Account A [the U.S. account] and the amount of U.S. $300 million (three hundred million U.S. dollars) shall be deposited into Account B [Libya’s account], which in both cases shall constitute the receipt of resources under Article III (2) of the Agreement. [17]

Despite all this, Libya has remained a relatively wealthy country. In 2010, Tripoli even made an offer to buy a portion of British Petroleum (BP), one of the world’s largest corporations. [18] The National Oil Company of Libya also remains one of the largest oil companies in the world.

Even with the lucrative business deals that resulted from the rapprochement, the U.S. and the E.U. have always had an objective of furthering their gains and control. The E.U. powers and Washington merely waited for the right opportunity. Plans for taking over and controlling Libya and the Libyan energy sector were never abandoned. Nor could Washington and Western Europe accept anything less than a full-fledged puppet government in Libya.

Upheaval and Qaddafi’s Response

Even with the rapprochement with Tripoli, the U.S. and its E.U. partners continued to cultivated ties to so-called “opposition” figures and organizations with a view to implementing regime change at some future date. This is why the National Salvation Front of Libya has been mostly active in Washington. In the words of a timely Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (February 18, 2011):

The National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (an umbrella organization of opposition groups headed by the National Libyan Salvation Front (NLSF) [...]) and Internet-based organizers called for a “day of rage” to take place on February 17. Similar events had been organized by anti-government groups in many other countries in the Middle East and North Africa over the previous month. On February 17, [2011] hundreds of protestors took to the streets in Benghazi and in other cities in its vicinity. [19]

Colonel Qaddafi has ruled Libya under a harsh dictatorship that has systematically used violence and fear. Yet, the level of violence that has put Libya in a state of upheaval has been distorted. [20] Many of the initial reports coming out of Libya in early-2011 were also unverified and in many cases misleading. These reports have to be studied very carefully. According to the same CRS report prepared for the U.S. Congress, initial reports all came from “local [Libyan] media accounts, amateur video footage and anecdotes, and reports from human rights organizations and opposition groups in exile.” [21]

Qaddafi’s objectives are to preserve his regime and not to undo it. After Qaddafi became aware of the growing foreign threat directed towards his regime, the use of force was on the whole restrained. The regime in Tripoli did not want to give further excuses to the U.S., the E.U., and NATO for military intervention in Libya.

Qaddafi had exercised restraint for the sake of preserving his dictatorship. The Libyan regime knew very well that a bloody civil war would be used as a justification for intervention under a humanitarian pretext. That is why Qaddafi opted to try to negotiate where he could instead of using force. The use of violence is not to the favour of the Libyan regime or Libya, but rather works in the favour of the U.S. and the E.U. states.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Massive Playstation Data Theft: What are the stakes?

The hacking of Sony Corp’s PlayStation Network has earned a place in the annals of Internet crime.

Reuters
April 28, 2011

That’s partly because of the massive size of the data breach — information about 77 million customer accounts was stolen. It is also because Sony bothered to disclose the attack at all.

The bulk of attacks on corporate and governmental computer networks go unreported because victims want to avoid the embarrassment and public scrutiny that come with acknowledging that their systems have been hacked.

Companies fear that their stock price might take a hit or that their brand might be damaged after news of an intrusion, said Jerry Dixon, a former government official who was instrumental in setting up the U.S. government’s crime-fighting Computer Emergency Readiness Team.

“Everybody’s network is getting hammered all the time,” said Dixon, director of analysis at Team Cymru, a non-profit security research group.

Sony shut down the network on April 19 after discovering the breach, one of the biggest online data infiltrations ever. But it was not until Tuesday that the company said the system had been hacked and that users’ data could have been stolen.

In the United States, several members of Congress seized on the breach, in which hackers stole names, addresses and possibly credit card details. One U.S. law firm filed a lawsuit in California on behalf of consumers.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut called on the Justice Department to investigate the matter.

The FBI launched an inquiry and urged anybody with information about the attack to contact an agency hotline (+1 858-565-1255).

CODE OF SILENCE

Experts say that many companies only disclose break-ins when they are required to do so by government regulations that say they must tell customers whose data was compromised.

In many cases companies seek to keep the matter quiet by telling individual customers of the problem without issuing a public statement like the one from Sony this week. (bit.ly/kik7DC)

The publicity over the break-in has exposed Sony to global legal scrutiny, with officials from Hong Kong to London and Washington looking into the breach.

Sony’s PlayStation Network, a service that produces an estimated $500 million in annual revenues, provides access to online games, movies and TV shows. Nine out of 10 of PlayStation’s users are based in the United States or Europe.

Security experts say that companies that are attacked remain silent most of the time.

For example, 85 percent of some 200 companies in electricity-producing industries said that their networks had been hacked, according to a survey released this month by security software maker McAfee Inc and the non-profit Center for Strategic and International Studies. Yet utilities rarely disclose such attacks.

One in four of those companies in the McAfee/CSIS study reported that they had been victims of extortion campaigns from hackers who had broken into their networks. (tinyurl.com/3vgp5us)

In many cases, intrusions go undetected by the victim company, leaving the firm and its customers completely unaware that criminals have access to their sensitive data.

“Everybody’s data is at risk. We’ve all got to worry about our personal information, wherever it may be,” said Josh Shaul, chief technology officer for Application Security Inc.

SPEAR “PHISHING”

Sony said it had encrypted all credit card numbers, which would make it extremely difficult for hackers to access that data. But criminals might use other personal information that was not encrypted to launch scams.

With birthdates, email addresses and home addresses, hackers can launch spear “phishing” attacks that are targeted at those individuals.

Spear phishing refers to attacks that are customized to each individual target. Hackers draft emails that contain enough personal information to persuade the victim to let down their defenses, which can be enough to get them to click on a link that downloads malicious software onto their personal computer.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain - lain

Partner Links