Copenhagen Treaty: Premises and Motivations
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
– Ayn Rand1
Industrial civilization has been a dirty affair. While it helped give rise to the wealth we see in the Industrialized core nations—typically associated with the United States and Europe—it has also led to an unprecedented centralization of power and left the people of the world dependent on its industrial infrastructure; and so for example, 75% of humans today live in the city, away from farms and the soil. To be sure, the city has allowed us much opportunity, not among the least of which is a tight knit framework in which to trade ideas, materials and useful stuff.
All of this stuff, though, had to come from somewhere, and to meet that need importation from ghostly elsewheres has kept cities the world over running. And now, monumental problems face all of us as individuals and communities today, and the challenges and associated tasks ahead threaten the fairness strived for and achieved by concerned ancestors similar to ourselves. The gains of these people’s are encapsulated in such documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Bill of Rights. A history of arts, also, reminds of our sometimes vibrant past. However, plans by political, financial and industrial elites to forge new institutions unaccountable to the people represent new monopolies on force and favors which threaten the very social fabric of civilization.
In an article published by the Wall Street Journal, Janet Albrechtsen covers what she describes U.N. plans for a new government “scary.” She states:
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven’t heard about it, that’s because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
The article cites for the most part the words of Lord Chris Monckton, the former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who, at an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota in November, blew the whistle and exposed the new governmental entity. He exposed the 181 page draft text, which entails United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, planned to be signed in December.
The ultimate aim of the treaty, as Monckton and myriads others are warning, is to erect a transnational government.
There is a provision under the Convention calling for a “government” which will have the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
And so institutions which need not answer to the public are taking it upon themselves to solve environmental problems, but what do we do when their solutions are astoundingly wrongheaded?
The treaty requires developed countries to pay what is termed an “adaptation debt” to developing countries under the guise of supporting climate change mitigation. But the premise that the nation-state is the keystone institution in our social system is a misnomer, for the corporation fills that role. The largest associations and bodies are corporations and, as we will see, it is, to use a phrase made popular in the past year, the too-big-to-fail corporation which owes the rest of a massive “adaptation debt.” Moreover, many of the developing countries are servicing crippling IMF debts. It is therefore unlikely representatives of the West, especially Britain and the US, are interested in repaying the developing nations; unless, of course, much of these credits go towards fueling speculative economies in which those who sit on enough capital can line their bulging pockets.
Politically concerning are the number of “alternatives” and “options” featured in the treaty which officially undermine the democratic and republican bases of the modern Democratic Republics and give plenipotentiaries and policy makers room to do as they please.
In an interview with Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said, “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening…. The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”
So, the power grab initiated last year with the collapse of Lehman Brothers—what actually was an assassination by other oligopolists—continues.
In his talk at St. Paul Monckton told attendees: “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign for freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever.”2
Ron Paul echoed Lord’s sentiments, stating November 9, 2009 on the Alex Jones show:
If it works it will work for a little while and companies like Goldman Sachs and a few others will rip us off and get even more wealth. But it cannot help the economy; it has to hurt the economy. And it can’t possibly help the environment because they are totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using.
Paul is referring to the siren song of global warming, which is being touted by many of the well-connected as the sole reason for a revolutionary reorganization of human life on our planet. In fact, in books published by the Club of Rome, a premiere think tank, climate change is touted as a mean by which the global order based on the nation-state ought to be reconstructed; the think tank champions the politically useful reasons for this as opposed to concerning themselves with the environment—of which we the people are a part—at hand. When the threat is global warming, the Club of Rome has stated:
The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself…. The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation…. Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.3
A who’s who of popular political figures and CEO’s has echoed the sentiments of that of the Club of Rome.
I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.
– Al Gore, Climate Change activist
I believe that the mere mass of industrial civilization poses a threat to the biodiversity of the planet: the building blocks which are responsible for us, for our ideas and emotions, inventions and systems. But, it is increasingly lucid that the framework by which climate-change and environmental degradation is framed by social engineers through political enunciations and the corporate media leaves much to be desired. For brevity’s sake, I will only mention that there is an intimate connection between plant life and carbon dioxide. So, why have we determined carbon dioxide is the main threat? We exhale it! Should we continue playing our roles, hanging on the false realities created by the leaders?
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced — a catastrophe of our own making.
– Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
This is rather alarming rhetoric for someone who, in the same breath, claims to have the near-ubiquitous support of the scientific community in his corner. He admits himself though that he is a pathological liar? Jokes on us if we let him cash in on our apathy and ignorance. By the way, when politicians and the propagandists refer to the “scientific community” they usually mean scientists who are members of corporate or governmental funded associations. Independent thinkers need not apply.
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Ok, so bringing down industrial civilization sounds pretty damn cool: Can we keep The Clash and Kurt Vonnegut? Hmm, I guess I could get a beer with this Maurice Strong fellow. Thing is, we probably have different ideas about ways, means and outcomes. Rule of thumb: During crises, the rich have almost always outsurvived poor, in many cases benefitting. For instance, the founder of the Krupp fortune, a wealthy burgher during the time of the Black Death of 1349, bought up the properties left vacant by families eradicated by the plague for pennies on the dollar. His descendants greatly prospered. I highly suspect Strong has an idea of this.4
In the US a Cap-and-Trade bill has been proposed, but as of yet not passed. While arguing the bill would leave to capital flight from the US, Ron Paul stated:
The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.
Spain legislated such progressive energy policy by massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for nearly ten years. Their economy currently has a 20 percent unemployment rate, and for each green job created, 2.2 normal jobs are eliminated.
The legislation in the US will cement more governmental regulations, taxes, fees and bureaucracy dissuading companies from doing business in the US, as well as how many employees they can afford to hire. This added governmental red tape will cause capital flight and job losses. Jobs, therefore, are increasingly likely to go overseas.
Over the summer, approximately 30,000 scientists signed a petition disputing the claim that global warming is an anthropogenic phenomenon.4 What’s more, the US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous wastes than the five largest US chemical companies together. Hazardous wastes employed by the military include, among others, pesticides and defoliants, like Agent Orange, many solvents, petroleum, perchlorate, lead mercury and depleted uranium.5
Health problems associated with these toxins include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease and cancer. Most affected are those on whom such weapons are used, those in the military, and those who live near a military site. In the US one out of every ten persons lives within ten miles of a military site listed as a priority cleanup site. Many corporations are right up there with the DoD. So, then, why are their fellow conspirators the ones wording such legislation? The best argument in favor of the environment, I conclude, is also an argument against war. Therefore any true and honest environmental movement has, at its core, an argument against war!
Depleted Uranium (DU) has been a hot topic since the war began, similar to Agent Orange use in Vietnam. As a radioactive and chemically toxic heavy metal, it remains wherever it is lodged, in the body on the ground or in rivers, for decades. In the human body particles of depleted uranium are a source of alpha particles. Much research suggests that DU is linked to serious damage to the human body.
In Iraq alone hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium have been fired and exploded in high populated areas such as Basrah, Baghdad, Nasriya, Dewania, Samawa, and other cities. Exploration programs have found Depleted Uranium related contamination over most Iraqi territories.6
Iraq’s Minister of Environment said in July of 2007 in Cairo that “at least 350 sites in Iraq are contaminated with Depleted Uranium.” She also said that Iraq is facing an unprecedented number of cancer cases and called on the international community to help Iraq alleviate this problem. I will spare you the photos, but encourage you to look.6
On domestic turf, the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management sell trees from public forests—that is trees owned, I mean shared, by all of us—to big timber corporations at reduced prices; in short, we subsidizes the destruction of the biodiversity which gave rise to ourselves. In the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska, four-hundred-year-old hemlock, spruce and cedar are sold to timber corporations for less money than a cheeseburger. Taxpayers funded, also, are the construction of the logging roads. The Forest Service—the public—loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year on timber-sale programs. Now we are being told we have to pay taxes in order to preserve our collective land base.
In the continental United States just five percent of native forest still stands. 440,000 miles of logging roads run through National Forests, despite that the Forest Service maintains there are 383,000 miles. The National Forest Service, exactly like the major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Well Fargo, cook the books and routinely lie.7
The logic behind the new global authority is flawed. It targets nations funded by taxpayer’s—us. But damage caused by human households is nowhere near as criminal as the damage done by corporations. Municipalities and individuals consume ten percent of the nation’s water. The other 90 percent is guzzled by agriculture and industry. Individual consumptions of energy, furthermore, accounts for about one-fourth of all energy consumption. The other 75 percent is consumed corporations. Municipal waste represents three percent of total waste production in the US.8
So we now see that we the people are unjustly carrying the burden of climate-change. Further, there are strong indicators that a current push for power accumulation employs climate-change and environmental degradation as its smoke and mirrors.
Many analysts are insisting the only in which to rebalance and harmonize the global human community is by revolution, and many of them contend violent revolution is inevitable. I don’t necessarily think “violent” need be so; but, it has to be global. We have to aim for the fences and raise consciousness all over the globe.
The push for global government and the New World Order must be slowed by us and our environmental communities—our land base, families and friends—protected.
Quote featured in the 7 November edition of Bob Chapman’s The International Forecaster. [↩]
Janet Albrechtsen. “Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?” Wall Street Journal, 10-28-2009. [↩]
The Green Agenda and the First Global Revolution [↩]
Howard Bloom. 2000. Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From the Big Bang To The 21st Century. John Wiley and Sons: New York. [↩] [↩]
Ron Paul. “Cap and Trade Another Nail in the Economy’s Coffin,” June 29, 2009. [↩]
Lucinda Marshall. “Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier.” Dissident Voice, March 29 2005. [↩] [↩]
Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi. “The Responsibility of the US in Contaminating Iraq with Depleted Uranium.” Global Research, Nov. 9, 2009. [↩]
Derrick Jensen and George Draffan. Excerpt from Strangely Like War. [↩]