Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘colonialism’

Thabo Mbeki Urges Africans to Protect their Right of Self-determination from Neo-imperialism


Thabo Mbeki

Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki delivered the following great speech on November 5, 2011. The address “International Law and the Future of Africa” is posted on the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website.

[….(Africa have) “urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm the inviolability of an important principle of international law”.

Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

Among other things, the Declaration says:  “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.

This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.

In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:

“They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and, “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…

“(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”

To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.

To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”

It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.

As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.

I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.

In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.

In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”

He went on to say: “Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…

“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism has dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth – all of this seems eminently desirable.

“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”

This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote: “Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and – ultimately – some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding.”

On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris titled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said: “Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonized. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren’t interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”

Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said: “What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world’s coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.

“With the reporting and analysis of today’s Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”

I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”

In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world – a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’

In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.

I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.

It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.

It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.

On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said: “Recognizing the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”

What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.

As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.

Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”

For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that: “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”

The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.

Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.

It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.

Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.

For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.

The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.

Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.

The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.

In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”

And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”

And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.

A week before Resolution 1973 was approved; the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.

This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.

The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.

Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.

Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.

And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.

Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.

The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.

In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said: “Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…

“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”

It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.

These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.

Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.

It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next?

As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.

In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.

I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.  Thank you.]

For all the programmes and speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki please go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya


The American Dream website posted the following article:

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

[The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don’t seem to mind at all.  The flag, which contains the phrase “there is no God but Allah” with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi.  The courthouse in Benghazi is where the “rebels” established their provisional government, and it is where the “media center” for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi.  So it isn’t as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building.  But this should be no surprise.  It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of “the rebels” and among the leadership of “the rebels”.  Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population.

You can see more pictures of the al-Qaeda flag flying over Libya on the website of the Telegraph and on the website of the Daily Mail.

The following is video of the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi….

So where is the uproar about this in the U.S. media?

The silence has been deafening.

I guess it would be hard to explain to the American people why they should be sacrificing their sons and daughters to fight al-Qaeda when we just spent billions of dollars helping them take over Libya.

Sadly, the flag of al-Qaeda is not just being flown at the Benghazi courthouse.  According to eyewitnesses, it is now being displayed all over Benghazi.  The following is an account from an eyewitness that has seen the flag flying over the Benghazi courthouse for himself….

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media center from which to tell foreign journalists about their “fight for freedom.”

But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.

According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, “Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,” a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

So what in the world are we supposed to think about all this?

We were told that we had to invade Afghanistan because they were harboring “al-Qaeda” leaders.

We were told that it was necessary for us to stay in Iraq for so long so that “al-Qaeda” would not take over.

But now we have helped al-Qaeda take over Libya.

It isn’t as if the governments of the western world did not know what was going on in Libya.

According to the Telegraph, the leader of the Libyan rebels was very open about the fact that his “troops” included significant numbers of al-Qaeda fighters that were firing bullets at U.S. soldiers in Iraq….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

According to a recent article by Kurt Nimmo for Infowars.com, al-Qaeda rebels had established an “Islamic emirate” in eastern Libya as early as February….

In February, it was reported that al-Qaeda had set-up an Islamic emirate in Derna, in eastern Libya, headed by a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi.

Now that they have won the war, the “rebels” have announced that they will be imposing strict Sharia law all over Libya.

The head of the National Transitional Council in Libya, Moustafa Abdeljalil, has already made this very clear.  Just consider the following statements….

-“Sharia law is the source of all our laws.

-“We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government

-“The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion

Shouldn’t the people of Libya have a say in all of this?

Sadly, one kind of tyranny has just been replaced with another.

In fact, some elements of Sharia law have already been implemented.

According to a recent article posted on the Telegraph, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has already announced that the law banning polygamy has been repealed because it is not compliant with Sharia law….

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

The American people were told that the system of government established by the Taliban in Afghanistan was so repressive that it needed to be overthrown, but now we are helping essentially the exact same system of government be set up in Libya.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only that, we have greatly destabilized the region and there will almost certainly be very bloody internal conflicts within Libya for many years to come.

The following comes from a recent report posted by The New American….

Gadhafi and the remnants of his regime are thought to have distributed vast stockpiles of weapons and wealth so anti-revolutionary forces could wage what the despot promised would be a long-lasting insurgency. Many of those fighters fled to the desert and are staging surprise attacks on roaming bands of militiamen.

The ongoing battles have sparked widespread speculation that the bloody conflicts will continue to rage far into the future.

In addition, as The New American notes, as a result of this conflict huge amounts of very dangerous weapons have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists….

Advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft missiles has also fallen into the hands of known terrorist organizations. The deadly stockpiles are turning up all over the region, but it remains unclear how much firepower has been smuggled out of the country so far.

But does the Obama administration seem alarmed by any of this?

No, they just want us all to praise them for a “job well done” in Libya.

Hopefully the American people will see right through this nonsense.

The flag of al-Qaeda has been flying over the headquarters of the provisional government in Libya, and yet the American people are the ones that are being treated as potential terrorists.

Our borders are wide open and anyone that wants to can sneak into this country, and yet we are told that we must have our private parts examined before we are allowed to get on to an airplane.

Something is very, very wrong.  Somehow the focus of national security has gone from protecting the American people to spying on the American people.

As I wrote about yesterday, the government has become absolutely obsessed with watching us, listening to us, tracking us, recording us, compiling information on all of us and getting us all to spy on one another.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been spending billions of dollars to help al-Qaeda take power in Libya and is helping them enslave the entire Libyan population to a brutal form of Sharia law.

Can anyone explain how this makes any sense at all?]

Comment from Tarig Anter:

Corporations rule the USA and Europe and they want businesses with Islamists. War is business; and business is good. For them Gaddafi was too stingy and too nationalist to let them get a share; so, regime change; kill him; and bring his enemies the Islamists after striking a deal with them.
US and EU People must wait until corporations make profits and they must know that their security and that of the USA and Europe are subject and require future contracts. That is how capitalism and liberal democracy work. If you don’t like it then you must be insane anarchist or communist, and they have to deal with you too.

Please read the following:
1- The Globalists and the Islamists

2- Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State

3- Obama – Product of Illuminati Breeding Program?

4- Muslim Brotherhood- Illuminati Tools

5- Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism

6- Secret Societies & the New World Order

7- Exposing Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies

8- Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder

Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder


Corporate Globalists Are Looking for Green Pastures in Africa to Plunder

African leaders from multiple regions stand opposed to AFRICOM

A simple Google search with “Obama war crimes”; “Sarkozy war crimes”; or “NATO war crimes” will show how widespread the charges against Obama; Sarkozy; and NATO.

Horrific atrocities were executed in Libya with direct military and political support and directions from Obama and his NATO mercenaries which included: Sarkozy; Cameron; and Al-Thani (of Qatar). These persons and states must be brought to national and international justice and pay for their horrendous crimes.

Crimes are crimes no matter who committed them. The World did not see evidences in photos or videos of the alleged crimes of Gaddafi despite all the propaganda of the ICC; but the media is full of very horrible evidences of the crimes of Obama and his NATO, Sarkozy, Cameron, and the Libyan Islamist rebels for those who care to see.

Gaddafi tried for a very long time to establish direct democracy in Libya and he campaigned for it worldwide. He fearlessly exposed the crimes of Western liberal democracy and the international mafia of globalists and their secret societies. These were the crimes of Gaddafi and that is why they decided to remove his regime and kill him to stop him from making any further damages and any further progresses.

The thieves and criminals who are bankrupting the West and its people are looking for green pastures in Africa; and to stop Asians from taking over the economic lead in the World.

African Leaders Must Protect Africa

Our moral decline: Blood-lust in the streets of Libya suffices for justice


Written by: Patrick Henningsen
http://www.infowars.com, October 20, 2011

It appears that Libya’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi may have been handed down his final verdict by NATO rebels, but it’s perhaps an even more bloody awful fate already suffered by a morally detached western civilization.

Patrick Henningsen

The man who liberated his country from the tyrannical monarchy of King Idris back in 1969… was tried and sentenced by bullet today.

Gaddafi modeled himself after Omar Mukhtar, The Lion of the Desert, the only other man who has led a genuine, independent Libyan resistance, fighting against a brutal Italian colonization in 1927. Yet, our media tell us it’s just another dead tyrant.

This has become the new narrative in the US and western Europe now, where foreign leaders and other non-state actors with brown skin are given lengthy trials through press briefings by suited politicians in places like Washington, London and Paris, echoed by the corporate media until an antagonist is born for public consumption.

Following the White House’s comical staged hoax of SEAL Team 6′s gallant raid on long-dead Osama bin Laden, and with no evidence to show it actually happened other than President Obama’s TV speeches- we get the next public assassination. After all, Obama’s far-fetched tale of the bin-Laden mission somehow vindicated all those innocent lives ruined by US incarceration and outright torture of thousands of young men since the War on Terror officially began in 2001.

Al Jazeera will no doubt play the shaky cell phone video of the man being stripped and dragged through the streets of Sirte by the NATO rebel mob. Somehow they believe, Gaddafi’s brutal post-mortem will vindicate their careless efforts and somehow make right the thousands of innocents who have perished- so that Libya can finally become part of the globalist, debt-based, neoliberal economic IMF system.

The west and its banking elite have nothing left to plunder other than middle class pension funds and incomes, so it is relying on countries in the east and south in order to refill its sadly diminishing coffers.

The same treatment was given to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Like Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden, he worked hand in hand with America’s CIA and Britain’s MI6 in order to help western intelligence agencies achieve their operational goals, and thus the foreign policy objectives of the US, Great Britain and Israel. Grainy cell phone videos of Saddam’s circus execution somehow vindicated those in the west who liquidated so many innocent Iraqi lives since 1991, and arguably before.

This is the new trend in dispensing due process, in a declining western civilization where blood-lust suffices for justice.

After the protracted media trials of both Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, globalist power-brokers will never allow their war criminals to stand trial and spill the beans on all their dirty little secrets.

Over the last few decades, both Americans and western Europeans have become well-trained media consumers, and absorb their talking points much in the same way that grade school children dutifully repeat after their teachers and walk in single file. As adults, their teachers are CNN, FOX, the BBC, and the newest addition to the state information corps, US CENTCOM’s own Al Jazeera. None of them have any genuine moral or ethical perspective left in their editorial vision. The corporate networks will reserve any real humanitarian compassion for a handful of trapped miners, baby seals, missing Caucasian children and Amanda Knox.

Our new teachers have taught the dutifully-minded among us that when the mob labels a head of state or non-state actor as a tyrant, then regime change must take place, and that this man deserves to die. They have taught us that one dead US soldier is worth more in headlines than 100 dead brown skinned Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, or Libyans- women and children included. That is the overwhelming power of the 21st century media.

Will Libya have anything near the stability it enjoyed over the last 30 years? Will its people enjoy the mountain of state benefits available to them under the Gaddafi rein? Will Libyans be able to retain ownership of their country’s bounty of natural resources, and see the state reinvesting its profits back into their country for the benefit of future generations?

History has taught us that the answer to each and every one of these questions is of course… no.

History has written all over the sands of  the Maghreb of North Africa, and Libya in particular. It has always been under the thumb of one empire or another- from the Romans, the Spanish, the Vatican’s Knights of Malta, the Ottomans, and Mussolini’s Italy.

Libya’s first brush with America came in the early 19th century, when war broke out between the United States and what was then  referred to as Tripolitania, in what came to be known as the Barbary Wars. Only this time around the Barbary pirates are on the other side of the fighting, and they are known the world over by the name of ‘NATO’.

It’s only fitting that this latest chapter of history should be written as follows…

It was clear from day one that the Anglo-American empire, along with its clients like Qatar, were actively supporting and planning to bring destablization to the country. From the very first days of the civil war in Janurary 2011, before the shell casings had even hit the ground, western envoys and consultants worked with known al-Qaida fighters and criminals in Libya to form a new NTC government, a new central bank and a new state oil holding company. NATO were deployed to give brutal air support to these new gangs of rebel paramilitaries, and for nearly 10 months, both those groups killed, tortured, raped and looted everything in their path.

Meanwhile, offshore transnational corporations from the US, Europe and Qatar carved up the country’s assets. Months followed years of instability, infighting and acts of internal retribution followed. The poor became poorer, the rich became richer, organized crime blossomed and thousands of middle class Libyans were allowed to immigrate to the UK, France and Italy.

This would come to be known as Libya’s liberation.

What it means

The UN issued the citation, and NATO came in with the tow truck. Make no mistake, in the real world, NATO is the USA and the USA is NATO. It’s a politically correct way of using military force without being seen to be acting alone as an imperial aggressor. But what about the NTC’s death squads, the theft, the rape, the torture and destruction of citizens’ property, business, and whole lives?

To pass the buck a little further, NATO’s goals and end-game is handed over to Libya’s NTC, this way everyone’s asses are covered.

Politicans in Washington, London and Paris should be proud. They got everything they wanted, and with no dirt under their nails.

If no one in the US, UK, France, the UN or NATO’s technicians of death are held accountable for the sacking and looting of Libya- the crime of the 21st century, then expect that they will simply move forward, and do it again, and again. So who’s next? Syria?

There is no more moral highground, no more western values, no beliefs to use as a back-stop for western civilization.

Was Gaddafi guilty? Is that it, a bullet? He will never be afforded the same trial that anyone reading this article would expect as their god-given right. So what makes any among us believe that we deserve any of these so-called rights?

Who are we kidding?

Source:  http://www.infowars.com/decline-of-western-civilization-blood-lust-in-the-streets-of-libya-suffices-for-justice/

And

http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/10/21/decline-of-the-west-blood-lust-in-the-streets-of-libya-suffices-for-justice/

About: Living Economies Forum


This is a re-posting compilation of three pages of the very informative website Living Economies Forum about: The People-Centered Development Forum (PCDForum) organization:

The People-Centered Development Forum

LOOKING FOR THE PCDForum WEBSITE?

Our former pcdforum.org, davidkorten.org and greatturning.org sites are now integrated into this livingeconomies.org site. Most material from thse sites of current or historical relevance is available here. You will find most of the content from pcdforum.org (also pcdf.org and developmentforum.net) under the “About Us” or “Library” sections. If you having difficulty finding a particular favorite item, try our site search function at the top right of this page.  Also see “About Us.

Our History

David Korten

The People-Centered Development Forum (PCDForum) [see also “About Us“] is the legal name of our organization. We trace our origin to March 1987, when more than a hundred leaders of non-governmental organizations and other development professionals from forty-two countries met in London for a Symposium on “Development Alternatives: The Challenge for NGOs.” Participants concluded that conventional development has failed and that officially favored prescriptions disempower and impoverish the majority of people and destroy the environment.

It became evident to many of us that the leadership for change would not come from the World Bank, the IMF or official agencies that remained committed to failed prescriptions. Change would depend on voluntary citizen leaders acting outside the establishment.

The founders of the PCDForum were among a then small and lonely band that stood up to challenge the prevailing growth-centered economic development mode. Recognizing the need for a global support group, we launched the PCDForum on January 1, 1990. Our office was in the Makati financial district of Manila, Philippines. A few months after our founding we released Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda authored by David C. Korten, to carry our framing message to the world:

The human burden on the earth’s ecosystem already exceeds sustainable limits. Growth-centered economic policies increase this burden, accelerate the breakdown of the earth’s regenerative systems, and intensify the competition between rich and poor for the earth’s remaining real wealth. The result is a three-fold human crisis of increasing poverty, environmental destruction, and social disintegration. Growth-centered development must be replaced with a development that strengthens the self-reliant capacity of people and communities to better use their own resources to meet their own needs. Because official aid agencies are captive to internal structures and imperatives that serve the flawed logic of growth-centered development, leadership for change must come from citizen volunteers motivated by life-centered values rather than conventional economic and political rewards.

From 1990 through 1997 the Forum maintained an Information Service that distributed path-breaking think-pieces to cooperating publications around the world. By the end of 1991, the Forum had signed on 86 leading intellectual activists from 31 countries to as contributing editors who made regular contributions. By the end of 1997, some 200 people had served as PCDForum Contributing Editors at one time or another. They were, however, no longer a lonely and isolated band and the PCDForum Information Service no longer fulfilled a distinctive role.

Recognizing that the issue went well beyond the dysfunctions of myopic official aid agencies that the United States is the primary driver of the dysfunction, we moved the Forum’s office from Manila to New York City in 1992 and gradually began to focus our attention on the institutions of corporate globalization.

In 1994 we joined a parallel conversation with a global group of activists who formed the International Forum on Globalization (IFG). For nearly 10 years, the IFG served as the leading voice of a growing global citizen resistance against corporate globalization.

The PCDForum launched When Corporations Rule the World, by David Korten in October 1995. It become an international best seller and opened the Forum’s access to radio, television, and mass print media reaching millions of people. The second edition, which was released in April 2001, documented the global resistance movement that emerged subsequent to the release of the first edition.

It became increasingly evident that although resistance against a destructive economic system is essential, it only slows the damage. Change depends on active citizen engagement in building alternatives. To this end, the Forum took a lead role in establishing YES! Magazine dedicated to advancing awareness of positive alternatives and assisting individuals in finding their place of contribution toward their realization.

In March 1999 we released The Post-Corporate World:
Life After Capitalism
, which applies principles derived from the study of living systems to the creation of economies that serve life rather than money. This led to our contribution in 1991 to founding the Business
Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) to support local organizers in rebuilding local economies grounded in living system principles.

A few months later, the historic November 1999 Seattle protest against the World Trade Organization (WTO) by a broad alliance of labor, religious, environmental, youth, peace, women’s, gay and lesbian, human rights, sustainable agriculture, food safety and other groups marked a defining moment in the emergence of what eventually became known as global civil society. Successful disruption of the WTO negotiations inspired millions of people around the world to participate in similar protest actions in an expression of global solidarity.

In 2005, we launched The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community to put these events into a larger evolutionary and historical context. We focused on communicating and mobilizing around the Great Turning framework until the global financial collapse of September 2008. The collapse focused global attention on Wall Street excesses and opened an unprecedented window of opportunity to address the need for economic system transformation.

We launched the 1st edition of Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth in January 2009 to make the case that reforming the Wall Street system is not an answer. It must be replaced. We simultaneously joined with the Institute for Policy Studies in DC, YES! Magazine, and BALLE to form the New Economy Working Group to further develop the New Economy framework and advance its implementation.

The updated and expanded 2nd edition of Agenda for a New Economy was released in June 2010 as a report of the New Economy Working Group.

The Forum’s Defining Books

These books represent the progression of my primary contributions to framing a New Economy grounded in living system principles. Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning, The Post-Corporate World, When Corporations Rule the World, and Getting to the 21st Century defined critical stages in the Forum’s now more than 20 year campaign to change the stories that frame the economic discourse of our time. <See The Forum and the Economic Story Revolution> Note that this list puts the most recent first. To follow their story in chronological sequence, start from the bottom with Getting to the 21st Century.

Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth
A Declaration of Independence from Wall Street.

Agenda for a New Economy 2nd edition cover“The most important book to emerge thus far on the economic crisis. David Korten provides real solutions.”

— Peter Barnes, cofounder of Working Assts and author of Capitalism 3.0

This updated and expanded 2nd edition of Agenda is my most current and comprehensive effort to lay out a holistic New Economy agenda and a path to its realization. It brings together the spiritual, evolutionary, and historical perspectives of The Great Turning, the living systems perspective of The Post-Corporate World, and the critical organizational systems analysis of the failings global corporate capitalism of the 1st edition of When Corporations Rule the World, and the insights into the emergence and dynamic of global civil society of the 2nd edition of Corporations. The underlying message is clear and simple: Wall Street is corrupt beyond repair and serves no useful functions now better addressed in other ways. It must be replaced.

This new edition of Agenda is issued as a report of the New Economy Working Group (NEWGroup), which I helped to form following the financial crash of 2008 to take to the next level the policy framework outlined in the first edition of Agenda. The result of a year and a half of NEWGroup effort is a considerably more coherent and holistic systems agenda. It launched on June 12, 2010 in Washington, DC in the shadow of the capital building.

Perhaps the most significant advance is in the treatment of the money system as a system of power and the examination of critical money system design options and their implications. This provides the basis for a more systemic and nuanced treatment of key design choices needed to shift the values focus from money to life and the locus of power from global financial institutions to people and place based communities—call it a transition to real markets and democracy.

The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community:

(2006) I wrote The Great Turning to put the economic crisis in its deeper spiritual, evolutionary, and historical context. It became evident following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers that the global citizen movement that emerged in response to the devastation wrought by corporate globalization needed a larger organizing framework. Events following the attack, drew attention to the fact that  the  rise of modern corporate power is only a modern manifestation of much deeper psychological, cultural, and institutional forces that have shaped the dominant human societies for 5,000 years. I joined with Nicanor Perlas from the Philippines and Vandana Shiva from India to examine the implications. We presented our conclusions in a discussion paper titled “Global Civil Society: The Path Ahead” released in November 2002. This paper in turn became a foundation for The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.  For more on this book and why I wrote it see “Everybody Wants to Rules the World: David Korten on Putting an End to Global Competition,” an interview by Arnie Cooper published in The Sun, September 2007.

David Korten never fails to shake me out of my complacency, and reveal complacencies I didn’t even know I had. This work is a stunning and compassionate tour de force, calling on history, science, economics and our human goodwill to illuminate the fact that we are at a fundamental choice point. I can’t stop thinking about the issues he raises nor what I’m going to do with my awakened consciousness. Thank you David.
—Margaret J. Wheatley, author Leadership and the New Science

Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World is Possible

The International Forum on Globalization (IFG) played a defining role in exposing the reality of corporate globalization and inspiring the global resistance movement. It was one of my primary affiliations during this period and a major influence on my work. The IFG formed around a shared critique. As that critique gave impetus to popular mobilization around the world, other IFG members joined my call to move beyond resistance and seize the initiative by framing and advancing a positive alternative to the free-trade, market deregulation regime being advanced by the world’s transnational corporations. We decided to produce a book length report presenting such a framework. I was an active member of the international team of 21 movement leaders who produced Alternatives to Economic Globalization under the editorial leadership of John Cavanagh and Jerry Mander. Our report spells out a more coherent and fully developed alternatives to the current rules and institutions of economic globalization than any previous such effort.

The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism  (1999)

This visionary, life-affirming sequel to When Corporations Rule the world sold over 25,000 copies in eight languages.

As the emerging global resistance movement against corporate globalization’s assault against democracy, community, and the natural environment gained momentum, it became clear that any individual victory would be only temporary until the life-destructive economic system is replaced by a life-serving system. We needed a compelling framework to demonstrate the power and natural potential of a radically decentralized community rooted economic system that defines a positive alternative to the ills of both capitalism and socialism.

I found the needed framework in insights from a small band of biologists working at the cutting edge of biology who were unraveling the secrets of life’s extraordinary capacity self-organize, innovate, and ever advance the boundaries of the possible. Their path breaking findings about life’s capacity for creative self-organization became the foundation of The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism, which makes the translation from biological systems to economic systems to demonstrate the true potential of rule-based market economies that honor the foundational assumptions of grounded market theory.

When Corporations Rule the World (1995 & 2001)

Classic international best-seller with worldwide sales over 120,000 copies sold in fifteen languages.

As Fran and I moved from Manila to New York City in 1992, it was becoming ever more clear that the economic dysfunctions we witnessed in Asia were systemic, global, and a consequence a global consolidation of corporate power. Far from bringing universal prosperity, peace, and democracy, corporate globalization was spreading deprivation, violence, and political corruption.

I flew back to the Philippines in October for a ten day retreat in Baguio with a small group of Asian NGO leaders to reflect on  Asia’s development experience and its implications for future NGO strategies in the region. The conclusions of this retreat became the basis of a collective report titled “Economy, Ecology & Spirituality: A theory and Practice of Sustainability,” which outlined many of the ideas developed in my subsequent books and served as the foundation for  the first edition of When Corporations Rule the World.  One conclusion of this retreat that has shaped the work of the Forum ever since is that the need is not for an alternative theory of development, but rather a theory of a just and sustainable society that embraces the spiritual dimension of life and community.

I became involved in the earlier gatherings of the International Forum (IFG) in 1994 as I was completing the manuscript for the book, which was in turn influenced by those conversations with many of the leaders of what was to become a global resistance movement against corporate globalization, which was in turn shaped in part by the messages of the book. The first edition was launched in the Fall of 1995, just before the historic IFG teach-in at New York’s Riverside Church that brought the issue of corporate globalization to the fore of the consciousness of progressive leaders from throughout North America.

The first edition makes no mention of a global resistance movement, because it was not yet visible by the time of the launch. From the Fall of 1994 forward the resistance quickly grew in size and visibility. The success of the November 1999 demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle gave the movement global visibility, disrupted the process of multilateral trade negotiations, and energized ever larger protests. By 2000, When Corporations Rule the World had become an international classic. At the urging of my publisher I wrote an updated 2nd edition that launched in early 2001 with five new chapters on the further advance of the global corporate takeover and the nature and dynamic of the then powerful global resistance.

Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda (1990)

I wrote or edited 6 books prior to Getting to the 21st Century, all addressed primarily to people working on problems of Third World development. This one represents a critical transition to a focus on global systems failure and the essential role of citizen action in addressing it. I was critical of the drive for growth at all costs, but growth was so at the forefront of the consciousness of the audience I hoped to reach that I equivocated with a call for a different kind of growth that begins with policies to increase equity and builds growth on that foundation. I largely finessed the larger issue, as so many economists still do, of what Herman Daly famously called the “impossibility theorem” that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet.

I continue, however, to hold to the book’s central message that our most powerful government institutions lack the capacity for self-transformation. Therefore, the essential transformational system change necessarily depends on the leadership of people willing to forgo conventional institutional financial and political rewards. Getting to the 21st Century thus anticipated the emergence of global civil society as a people power counter to the forces of corporate empire and framed the initial guiding vision of the People-Centered Development Forum (PCDF).

About Us

Our Website

This website integrates three previous sites maintained by David Korten and the People-Centered Developments Forum (PCDForum): davidkorten.org, greatturning.org and pcdforum.org. It serves as the web home of David Korten, the PCDForum, and the Forum’s work on the themes defined by our two most recent books: Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.

Most websites reflect the chaos and clutter of modern sound-bite communication. Our goal with this Living Economies Forum Website is to help our visitors cut through the clutter to see and understand the big picture from a systems perspective. We undertake this challenge not as an academic exercise, but because we believe a systems framework is essential to effective action to create a future that works for all our children.

In addition, we have designed this site to serve as a portal to our partner organizations and to David Korten’s current thoughts and commentary on Twitter, Facebook, and his blog at yesmagazine.org.

Founded in 1990 as the People-Centered Development Forum, the Living Economies Forum works with and through partner organizations and a circle of extraordinary colleagues to articulate and communicate framing ideas that light the path to a New Economy grounded in positive living system principles that recognize life’s extraordinary capacity for cooperative self-organization.

We are a small organization with an ambitious vision and a proud history paralleling the historic emergence of global civil society. [See The Forum and the Economic Story Revolution.] We are currently based  in the United States near Seattle, Washington on Bainbridge Island.

Since the time of our founding, we have been a global leader in efforts to expose the fallacies and illusions relating to economic growth models, corporate led economic globalization, and the Wall Street phantom-wealth machine. We are currently focused on advancing awareness of New Economy alternatives based on real-democracy and real-markets.

Our Logo

Our spiral logo symbolizes life’s continuing process of renewal as the dying of the old gives way to the birthing of the new. It is evocative of the Ollin, an ancient Aztec symbol for movement and evolution. Here it signifies this historical moment when we humans may perceive and actualize new possibilities latent in our being.

Our Name

When the Forum was founded in 1990, our defining concern was that Third World development programs and policies too often gave greater priority to producing financial returns than to improving the lives of people. We observed millions of people being displaced from the lands and waters that were their source of livelihoods to make way for “development” projects that served those already better off.

We founded the People-Centered Development Forum to advance a dialogue aimed at making people the centerpiece of development. That was more than 20 years ago.

Our analysis, language, and reach have since evolved. To serve people, the economy must serve the whole of life and the very meaning of the term development has become corrupted beyond redemption. We must come to think of economies as flows of life energy rather than flows of money. Thus, we present ourselves here as the Living Economies Forum devoted to defining a living future of living communities, service by living economies comprised of living enterprises with living owners. We support living markets of the sort envisioned by Adam Smith, who recognized that markets work best when they are predominantly local and operate within a framework of shared moral principles and sensible rules.

Our Organization

We have two full-time staff. David Korten serves as president and Kat Gjovik serves as director of communications and outreach. We have a five member governing board, an international advisory board, four primary partner organizations, and a advisory panel of of Great Turning navigator advisers. We remain small by choice to maintain our ability to respond quickly and flexibly to emergent opportunities. We achieve scale by working with and through other organizations and influential colleagues, which allows us to achieve a level of influence far beyond our modest size.

Our Vision

We envision a planetary system of interlinked locally-rooted, living-wealth economies that mimic the living structures and dynamics of Earth’s biosphere and support ecological balance, a just distribution of Earth’s real wealth, and a living democracy inclusive of all beings.

Our Mission

We contribute to creating a New Economy supportive of this vision by working with and through partner organizations to:

  • Articulate its cultural and institutional design characteristics;
  • Raise public awareness of the possibilities, requirements, and path to its realization;
  • Develop supporting theory and practice;
  • Provide tools for civil society organizations engaged in advancing the necessary cultural and institutional transition.

Our Theory of Change

We believe that transformational system change is most likely to be achieved through a process of emergence and succession that draws inspiration from forest ecology. Organizational change practitioner Margaret Wheatley says it well.

Once an emergent phenomenon has appeared, it can’t be changed by working backwards, by changing the local parts that gave birth to it. You can only change an emergent phenomenon by creating a countervailing force of greater strength. This means that the work of change is to start over, to organize new local efforts, connect them to each other, and know that their values and practices can emerge as something even stronger.
—Margaret Wheatley

We see virtually no prospect that the Wall Street system will transform itself from within. Change depends on citizen’s working from outside the establishment to create from the bottom up a New Economy based on new values and institutions. As they grow the New Economy into being, it provides others with ever more  diverse and attractive opportunities to redirect their investment, employment, and shopping choices from the old to the new. As people thus redirect their life energy to the New Economy from the Old Economy, the New Economy becomes ever stronger and more vibrant.

Our Strategy

We think of ourselves as a movement building catalyst working with a select group of individual and organizational partners to advance a three-fold strategy for navigating a Great Turning from Empire to Earth Community.

The Forum Archive of selected publications and presentations provides a record of the earlier phases of our work when our focus was on the patterns of economic development in the world’s low income countries.

  1. Change the framing stories of the culture to accelerate the awakening of a new consciousness of our species potential to create vibrant self-organizing, life-serving societies and economies based on real markets and real democracy. YES! Magazine is our lead partner on changing the story.
  2. Create a new economic reality through citizen action to build from the bottom up a global system of local living economies. The Business Alliance for Local Living Economies is our lead partner on creating a new living economy reality.
  3. Change the rules to favor behavior and institutions that support ecological balance, equitable distribution, and living democracy over behavior and institutions that support environmental destruction, wealth concentration, and political corruption. The Institute for Policy Studies is our lead partner on changing the rules.

Historically, our primary contribution has been to element #1: changing the framing stories of the culture.  This aligns with our distinctive competence and will continue to be our primary focus. Geographically, our focus is on advancing the awakening in the United States—the world’s one remaining self-proclaimed Empire.

The source: the Living Economies Forum

You will find many articles of David Korten, co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, on his blog which is on YES! Magazine Blogs

YES! Magazine has Ongoing coverage of the people’s movement #OccupyWallStreet to take back our democracy and build a new economy.

“End the FED” and Ron Paul Political Positions


After the obvious and miserable failures of Barack Obama to deliver honest changes and his military assaults and interventions in Africa and other developing countries, now it is the right time to start supporting more friendly and Republican US presidential candidate in 2012 elections.

Congressman Ron Paul Republican 2012 Presidential Candidate

Ronald Ernest “Ron “ Paul is an American medical doctor, author, Republican U.S. Congressman of the House of Representatives and candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. Paul is currently the U.S. Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas.

Paul serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, and the House Committee on Financial Services, and is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, where he has been an outspoken critic of current American foreign and monetary policy.

He wrote End the Fed book published in 2009. The book debuted at number six on the New York Times Best Seller list and advocates the abolition of the US Federal Reserve Bank System.

End the FED by Ron Paul

Paul is United States presidential candidate in 1988, 2008, and 2012, have been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. Paul has been nicknamed “Dr. No” reflecting both his medical degree and his assertion that he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution” and “Mr. Republican”. This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole “no” vote against proposed legislation. One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002. Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution during 2002.

He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. He endorses free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as “managed trade”. He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. An opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran, he has also criticized neo-conservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans. Paul has stated that “Israel is our close friend” and that it is not the place of the United States to “dictate how Israel runs her affairs”.

Paul is a proponent of Austrian school economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian school economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland)[85] on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes; he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during the 1995-1997 period. He has pledged never to raise taxes and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels; financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

Paul has a consistent record as an inflation hawk, having warned of the threat of hyperinflation as far back as 1981. While Paul believes the long-term decrease of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing, he does not endorse a “return” to a gold standard – as the U.S. government has established during the past – but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be. He also advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System.

Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft. Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states’ rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. Paul terms himself “strongly pro-life”, “an unshakable foe of abortion”, and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level”. He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get “the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.” Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: “In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty.”

He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty (although he opposes capital punishment), of education, and of marriage, and endorses revising the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual). As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[citation needed] He also opposes the federal War on Drugs, and believes the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana. Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. He is an outspoken proponent for increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates and numerous election law reforms which he believes would allow more voter control. Referring to the federal government, Ron Paul has also stated that “The government shouldn’t be in the medical business.” He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs.

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society”.

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against “The Path to Prosperity”.

Foreign policy

Paul’s stand on foreign policy issues has drawn support across the political spectrum. His views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.[citation needed] Paul is quoted as stating “America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations”, while advocating “open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations”. Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul’s foreign policy views, stating “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, has said of Paul: “On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well.” Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul “agree tremendously on international policy”.

Non-intervention

Paul’s stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.

Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others. He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid. The National Journal labeled Paul’s overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005). For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).

In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today… we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons.”

The World Trade Organization

Paul states that the WTO is a barrier to free trade and that the economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. “Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced…. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a “deal”. Paul introduced HJR 90 to withdraw membership from the World Trade Organization.

International trade

Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations”.[49] He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

Paul also has a 57% voting record in favor of free trade in the House of Representatives, according to the Cato Institute.

Lower spending and smaller government

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

Lower taxes

Paul’s campaign slogan for 2004 was “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend!” He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts. He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals’ lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech. A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.

Inflation and the Federal Reserve

In the words of the New York Times, Paul is “not a fan” of the Federal Reserve. Paul’s opposition to the Fed is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the “hidden tax” of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the “inflation tax” is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Free-market environmentalism

As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.

The sources:

The Political positions of Ron Paul

The Wikipedia on Ron Paul

Wall Street “Half-wayers” of Generations


"You" here is refering to both Half-wayers and their masters

Half-wayers are of any occupation or business

In all countries, including the USA, Greece, and Spain, there are considerable portion of the population of each generation that might be labeled as the “Half-wayers”. These are the unsuccessful but still they are grateful and defendant of the socio-economic system in place. They are mostly of older ages, but still you can find them in less ambitious youth.

The Half-wayers are middle-classers who feel indebted to the unjust and corrupt system because deep in their hearts and minds they believe that they have achieved and acquired more than what they fairly and normally deserve. This kind of people might not be corrupt; but they assume that without such system they would have been ruined and abject losers. This is the only reason why they defend the system meekly and brutally; or at least fear and reject any movement that might bring possible change.

The Half-wayers put their conscience on indefinite leave upon unspoken orders from their rich employers or sponsors. They always look for other unhealthy means to release their internal frustrations, disrespect, and disgust. These vents might include: eating; sex; violent sports; consumption; or peer socializing.

The relationship between the Half-wayers and their employers or sponsors is opportunistic and does not include appreciation or regard. Those rich investors who make the socio-economic system own the tools; and the Half-wayers are among these tools. They must do their jobs but cannot join the elites, with very limited exceptions to lure them to keep going and fantasizing.

Any mass movement that is struggling to bring social, political, and economic real changes, like the current Occupy Wall Street, will have considerable difficulties in dealing with the Half-wayers. Despite that such movements care and defend the rights of these groups but at the same time you will find the Half-wayers are rejecting any medicines and even acting to worsen their conditions.

The Half-wayers while are victims they stand on the wrong side of the fight; they are present in every field: unions; police; judiciary; political parties; media; public service; entrepreneurs; sex workers, and even the unemployed. This complicates the struggle to bring meaningful changes while avoiding shooting yourself in the foot.

The Half-wayers must realize that they are not spoiled kids or insane patients. They must know that they are much safer, prosperous, and dignified with the new system in the making. The Half-wayers do not need to sip free Champaign from the balconies or manhandle protesters in Wall Street while their masters are pulling their strings.

USA Liberal Democracy is Like $#!T


Who needs words after reading these graphs?

If you are among the bottom 40% of the US population then you have nothing in the USA. But the bottom 60% of the US population own only 5% of the wealth. This is ridiculous even for a third World country! What kind of democracy is this?

The American Dream means that you have 99% chance to earn $85 per day! Of course, if you get a job first.

Be happy, your income is flat for the last thirty years and your taxes are increasing! Because the poor billionaires will pay less taxes and get rocket increases in their income.

Ditto!

Ditto!


Finito.

Ashamed America and Corrupt Liberal Democracy


Ashamed America and Corrupt Liberal Democracy

You don’t need to be a professional expert or shrewd politician to know that US democracy, and liberal democracy in general, serves capitalists and not the other way around. The main responsibility of people representatives in any healthy democracy is to discover, protect and promote the interests of the people and the nation at large.

Look at the following graph which was issued by Alan De Smet based on “Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1947 to 2007”, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, as found at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01AR.html. The original data at U.S. Census Bureau is unfortunately inaccessible now but there is a backup copy .

Income inequality in the United States

This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2007, in 2007 dollars. It illustrates income inequality in the United States.

The graph indicates clearly that the richest 5% of the US population is getting richer at a steady rocket speed since 1950 and until 2010, while the poorest 5% are at flat income during the same period. Anybody should ask where the so-called trickle-down effect of capitalism is.

At Wikipedia you will find a very important post stating the following:

[Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas it had been declining during the mid-20th century.  As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only a few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.

Alan Greenspan stated before Congress in 2005:

As I’ve often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society – a capitalist democratic society – can really accept without addressing.]

Can anybody say that the US political democratic system is functioning properly? My answer is a big NO.

Therefore, the causes and demands of Occupy Wall Street movement are legitimate and just; especially, forming a presidential commission to separate money from politics.

World Revolution for Real Democracy


World Revolution Now; UNITED FOR GLOBAL CHANGE,

World Revolution for Real Democracy: People of the world Rise Up on October 15, http://15october.net/ and https://www.facebook.com/15octobernet .

UNITED FOR GLOBAL CHANGE is an organization based in Spain and it works with the following:

1- Direct Democracy Now! Greece http://real-democracy.gr/

2- Real democracy NOW (Spanish: Democracia real YA) Spain http://www.democraciarealya.es/

3- Occupy Wall Street USA http://occupywallst.org/

4- Occupy the London Stock Exchange, UK, http://www.facebook.com/occupylondon

5- Occupy Together, USA, http://www.occupytogether.org/

6- October 15, Events all over the World, for a full long list of cities around the World go to: http://15october.net/where/

Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3X2VFruLM&feature=player_embedded

We Need A Real Democracy!

On October 15th citizens around the world will take to the streets to express outrage at how our rights are being undermined by the alliance between politicians and big corporations.

From Democracia real YA (Real Democracy Now) we invite you to participate in this peaceful protest by joining our call to action or by calling for other actions on this date. It is time to raise our voice. Our future is at stake, and nothing can hold back the power of millions of people when they unite for a common goal.

Democracia real YA is a platform that originated in Spain to coordinate various civil mobilization groups. Under the slogan “We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers”, thousands of people took to the streets on May 15th to demand a more participatory democracy, to reject corruption in Spain’s political system, and to show our opposition to the austerity measures imposed on us.

Following the success of that first demonstration, several movements emerged. Acampadas (tent cities) were set up in central squares across the country, much like the first occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo.

The acampadas gave rise to popular assemblies, where citizens shape their goals through an inclusive non-hierarchal decision making process. The May 15 movement soon expanded beyond Spanish borders and inspired actions in numerous cities around the world, including a mass demonstration against the Euro Pact last June 19th.

Pressured by financial powers, our political leaders work for the benefit of just a few, regardless of the social, human or environmental cost this may cause. By promoting wars for profit and impoverishing whole populations, our ruling classes are depriving us of our right to a free and just society.

That’s why we invite you to join this peaceful fight and spread the message that together we have the ability to change this intolerable situation. Let’s take to the streets on October 15th. It’s time for them to listen to us. United we will make our voices heard!

On October 15th people from all over the world will take to the streets and squares. From America to Asia, from Africa to Europe, people are rising up to claim their rights and demand a true democracy. Now it is time for all of us to join in a global nonviolent protest.

The ruling powers work for the benefit of just a few, ignoring the will of the vast majority and the human and environmental price we all have to pay. This intolerable situation must end.

United in one voice, we will let politicians, and the financial elites they serve, know it is up to us, the people, to decide our future.

We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers who do not represent us.

On October 15th, we will meet on the streets to initiate the global change we want. We will peacefully demonstrate, talk and organize until we make it happen.

It’s time for us to unite. It’s time for them to listen.

People of the world, rise up on October 15th!

%d bloggers like this: