Archive for the ‘No nukes’ Category

Ending Perpetual War, The Indigo Doctrine

September 1, 2015

OpEdNews Op Eds 9/1/2015 at 12:09:05

By Ethan Indigo Smith (about the author) Permalink (Page 1 of 5 pages)
Related Topic(s): Corporate; Government; Internet; Military; Nuclear; Peace; People; Perpetual War; Politics; Power; (more…) Add to My Group(s)
Must Read 3 Well Said 2 News 1
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
(17 fans)

By Ethan Indigo Smith

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles.

Everything is ultimately political these days, but everything is firstly biological. Yet, ignoring our biology and our humanity, the military-industrial complex, with all its toxic modalities, still claims to operate in our best interests.

The fact is, modern politics has become the imposition of institutional formality where individuals and truth once were. Increasingly favoring institutional privilege over individual rights, politicians on all sides of the game act to reinforce and advance the standing of corporations at the expense of our physical world. They embark on resource wars for profit, destroy our environment for energy, construe zealotry as patriotism, and steer a culture of social competition — not cooperation — all the while hiding behind veils of secrecy and meaningless rhetoric.

 

It does not matter what caste you were born into, whether you are wealthy or poor, victor or victim of the system; as far as the big picture goes, we live in a world where commerce, politics and war are dominant and inseparable forces. The outcome of this dangerous combination affects everyone and everything. So, whether we feel comfortable or constrained within the current paradigm, we are still ultimately at its mercy. And whether you care to stay informed or not, ignorance doesn’t alleviate you, or our ailing planet, of its burdens.

The Nuclear Energy and Armament Experiments
One of the largest tentacles of the military-industrial complex is the nuclear experimentation facet of their operations. These operations include both energy and armament — programs which are inextricably linked, as I will demonstrate — with negative impacts on all life on earth and, and when disaster strikes, capable of negating life altogether.

Maintaining a deafening silence over the ongoing Fukushima disaster, for example, the world’s political heads show zero regard for our biological wellbeing (much less our social wellbeing) in both the formulation and the execution of policy. Instead of shutting down the deadly reactors at Fukushima, the world’s powers simply shut down any information about the situation.
For example, the Japanese government passed a law through Parliament, called the “States Secret Act” following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. Under this act, both officials and private citizens who leak “special state secrets” (ie. details of the disaster) face prison terms of up to 10 years, while journalists who publish classified information (ie. all relevant information) face up to five years. [1] Meanwhile, in 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s response to increases in detected radiation levels within the United States was to reduce the use of radiation monitoring while at the same time, raising the official allowable levels of radiation in food, water and soil. [2] Of course, this was not reported by mainstream media.

Nor was the 2014 partial shutdown of the Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point facility in the Miami area, following a steam leak that resulted from the failure of the archaic facility’s cooling system. [3] While mainstream news completely blocked coverage of this potential meltdown situation, the facility remained in operation not because it managed to rectify the cooling problem, but because the corporation lobbied for special permission to violate allowable water temperature safety thresholds from the previous limit of 100’F limit up to 103’F. [4]

The simple reason for the secrecy and suppression of information is that the nuclear experimentation industry is just that — an experiment. Although it is touted as a ‘clean’ technology, the nuclear industry has no mechanism for disposing of the radioactive waste it generates, and no viable plan for such a mechanism in the future. All it has is a plan to contain the mounting radioactive waste it generates each day and store it for the million years it takes for radioactive waste to break down naturally.

So, whether nor not we accept or reject the philosophies of government, it is an inarguable fact that our biology, and that of our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren — is at the complete mercy of those individuals who, hiding behind political formality, have their fingers “on the button”. And, for as long as their priorities are clearly shaped by the objectives of the corporate-military-industrial complex, there is very little mercy involved. Instead our collective future and the future of our planet is heavily influenced by corporate profitability and contrived political hemispheres which, with the support of corporate media, teeter between deliberately limited polarities, never really making progress or improvement or exploring possibilities — such as peaceful solutions, or sustainable energy investment — beyond those which may profit those already in power.

It was once theorized by power-brokers that nuclear power plants would deter any major revolution from taking place, because it would be too dangerous to jeopardize a nuclear power plants’ operations. This idea is similar to the political schematic that the whole world has lived under for decades; that of Mutually Assured Destruction — or the aptly shortened M.A.D., which assumes the only counter-balance that prevents nuclear war is the threat of nuclear war itself.

However the revolution in the former U.S.S.R. changed the understanding that nuclear experiments would deter revolution — but was it a real revolution? How much can actually change within a nuclear society still bound by the confines of the military-industrial complex? Dare I say, besides some reshuffling of deck chairs, there really was no significant deviation that occurred. Both outside influences and inside conditions ensured the outcome remained within the confines of the existing complex — nuclear reactors and all. Revolution cannot occur when nuclear military industrial complex is integrated.

The rise of the military industrial complex changed the whole dynamic of war and peace, and in the process, steered our society from exploring sustainable energy solutions toward the constant danger of nuclear meltdown. Nuclear power generation is inherently risky of itself; both the waste it stores and the pollution it releases pose a largely unseen but no less dangerous threat to our Earth Mother, and to our biology. But it also creates obvious military strike targets for enemy nations which, if detonated, can destroy entire nations in one sweep. Building nuclear power experiments is akin to building a self-destruct button into your nation’s infrastructure; one false move, be it intentional (military) or accidental (like Fukushima), and it destroys the landscape and all who dwell on and around it for an eternity, with no known remedy.

And yet, nuclear experimentation will continue to be a threat as long as we allow corporate interests and corrupt governments to violate our human rights and natural laws, taking away individual freedoms in the name of peace, and risking our biology with these dangerous experiments. As long as we live in a war-world, where military and nuclear programs are a major part of our national and global economic and political structures, any revolution other than complete systemic reform — systemic peace and sustainability — is no revolution at all. Until war and dirty energy cease to be incentivized and by our political and economic structures, anything else is just the same game with a new name.

The Unseen Military Influence
Did you know that the internet was first developed in the 1950s to provide the military a “survivable network” through which to communicate after a global nuclear confrontation. [3] Yes, the internet is a military invention, spawned directly from the nuclear experimentation era and its inherent horrors. Similarly, The experiments that led to the development of the atomic bomb and to the development of nuclear energy were one and the same; is it any surprise, then, that (with the exception of Japan) the nations with the largest investment in nuclear energy generation are also those most heavily armed with nuclear weapons? [5] [6]

Indirectly and directly, we are all under the thumb of institutions and conventions of war. Basically, if it doesn’t benefit the military industrial complex, it simply doesn’t get developed. And this predicament reaches back for millennia. While the antiquated mode of operation of the world’s imperialists continues, all that has changed in the nuclear experimentation era is the technology.

Although we would like to believe otherwise, humanity seems unable or unwilling to consider the unseen — whether it is truths hidden by political secrecy, whether it is extra-sensory/paranormal phenomena, or whether it is a nano-sized poison. But we can no longer obfuscate the unseen threat of nuclear armageddon and the invisible nuclear radiation that is already poisoning our world. Make no mistake — the toxic fallout from failing nuclear experiments (such as Fukushima) and the proliferation of nuclear weapons experiments both pose a direct threat to our existence, no matter your desert isle locale or your mostly peaceful region of a mostly peaceful nation.

(image by open) DMCA

 

The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War
One of the best ways to gain and maintain power is to keep the people in constant fear — in fear of wars, of outsiders, and more recently, of “terrorism”. Maintaining a culture of war-minded fear ensures the public consent to the constant funding of the military-industrial-complex, under the guise of security and protection.

If we look at the history of the Presidents of the United States since the end of the Second World War, we see that each administration invented a presidential Doctrine directly pertaining to war — either inviting involvement in or directly inciting conflict.

Formerly a WWI artillery officer, President Harry S. Truman was the first U.S. president to initiate a foreign policy of intervention in relation to conflicts not related to the United States. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian [7], the Truman Doctrine of 1947″

 

“” established that the United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces. The Truman Doctrine effectively reoriented U.S. foreign policy, away from its usual stance of withdrawal from regional conflicts not directly involving the United States, to one of possible intervention in far away conflicts.”

The Truman Doctrine became the foundation of American foreign policy and led to the 1949 formation of the full-fledged military alliance NATO. Historians often credit Truman’s speech to date the start of the Cold War, with tensions with the Soviet Union increasing dramatically under his presidency.

Notably, Truman was the first U.S. president to date to initiate nuclear strikes on another nation, approving the use of atomic weapons against Japan — the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [8]

Although history remembers President John F. Kennedy as a peacemaker, The Kennedy Doctrine added fuel to the Cold War by calling “for military strength and unison in the struggle against communism” and public support for “a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.” [9] The first signs of the prevailing “war on everything” mentality in U.S. politics, Kennedy’s foreign policy also pushed the notion that, because the United States had the military and political power to control events in the international system, they should. “In the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom from its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it.” This interventionist, us-versus-them mentality of the Kennedy Doctrine dominated the Kennedy administration, and the escalation of the Cold War is a cornerstone of his presidential legacy.

The Eisenhower doctrine of 1957, while not a declaration of war, directly promoted nations to invite the U.S. to war. [10] Following the Suez conflict and the resulting loss of global prestige of U.S. allies Great Britain, France and Israel, President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed that a power vacuum had formed in the Middle East and invited other nations to request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another state. As a result, Eisenhower sent U.S. troops into Lebanon, to defend the Lebanese republic against a perceived threat from the (then) USSR. This intervention established the culture in the modern U.S. psyche of paternalistic intervention in off-shore conflicts of other nations, which still prevails today. Not surprisingly, Eisenhower came to office as a hardened military man, bringing a war-mentality to the highest office of U.S. government. A five-star general in the United States Army during World War II, he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe before being appointed the first Supreme Commander of NATO in 1951. [11]

 

Through The Nixon Doctrine of 1969, President Richard Nixon opened the floodgates of U.S. military aid to allies in the Persian Gulf, and helped set the stage for the Carter Doctrine which, in 1980, stated point-blank that the United States would use military force to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf region. This created the political culture in the United States for the subsequent direct military involvement by the U.S. in the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

Similarly, the Reagan Doctrine of the Cold War era outlined the strategy of the United States to directly oppose the influence of the Soviet Union in global matters. Whatever the Soviet influence, President Ronald Reagan vowed to oppose it, and this policy remained a centerpiece of American foreign policy until the early 1990s.

President George H.W. Bush was the last veteran of World War II (a torpedo bomber pilot) to serve as president and, once again, brought an increasing war-mentality to the U.S. Presidency. Toward the end of the Cold War, Iraq invaded its oil-rich neighbor Kuwait. Authorized by the U.N. Security Council, of which the United States is a permanent member, the United States organized a coalition of its NATO allies and other nations which, led mainly by U.S. troops, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. [12] When the Gulf War ended, President Bush instituted a policy of containment, and stationed U.S. military forces in neighboring countries. However, in 1992, Department of Defense officials working under President George H.W. Bush proposed a new U.S. military and political strategy; concluding that containment and deterrence had become obsolete, the new policy proposing the use of pre-emptive strikes as a means of “self-defense”, and of unilateral action against perceived threats to U.S. security. Although controversy surrounded the notions of pre-emptive and unilateral strikes, and they were subsequently removed from Bush’s official policy [13], both points formed the centerpiece of foreign policy (big surprise) adopted by his son, George W. Bush upon entering office in 2000.

The Clinton Doctrine of President William (Bill) J. Clinton was used to justify U.S. involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (1991 — 2001). Clinton subsequently involved the U.S. in the Bosnian War, justifying U.S. involvement on plausible humanitarian grounds; however privately, as revealed by The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, President Clinton’s involvement in Bosnia was not a humanitarian mission, rather a direct result of objections to an independent Bosnia, which would have been “unnatural” as only Muslim nation in Europe. [14] During his presidency, Clinton also presided over the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation Deliberate Force) [15], the 1998 ‘Operation Desert Fox’ bombings of Iraq (authorized by the deceptively title Iraq Liberation Act) [16], the 1999 bombings of Yugoslavia [17], and the retaliatory 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan (Operation Infinite Reach) [18]. In additional to direct strikes undertaken on behalf of other nations, President Clinton also maintained a staunch policy of containment throughout his presidency, lining the borders of enemy nations (which were dramatically increasing in number) with U.S. military bases.

However, the most famously barbarous doctrine was the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush Jr. essentially declared that the United States was adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy pertaining to perceived terrorist activities, both in other countries and at home. [19] Advocates the illogical notion of “preventive war”, the Bush Doctrine is based on the faulty reasoning that attacking a potential threat before it attacks the United States is the only way to ensure peace and security, rather than — as history has proven — the most effective way to ensure more wars and security threats.

The fact is, the United States has been at war for 222 years out of the last 239 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.

Let that sink in for a minute”

(image by wake up world) DMCA
Since U.S. involvement in World War II began in 1940, most of the world’s military operations have been initiated by the U.S.,[6] and U.S. military spending today exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending combined. [21] In addition, the U.S. also supplies in excess of $3 billion each year (over $10 million per day!) in military aid to Israel, funding the continued war in Palestine .[22]

The intertwining of the U.S. economy with the nuclear experimentation complex was eloquently described by Christopher J. Tassava from the Economic History Association [23]:

For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century” The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy)”

American techno-scientific innovations” were often hidden from public view by wartime secrecy. For instance, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic weapon was a direct and massive result of a stunning scientific breakthrough: the creation of a controlled nuclear chain reaction by a team of scientists at the University of Chicago in December 1942. Under the direction of the U.S. Army and several private contractors, scientists, engineers, and workers built a nationwide complex of laboratories and plants to manufacture atomic fuel and to fabricate atomic weapons” The Manhattan Project climaxed in August 1945, when the United States dropped two atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan” By that time, the Manhattan Project had become a colossal economic endeavor, costing approximately $2 billion and employing more than 100,000 [people].

Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year. [24]

With the U.S. economy and military operations so intrinsically linked, the American people have over time come to accept its war culture as normal, believing the increasingly ludicrous propaganda that tells us the U.S. is subject to threats from far weaker military nations and that the U.S. is nobly “fighting for peace” — an oxymoron of the highest order. As a result, the U.S. government has never been compelled by the People to create peace. The very notion of peace — and I don’t mean winning wars, I mean real peace — is so foreign to the people of the United States because we, as a nation, have never really experienced peace, nor have our leaders ever envisioned peace, much less planned for it or made it the focus of Presidential Doctrine.

Now in the nuclear era, with a warring mentality firmly embedded in both the psyche and economy of the United States, at the rate we are going we are going to kill ourselves and take everything and everyone else with us. Nuclear experimentation, whether militaristic or power generation related, is detrimental to all life, now and forever; history has proven that. And in the hands of a nation such as the U.S., in which war is an integral part of our history, our culture, our politics and our economy, it is not terrorists, nor foreign powers, nor Islamic extremists nor Communists that pose the greatest threat to world peace — it is our government.

But clearly, the lessons of history and failed Presidential policy have not been learned by those in power today, who claim to have our interests at heart. President Barack Obama, despite his false doctrine of negotiation and collaboration (“change”) rather than the confrontation and unilateralism of the Bush Jr. era, is planning to invest a further trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry [25] This, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world. Undeniably, his intention to continue the proliferation of nuclear weaponry to such an extent — to the point that it could render the entire planet extinct with the stroke of a pen and the push of a button — proves not only that the M.A.D. philosophy is one of false security, it proves that President Obama has no intention of creating peace, nor change. Like his predecessor before him, he is just another figurehead of interventionist war — a spokesperson for the corporate-nuclear-industrial complex, feigning responsibility to the people but acting on behalf of deadly but profitable military and commercial interests.
And it’s up to us to stop him. Unless We, The People take back control of our nation to put an end to this M.A.D.ness, we will have no-one to blame for the destruction that unfolds but ourselves .

Time For Revolution
Every time I hear a politician say “it’s politics”, I cringe. Understanding the strangle-hold the military industrial complex has over the brotherhood of humanity, I know this statement — “it’s politics” — simply means “it’s institutions over individuals”, with “the 1%” (those in control) at the top and “the 99%” (those under control) below. Our collectives have grown over time from tribal (natural) to national (unnatural), and with the granting of the legal rights of individuals to lifeless institutions, our legal system now protect and empower entities that are neither human nor natural [26], at the expense of those of us who are.

In fact, the only entities to ever benefit from war are institutions and the individuals who hide behind them, and the legal formalities that enshrine them. The controllers of warring institutions have it arranged so that, no matter how the national fervor plays out, no matter what happens or which side ‘wins’, the elite still prosper. They perpetuate a culture at home that accepts and even supports perpetual conflict, but conduct their wars abroad so that only others suffer for their misdeeds.

The institutions of the United States and Russia may have different perpetrators behind them, they may play different melodies and use different instruments, but in fact they sound very much the same. The collectivism of the oligarchy in the U.S.A. is flavored with corporate tones, whereas in Russia it is dominated by state tones. Different name, same game. In the U.S.A. the divine right of corporations rules and in Russia it’s the godhead of the state the leads the symphony. Either way though, it’s a war song of militant, nationalistic not individual concerns.

The world has lived under the madness of M.A.D. for too long. Humanity has been stifled by war and limited by war-driven institutions for far too long. We have to move forward, and fast. It is time for a revolution — genuine Revolution. With all the social reasoning that impels us to shake off the yokes of these poisonous institutions, the biological reasoning is a much more real and greater imperative. We must take back our sovereignty from the destructive, warring, oligarchical institutions that pretend to represent humanity and its long-term concerns, and reform them into loving, sustainable, benevolent ones — or at the rate we are going we will perish. That is a fact of the nuclear era.

“In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” ~ Iroquois Maxim

(image by wake up world) DMCA
The Indigo Doctrine: Mutually Agreed Peace
We, The People of the World, can supersede institutional war-mongering concerns that belittle individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have no other choice. If we do not act to mandate Mutually Agreed Peace, we are allowing politicians to shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s politics”, as Earth Mother is ravaged and its inhabitants are systematically annihilated by nuclear, war-driven madness.

How can we stop the war machine? Well, certainly not by fighting against it using its means. That’s what the machine is designed for, it’s where ‘it feels at home’. An armed resistance will only give it rise and go. After all, they’ve got the nukes and they will use it as they have already done so in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There must be another way to switch off the engine of death.

Our first need is to truly understand the problem; that war is not actually perpetuated for the reasons we are told they are. Wars are not about security and peace, they are politically profitable mechanisms of the status quo: a war-economy, profiting institutions over people. Wars are not fought only to engage the outsiders and force political will abroad, they are just as frequently fought to keep the revolutionaries within our own borders bound and controlled. The culture of war holds at bay the potential revolutionaries and the youths that long to bring about change, keeping our nations caught up in singing songs of war and ensnared in a psychological trap of “service” to the institutional leviathans rather than to living beings. Even the United States’ national anthem is an ode to war [27], the world’s most well-known piece of propaganda, sung proudly by millions as they proudly wave their flags of a nation built and maintained on systems of war.

” and the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

 

Our second need must be to confront the government’s that perpetuate the culture of war. The brotherhood of humanity, from the ground up, must come together for peace or together we will burn to the ground. My proposal is that we take the next logical step in the development of humanity, the only recourse to our survival among war machines made to kill us; We, as individuals, as sovereign beings, as terra-ists on terra firma, must reject the M.A.D.ness of the nuclear war era and catalyze the idea of Mutually Agreed Peace — M.A.P.

Anyone who says that people cannot change things, that we are powerless to the control systems that already exist, does not realize they are in a system that began as imagination, an idea, which came about through influence. With new, better ideas, people can change those outdated systems that other people once created; even those that have become long-standing traditions, or pose as such. They do not need clean air, water and food. They do not need companionship and they are not not your friends. They are simply mechanizations which, in the world today, seek only to create unlimited financial and political growth, and to prevent losses of wealth and power at our social and biological expense.

The way to global peace isn’t paved with war. In war, institutions and collective thinking become the focus; in peace, individual rights and the co-operation of sovereign beings is the order of the day. The war mentality encourages separation, peace encourages respect for our interconnection and common humanity. War is built on a narrative of “us” versus “them”, creating the perception of threat and inhumanity in those we are told are our enemies. Peace acknowledges that there is only “us”, and there is no “them”.

To overcome the psychology of war and embrace that of peace, we need to open our hearts and minds to individuals and close our minds to institutions. We must acknowledge that anyone threatening war and espousing the rhetoric of political and economic wars stands on the side of institutions, not humanity, and deconstruct the mechanisms of propaganda — such as mainstream news — that work to perpetuate the psychology of war within us on behalf of the controlling institutions.

History has shown us that preparing for war doesn’t just lead to more war; it makes war an economic necessity. The only way to ensure peace in our world is to adopt a doctrine of Mutually Agreed Peace in theory and practice; to give peace a budget, give peace a mandate, and give peace all our energy, both politically and personally — and to remove from government, through the power of our will and our numbers, any individual who fails to act on it.

 

Mutually Agreed Peace is the coming revolution. It is the next phase in throwing out the status quo of the war world, which values life-less institutions over living breathing beings.

We need to create Mutually Agreed Peace right across the M.A.P., or we’ll always have it their way. Which is no way at all.

“When the Earth is ravaged and the animals are dying, a new tribe of people shall come onto the Earth of many colors, creeds and classes, and by their actions and deeds shall make the Earth green again. They shall be known as the warriors of the rainbow.” ~ Hopi

 

[Additional research and commentary by Andy Whiteley for Wake Up World]

The Little Green Book of Revolution
(image by Ethan Indigo) DMCA
The Little Green Book of Revolution is an inspirational book based on ideas of peaceful revolution, historical activism and caring for the Earth like Native Americans.
A pro-individual and anti-institutional look at the history of peaceful proactive revolution, it explores the environmental destruction inherent to our present energy distribution systems and offers ideas to counter the oligarchical institutions of the failing ‘New World Order’.

The Little Green Book of Revolution is available here on Amazon.

Previous articles by Ethan Indigo Smith:

Idiots, Zealots, Elitists and Patriots: The Four “Wise Monkeys” of Modern Society
Marijuana Prohibition and The Suppression of The Divine Feminine
Meditation 108: A Guide to Meditating for the Infant Practitioner
Is Matriotism The Future of The Divine Feminine? (w/Andy Whiteley)
A Little Green Revolution: the Rainbow Warriors will Heal the Earth Mother
The 5 Tibetan Rites of Rejuvenation: 108 Movements to a Meditative Mind State
Institutional Thinking — The Matrix, 1984 and The Allegory of The Cave
Why Governments Promote Deadly Nuclear Energy and Ban Beneficial Hemp
Hate: The Ultimate Social Control Mechanism
Geoengineering and the Nuclear Connection (w/Andy Whiteley)
About the author:
Activist, author and Tai Chi teacher Ethan Indigo Smith was born on a farm in Maine and lived in Manhattan for a number of years before migrating west to California. Guided by a keen sense of integrity and humanity, Ethan’s work is both deeply connected and extremely insightful, blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality, meditation and a unique sense of humour.

Ethan’s publications include:

The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism, an insightful exploration of history, philosophy and contemporary politics.
The Geometry Of Energy: How To Meditate, an empowering four step meditation that promotes individuation and understanding by way of the four dimensions.
The Matrix of Four, The Philosophy of the Duality of Polarity on the subject of the development of individual consciousness.
108 Steps to Be in The Zone a set of 108 meditative practices for self discovery and individual betterment, including techniques to develop balance, transmute sexual energy.
For more information, visit Ethan on Facebook and check out Ethan’s author page on Amazon.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ethan/e/B0058V4P2U/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

About Ethan Indigo Smith:
Activist, author and Tai Chi teacher Ethan Indigo Smith was born on a farm in Maine and lived in Manhattan for a number of years before migrating west to Mendocino, California. Guided by a keen sense of integrity and humanity, Ethan’s work is both deeply connected and extremely insightful, blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality, meditation and a unique sense of humor.

The events of September 11, 2001 inspired him to write his first book, The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism, an insightful exploration of history, philosophy and contemporary politics. His more recent publications include:

Tibetan Fusion a book of simple meditative practices and movements that can help you access and balance your energy
The Little Green Book of Revolution an inspirational book based on ideas of peaceful revolution, historical activism and caring for the Earth like Native Americans
The Matrix of Four, The Philosophy of the Duality of Polarity on the subject of the development of individual consciousness
108 Steps to Be in The Zone a set of 108 meditative practices and steps toward self discovery and individual betterment, including techniques to develop balance, transmute sexual energy and better the self
and the controversial book, (more…)

http://www.amazon.com/Ethan/e/B0058V4P2U/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

About Ethan Indigo Smith:
Activist, author and Tai Chi teacher Ethan Indigo Smith was born on a farm in Maine and lived in Manhattan for a number of years before migrating west to Mendocino, California. Guided by a keen sense of integrity and humanity, Ethan’s work is both deeply connected and extremely insightful, blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality, meditation and a unique sense of humor.

The events of September 11, 2001 inspired him to write his first book, The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism, an insightful exploration of history, philosophy and contemporary politics. His more recent publications include:

Tibetan Fusion a book of simple meditative practices and movements that can help you access and balance your energy
The Little Green Book of Revolution an inspirational book based on ideas of peaceful revolution, historical activism and caring for the Earth like Native Americans
The Matrix of Four, The Philosophy of the Duality of Polarity on the subject of the development of individual consciousness
108 Steps to Be in The Zone a set of 108 meditative practices and steps toward self discovery and individual betterment, including techniques to develop balance, transmute sexual energy and better the self
and the controversial book, (more…)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon
Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

129 Articles, 2 Quick Links, 55 Comments, 7 Diaries, 0 Polls

YES to Iran Agreement: Stop the Threat . . . From the U.S.

August 24, 2015

iranthreatSITE

We must uphold the Iran nuclear agreement, but upholding it while pretending that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or is threatening anyone, will not create a stable and lasting foundation for peace. Upholding an agreement with both proponents and opponents threatening war as analternative is perilous as well as immoral, illegal, and — given the outcome of similar recent wars based on similar recent propaganda — insane.

Please spread the above message on Facebook here, Twitter here, Instagram here, Tumblr here, and Google+ here.

Please post your thoughts as comments at this page, where World Beyond War leaders will be engaging in discussion with you re the facts of the matter, the politics at work, and what can be done.

Read our statement: World Beyond War Supports Iran Deal

In the U.S. sign these petitions: one, two, and join these events.

More events all over the world, and tools for creating your own are here.

Outside the U.S., contact the nearest U.S. Embassy.

Sign the Declaration of Peace.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter.

Support World Beyond War’s work by clicking here.

Daniel Ellsberg Arrested at Lawrence Livermore Lab on 70th Anniversary of Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima

August 21, 2015

Daniel Ellsberg is arrested during a demonstration to protest nuclear weapons outside the gates of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015. (photo: Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group)
Daniel Ellsberg is arrested during a demonstration to protest nuclear weapons outside the gates of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015. (photo: Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group)

By Jane Ayers, Reader Supported News

20 August 15

 

ietnam War-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, 84, known for releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971, has once again been arrested for protesting U.S. nuclear weapon arsenals, this time at Lawrence Livermore Labs on Thursday, August 7, the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. Ellsberg was arrested with fifty other protestors from the Bay Area, while 250 more joined in support to draw attention to the 2016 funding of Lawrence Livermore Labs: $1 billion for nuclear weapons, designing new long-range warheads, and upgrading existing nuclear arsenals.

According to a video of the protest, Ellsberg, a former Defense Department analyst, addressed the protestors outside the fence of Lawrence Livermore Lab, stating, “The killing at Hiroshima was mass murder.… In the target plans that I worked on, and ones I worked on in Russia, the smoke will go into the stratosphere as it did in Hiroshima by higher firestorm. But simultaneously, thousands of cities, with pillars of smoke, will join around the globe blotting out the sunlight sufficiently to kill harvests around the world, and condemn nearly the entire population of the world to death. It’s the Doomsday Machine, The End. We’ve known that, not at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but for the last twenty-five years, and yet these threats go on; the threats go on. They are threats of ending nearly all life. It’s never a good day to die, but it is a good day to get arrested.”

Japanese elder Takashi Tanemori also spoke to the rally. He was only 8 years old when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and he lost his whole family and became blind from the atomic blast. He spoke of the importance of forgiveness, but for all to keep trying to eradicate all nuclear threats in the world.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, after speaking to the rally of supporters from the Livermore Conversion Project and the Tri-Valley CARES (Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment), Ellsberg and the fifty other protestors lay on the ground (in chalk lines drawn around their bodies to symbolize the victims of atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) blocking the West Gate of the facility. Reports state that members of the Lawrence Livermore Lab police force showed up in riot gear with batons, and after demands by the Alameda County Sheriffs to disperse, Ellsberg and others were nonviolently arrested, cited for trespassing, and immediately released.

Within hours after Ellsberg was released, he appeared on the Scott Horton Radio Show, where he further explained, “The possibility of human extinction as a result of American or Russian, and/or together, nuclear weapons that are on alert facing each other right now still exists, and still reflects American policy under our current president, as well as his predecessors.”

To understand the authenticity of the knowledge of Daniel Ellsberg, look to his bio: In the early 1960s, Ellsberg, a former Rand employee, was a consultant to the Departments of Defense and State, and to the White House, where he specialized in resolving problems of the command & control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making. He drafted the Secretary of Defense Guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning operational plans for conducting a general nuclear war.

He has been arrested in nonviolent civil disobedience actions close to one hundred times, with 50+ geared to protesting nuclear weapons, e.g. at Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapon Production Facility, the Nevada Test Site, Livermore Nuclear Weapons Design Facility, the vicinity of Ground Zero at the Nevada Test Site, and at the Vandenberg Missile Test Site. Over the past few years, he has been arrested at Vandenberg Air Force Base to protest the testing of dummy ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) to show the danger of having land-based missiles.

In addition, Ellsberg protested nuclear policies during the Carter and Reagan administrations, questioning President Carter’s idea of using neutron bombs and President Reagan’s promotion of Cruise and Pershing missiles. In the 1980s, Ellsberg also traveled with a Greenpeace voyage to Leningrad, protesting Russian nuclear testing, and was expelled from the Soviet Union at the time.

In 1995, Ellsberg launched an Abolition Fast, in which he and the Rev. William Sloan Coffin fasted on water for twenty-six days during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Renewal Conference held at the United Nations. The fast also included nuclear activists pledging to fast one or more days during the U.N. conference.

A documentary movie of his life work, “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” is highly recommended to grasp the nuclear policies he has dedicated his life to raising to higher standards, and to highlight the global need for nuclear disarmament.

Yes, it’s a good day when Daniel Ellsberg gets arrested.

Breaking News: On August 19, 2015, just two weeks after Ellsberg’s recent arrest on the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. plans to once again launch a dummy Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base (in California). It will target the Kawajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). This test comes also in the midst of the major lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands, called the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, which are attempting to hold the nine nuclear nations accountable for not adhering to the provisions in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to disarm. The lawsuit has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (SF). David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and consultant to the Marshall Islands in the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, stated today, “While the U.S. continues to develop and test launch its nuclear-capable missiles, the Marshall Islands is seeking a judgment against the U.S. and other nuclear-armed nations for failure to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations under international law.” Krieger previously was arrested with Ellsberg at Vandenberg Air Force Base in protest of other test launches of ICBMs.


Jane Ayers is an independent journalist (USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, etc.), and is a regular contributor to Reader Supported News. Contact her atJaneAyersMedia@gmail.com or visit her website.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Mikhail Gorbachev: US Military an ‘Insurmountable Obstacle to a Nuclear-Free World’

August 18, 2015

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. (photo: Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. (photo: Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)

By Joachim Mohr and Matthias Schepp, Spiegel

16 August 15

 

In a SPIEGEL interview, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev discusses morals and politics in the nuclear age, the crisis in Russian-American relations and his fear that an atomic weapon will some day be used.

PIEGEL: Mikhail Sergeyevich, during your inaugural speech as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985, you warned of nuclear war and called for the “complete destruction of nuclear weapons and a permanent ban on them.” Did you mean that seriously?

Gorbachev: The discussion about disarmament had already been going on for too long — far too long. I wanted to finally see words followed by action because the arms race was not only continuing, it was growing ever more dangerous in terms of the number of weapons and their destructive capacity. There were tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on different delivery systems like aircraft, missiles and submarines.

SPIEGEL: Did you feel the Soviet Union was under threat during the 1980s by the nuclear weapons of NATO member states?

Gorbachev: The situation was that nuclear missiles were being stationed closer and closer to our adversary’s borders. They were getting increasingly precise and they were also being aimed at decision-making centers. There were very concrete plans for the use of these weapons. Nuclear war had become conceivable. And even a technical error could have caused it to happen. At the same time, disarmament talks were not getting anywhere. In Geneva, diplomats pored over mountains of paper, drank wine, and even harder stuff, by the liter. And it was all for nothing.

SPIEGEL: At a meeting of the Warsaw Pact nations in 1986, you declared that the military doctrine of the Soviet Union was no longer to plan for the coming war, but rather to seek to prevent military confrontation with the West. What was the reason behind the shift in strategy?

Gorbachev: It was clear to me that relations with America and the West would be a lasting dead end without atomic disarmament, with mutual distrust and growing hostility. That is why nuclear disarmament was the highest priority for Soviet foreign policy.

SPIEGEL: Did you not also push disarmament forward because of the financial and economic troubles facing the Soviet Union in the 1980s?

Gorbachev: Of course we perceived just how great a burden the arms race was on our economy. That did indeed play a role. It was clear to us that atomic confrontation threatened not only our people but also all of humanity. We knew only too well the weapons being discussed, their destructive force and the consequences. The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl provided us with a rather precise idea of what the consequences of a nuclear war would be. Decisive for us were thus political and ethical considerations, not economic ones.

SPIEGEL: What was your experience with US President Ronald Reagan, who many saw as a driving force in the Cold War?

Gorbachev: Reagan acted out of honest conviction and genuinely rejected nuclear weapons. Already during my first meeting with him in November of 1985, we were able to make the most important determination: “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This sentence combined morals and politics — two things many consider to be irreconcilable. Unfortunately, the US has since forgotten the second important point in our joint statement — according to which neither America nor we will seek to achieve military superiority.

SPIEGEL: Are you disappointed in the Americans?

Gorbachev: So many decades pass, but unfortunately some things do not change. Already back in the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated the problem by its name. The power of the military-industrial complex continued to be enormous under Reagan and his successor George Bush. Former US Secretary of State George Shultz told me a few years ago that only a conservative president like Reagan could have been in a position to get the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty through the Senate. Let’s not forget that the the “Zero Option” that Reagan himself proposed (eds. note: the proposal to remove all Soviet and American intermediate-range nuclear missles from Europe) had many opponents in the West. They considered it to be a propaganda stunt and they wanted to thwart Reagan’s policies. After the Reykjavik summit in 1986 (eds. note: the subject of the summit between Reagan and Gorbachev was nuclear disarmament), Margaret Thatcher declared: We won’t be able to handle a second Reykjavik.

SPIEGEL: Did you really believe at the time that you could achieve a world free of nuclear weapons?

Gorbachev: We not only proclaimed a nuclear weapons free world as a major goal — we also named concrete interim goals. In addition, we aspired to the destruction of chemical weapons and are now close to achieving that goal. Limiting conventional weapons was also on our agenda. That was all inextricably linked to a normalization of our relations. We wanted to move from confrontation to cooperation. We achieved a lot, which shows that my approach was completely realistic.

SPIEGEL: Many accused you of using your demand as a tactic to present the Soviet Union as a peace-loving country.

Gorbachev: No, there was no propaganda at play and it was not tactical. It was important to get away from the nuclear abyss our countries were marching toward when they stationed hundreds of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe.

SPIEGEL: Why were the negotiations over intercontinental ballistic missiles so much tougher than those over intermediate-range missiles?

Gorbachev: In Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, Reagan and I not only established the framework for eliminating intermediate-range missiles, but also for halving the number of intercontinental missiles. But Reagan was up against strong resistance from the hawks in the US administration. This continued under Bush, so, in the end, we only finally signed the treaty in summer 1991. With the strategic long-range weapons there were also technical questions. And then we also had the problem with the missile defense.

SPIEGEL: You were unable to convince Reagan to abandon his SDI project, which aimed to create a defensive shield against nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Did that upset you?

Gorbachev: Reagan wanted it no matter what. That’s why in Reykjavik we weren’t able to turn our agreements on intercontinental missiles and intermediate-range missiles into treaties. In order to break the impasse, we offered the Americans concessions and uncoupled the negotiating package. We agreed on a separate treaty addressing the intermediate-range missiles. Reagan and I signed it in Washington in December 1987.

SPIEGEL: The stationing of American intermediate-range missiles led to mass demonstrations by the peace movement in Germany …

Gorbachev: … and Helmut Kohl then played a very positive role in the establishment of the treaty with the elimination of the Pershing 1A missiles.

SPIEGEL: The nuclear warhead belonged to the Americans, but the missiles were German. Kohl declared that the missiles could be destroyed if the US and Russia came to an agreement on the destruction of the intermediate-range missiles.

Gorbachev: If Kohl had not dispensed with them, we would not have signed.

SPIEGEL: Was there actually resistance to your disarmament policies within the Soviet ruling elite?

Gorbachev: Every member of the leadership at the time understood the importance of disarmament. All the leading politicians had experience and a sober view of things. Just think about Foreign Minister Andrei Gromkyo …

SPIEGEL: … who had the nickname “Mr. Nyet” in the West because of his hardline negotiating tactics …

Gorbachev: … but like all the others, he understood how dangerous the arms race was. At the top, we were united at the time about ending it.

SPIEGEL: How did disarmament treaties materialize under your leadership?

Gorbachev: The Soviet Union had a strict and clear system for the preparation of politburo decisions. They happened through the so-called Five, a committee made up of representatives from relevant agencies and experts. We took into consideration the positions of our negotiating partners without jeopardizing the Soviet Union’s state security. The politburo weighed proposals and then issued directives to our negotiation delegations and also to me, the general secretary and later president, for summit meetings. That happened prior to Reykjavik in 1986, Washington in 1987 and other meetings. The politburo, in turn, fell back on proposals from experts, which it then reviewed and discussed.

SPIEGEL: Can the goal of a nuclear free world still be achieved today?

Gorbachev: It is the correct goal in any case. Nuclear weapons are unacceptable. The fact that they can wipe out the entirety of civilization makes them particularly inhumane. Weapons like this have never existed before in history and they cannot be allowed to exist. If we do not get rid of them, sooner or later they will be used.

SPIEGEL: In recent years, a number of new nuclear powers have emerged.

Gorbachev: That’s why we should not forget that the elimination of nuclear weapons is the obligation of every country that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Though America and Russia have by far the largest arsenals at their disposal.

SPIEGEL: What do you think of the oft-cited theory that mutually assured destruction prevents nuclear wars?

Gorbachev: There’s a dangerous logic in that. Here’s another question: If five or 10 countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why can’t 20 or 30? Today, a few dozen countries have the technical prerequisites to build nuclear weapons. The alternative is clear: Either we move toward a nuclear-free world or we have to accept that nuclear weapons will continue to spread, step by step, across the globe. And can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined? This country would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished.

SPIEGEL: You’re talking about the US?

Gorbachev: You said it. It is an insurmountable obstacle on the road to a nuclear-free world. That’s why we have to put demilitarization back on the agenda of international politics. This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space. Otherwise, talks toward a nuclear-free world will be little more than empty words. The world would then become less safe, more unstable and unpredictable. Everyone will lose, including those now seeking to dominate the world.

SPIEGEL: Is there a risk of war between Russia and the West over the crisis in Ukraine?

Gorbachev: We have reached a crossroads in relations between America and Russia. Many are already talking about a new Cold War. Talks between both powers over important global problems have practically been put on ice. That includes the question of nuclear disarmament. Trust, the very capital we worked so hard to build, has been destroyed.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe there is a danger of nuclear war?

Gorbachev: I’m very worried. The current state of things is scary. The nuclear powers still have thousands of nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapons are still stationed in Europe. The pace of reducing stockpiles has slowed considerably. We are witnessing the beginning of a new arms race. The militarization of space is a real danger. The danger of nuclear proliferation is greater than ever before. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, primarily because the Americans did not ratify it. This would have been extremely important.

SPIEGEL: Do you think Russia will once again begin to use its nuclear capablities as a bargaining chip in international relations?

Gorbachev: We have to view everything in context. Unfortunately, formulations have reappeared in the nuclear powers’ military doctrines that represent a relapse to the language that predated the Soviet-American declaration of 1985. We need a new declaration, probably from the United Nations Security Council, that reasserts nuclear war as inadmissible — it knows no winners.

SPIEGEL: Isn’t a world without nuclear weapons just a nice dream?

Gorbachev: No matter how difficult the situation is, we must not fall into resignation or panic. In the mid-1980s, there was no shortage of people who thought the train to atomic hell was unstoppable. But then we achieved a lot in very short space of time. Thousands of nuclear warheads were destroyed and several types of nuclear weapons, such as intermediate-range missiles, were disposed of. We can be proud of that. We accomplished all that together. It should be a lesson for today’s leaders: for Obama, Putin and Merkel.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Gorbachev, we thank you for this interview.

 

Fukushima — Selling Out the Next Generation

August 14, 2015

OpEdNews Op Eds 8/12/2015 at 20:44:52

By Thom Hartmann (about the author) Permalink (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): Corporate; Fukushima; Nuclear; Power; Tsunami, Add Tags Add to My Group(s)
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 8/12/15

Become a Fan
(118 fans)

Reprinted from Smirking Chimp

From youtube.com/watch?v=Y0e-gHVfd2I: Fukushima Radiation
Fukushima Radiation
(image by YouTube) License DMCA

Japan has restarted its first nuclear reactor to generate power since 2013.

And that’s really bad news.

Remember what happened in 2013? Why Japan closed all of its reactors abruptly and why we’re still tracing the spread of radioactive material across our Pacific Coast and into the atmosphere?

First there was an earthquake that did significant damage to that island country — and then a tsunami quickly followed.

And what happened next was the largest nuclear meltdown in the history of the world and the evacuation of 160,000 locals who lived in the area of the Fukushima power plant.

 

We know now that TEPCO — the owner of the Fukushima plant — had been warned years earlier about the dangers of an earthquake and a tsunami hitting the plant.

No one did anything about it then — but even if they had — do we have any reason to believe it would have been enough?

Because that’s the gamble that the Japanese nuclear industry is making with all of our futures right now.

The simple fact about nuclear power generation is that the risks and the costs dramatically outweigh any benefit.

We’ve seen some of the risks — in Chernobyl we saw how human error can cause a meltdown.

– Advertisement –

In the Three Mile Island incident we saw how the private corporations aren’t afraid to cut corners to pad their bottom line — even if that risks a partial nuclear meltdown.

And in Fukushima we saw what happens when corporate negligence meets a natural disaster.

Considering nuclear power’s track record and the staggering risks involved, it’s amazing that anyone will insure the projects. The simple fact is that without government backing, like the Price-Anderson Act here in the US, nuclear power would be impossible, because no private insurance company will cover it.

And to add insult to injury, nuclear power is actually NOT an “alternative energy” source — it’s an incredibly fossil-fuel-intensive process.

We can start with how much cement is required to contain and protect the reactors and other sensitive parts of the plants.

Cement and concrete are hugely greenhouse gas intensive to produce — and the only way we know how to protect our power plants is to use more concrete.

Beyond that, the size of the projects require tons of truckloads of materials being hauled in and away, adding to the toll of carbon costs.

Even if we just look at the material inputs used in nuclear power (it is carbon-intensive to mine uranium, and it is carbon intensive to enrich the uranium), we still don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste.

The reality is that there are economically viable and truly clean energy alternatives: geothermal, solar, wind and tidal wave power are all options for Japan, for example.

And they’re options that have none of the risks and none of the costs associated with enriched radioactive material.

And bringing those renewable options online isn’t nearly as costly in terms of carbon as it is to bring a nuclear power plant online.

The reality is — the only reason anyone wants to bring these power plants back online is that when for-profit companies like TEPCO run nuclear power with massive government subsidies and insurance, it can be hugely profitable.

Nuclear is not a bridge fuel — it is not a clean alternative — and it can’t be our future.

In the 1940s scientists marveled at the idea of using fission to safely create large amounts of energy indefinitely, and they were wrong.

The only reason we’re clinging to that fantasy today is that the for-profit nuclear owners — think Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons — don’t care about the costs of nuclear power to society.

They’ll happily sell the future of life on Earth — just to make a buck today.

Which is why both Japan and the United States should “just say no” to nuclear power.

 

 

http://www.thomhartmann.com

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program on the Air America Radio Network, live noon-3 PM ET. http://www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight,” “Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights,” “We The People,” “What Would Jefferson Do?,” “Screwed: The Undeclared War (more…)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon
Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Global Zero: No Nukes!

August 13, 2015

On Sunday August 9, 2015, thousands of Global Zero members all over the world took action for the elimination of nuclear weapons 70 years after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Thank you for being a part of this movement. Make a contribution to Global Zero today and help us continue to make a huge impact. When we eliminate nuclear weapons, it will be because of you. Donate now.


Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Sent by GLOBAL ZERO | 1436 U Street NW, Suite 401 | Washington, DC 20009 USA

This message was sent to peacenetjp@yahoo.co.jp. To change your email address or update your contact info, please email us.To remove yourself from this list, please click here

empowered by Salsa

7Groups’ Protest Statement against Restart of Sendai Nuke Plant

August 11, 2015

Originally posted on Global Ethics:

 永岡です、FoE Japanの満田さんから、川内再稼働への抗議声明です。

<以下、転送>

みなさま(重複失礼・拡散歓迎!)

 

FoE Japanの満田です。夜分に失礼します。すでに昨日になりましたが、川内原

発の再稼働に反対する各地でのアクション、お疲れ様でした。

理不尽で悔しいですが、それでも2年近くもの「原発ゼロ」の期間を実現しえた

ことは、やはり私たち市民の勝利だったのではないかと思います。

思い知ったのが、原子力規制委員会の害悪です。規制基準もだめかもしれません

が、規制委員会の審査もまったく形だけでした。通すための審査をやっていると

しか思えませんでした。

 

こうしたことも含め、7つの団体で川内原発の再稼働反対の共同声明を発出しました。

海外にも市民側の声が少しでも伝わるように英語版も作成しました。

短いものですので、ご一読の上、とくに海外向けに拡散していただけると幸いです。

 

【共同声明】 川内原発の再稼働に抗議

形だけの審査で危険性をごまかし、福島原発事故をなかったことに

http://www.foejapan.org/energy/news/150811.html

 

英語版 (English Version)

Joint Statement to Protest Restart of Sendai Nuclear Power Plant

Government does half-hearted review, downplays risks, pretends Fukushima accident never happened

http://www.foejapan.org/en/energy/doc/150811.html

 

高経年化の評価・審査が法令違反であるという点についても共同声明をだしています。

http://kiseikanshi.main.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/3795c18d6759ddb6d007551710cf0e3f.pdf

 

 

満田夏花(みつた・かんな)

ツイッター:@kannamitsuta

FoE Japan

173-0037 東京都板橋区小茂根1-21-9

View original

EliminateNukes

August 10, 2015

Dear all,

Today, as we consider the echoes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Global Zero members all over the world are doing something extraordinary.

In a global act of remembrance, they’re showing up, taking action and demanding world leaders take urgent steps to eliminate nuclear weapons. In 26 cities worldwide, these committed activists are raising awareness of the devastating humanitarian impact a nuclear weapon would have in their communities. Some are biking around the perimeter of a nuclear blast. Others are walking it. All are calling attention to the fact that, 70 years after nuclear weapons were unleashed on Japan, everything we hold dear is still at risk of unspeakable catastrophe. That we are always on the brink.
We’re also mobilizing on Twitter to demand urgent action to #EliminateNukes. If you aren’t able to participate in today’s demonstrations on the ground, I hope you’ll stand in solidarity online.

You can follow the action all day on Twitter at the hashtag #EliminateNukes.

Or you can see what your allies in the movement are up to on Facebook by searching for #EliminateNukes.

Osamu, 70 years is too long to live in the nuclear shadow. The only way we can guarantee the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never repeated is to eliminate nuclear weapons. Everywhere.

We can make that happen, but only if we speak loud enough to cut through the noise and get our leaders’ attention. That’s why I’m asking you to take part in this global day of action and solidarity. Please add your voice to our call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Thank you for everything you do to keep us moving forward.

Fight on,

Derek Johnson
Executive Director
Global Zero
Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Sent by GLOBAL ZERO | 1436 U Street NW, Suite 401 | Washington, DC 20009 USA

This message was sent to osamu.yoshida@gmail.com. To change your email address or update your contact info, please email us.To remove yourself from this list, please click here

Global Zero (No Nukes) at 70th Anniversary of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

August 7, 2015

Dear All,

This Sunday marks 70 years since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Global Zero members all over the world are coming together in solidarity to send a strong message to our world leaders: 70 years is too long to live in fear of nuclear annihilation.

In 26 cities in 5 countries on 3 continents, our members will be circling the perimeter of the Nagasaki bomb blast on foot and by bike to symbolize what a nuclear catastrophe would look like in their communities. It will be a powerful reminder that nuclear weapons are designed to wipe entire cities off the map.

Here’s one thing that you can do right now to show your support: Send a tweet on Sunday, August 9 in solidarity.

Join our tweet-a-thon: Use this tool to schedule a tweet or a Facebook post for Sunday using the hashtag #EliminateNukes.


This tool allows people from all over the world to schedule the same post on social media for a designated time, and then sends the post from hundreds of accounts simultaneously. It’s a useful way to maximize our reach and impact on this important day.

Nuclear weapons still pose one of the most urgent threats to humanity — and your voice can make a difference. Help send a message to world leaders: 70 years is too long.

Are you in to help us get #EliminateNukes trending this Sunday? Sign up to tweet your message in solidarity now.

Fight on,

Ryan Rastegar
Digital Engagement Manager
Global Zero


Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Sent by GLOBAL ZERO | 1436 U Street NW, Suite 401 | Washington, DC 20009 USA

This message was sent to peacenetjp@yahoo.co.jp. To change your email address or update your contact info, please email us.To remove yourself from this list, please click here

empowered by Salsa

Nuclear Disarmament: If Not Now, When?

August 7, 2015
Published on
by

(Photo: Julian Ortiz/cc/flickr)

Oh plaintive cry for justice, for change, for the world we must create, welling up from a tiny island nation in the Pacific Ocean. I can only pray: Let there be an authority large enough to hear it.

My first reaction, upon learning that the Republic of the Marshall Islands — former U.S. territory, still ravaged and radioactive, the site of 67 H-bomb tests between 1946 and 1958 — has filed lawsuits against the nine nations that possess nuclear weapons demanding that they eliminate their arsenals, as per the provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was cringing disbelief. Are they serious? I couldn’t imagine an action more futile.

But the disbelief was mixed with hope, and the hope remains vibrant as the world marks the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the launching of the geopolitics of M.A.D. Could hope possibly be more painful?

The anti-nuke lawsuits were filed in April 2014, in both U.S. Federal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Big surprise. The U.S. suit was dismissed some months ago as “speculative” and because the Marshall Islands “lacks standing” to bring the suit.

Yeah, upstart nation of no international significance. All it did is serve as an expendable swath of atolls in the middle of nowhere, a site ideal to absorb multiple megatons of nuclear testing over a dozen years. The islands’ inhabitants were, in the arrogant, racist parlance of the time, simple “savages” whose culture, whose very lives, had far less value than the technological advancements the testing yielded. Cancer, birth defects and other consequences of radiation are the lasting result, but who cares? Three decades ago, the U.S. settled its genocidal debt to the islanders with a payment of $150 million “for all claims, past, present and future.” This pittance — this nuisance settlement — is, of course, long gone. Too bad.

“What many Americans seem to want to forget,” wrote scholar Sandra Crismon, as quoted recently by Robert Alvarez in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “is that for the Marshallese, nuclear testing is not a historical event, as they continue to deal with the huge environmental and human health costs.”

But their lawsuits in the two courts, with a decision still pending from the ICJ, isn’t seeking additional compensation. The suits merely seek to hold the nuclear-armed nations accountable to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for the dismantling of all nuclear weapons. How did that small provision get overlooked? Five of these nations — the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China — are signatories to the agreement. The other four — Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — though they’ve snubbed the treaty, are nonetheless accountable to international law, the lawsuit maintains.

If nothing else, the tiny island nation is standing eyeball to eyeball with superpower arrogance and crippled morality.

As Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote last week in The Guardian: “One of the many ironies of history is that non-nuclear-weapon states, like Iran, have actually done far more for the cause of non-proliferation in practice than nuclear-weapon states have done on paper. Iran and other nuclear have-nots have genuinely ‘walked the walk’ in seeking to consolidate the non-proliferation regime. Meanwhile, states actually possessing these destructive weapons have hardly even ‘talked the talk,’ while completely brushing off their disarmament obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.”

History’s conquerors will not be the ones who free humanity from its suicidal vise. This is the paradox. The transition we have to make must emerge beyond the institutions that have trapped us.

Nuclear weaponry is the outcome of 10,000 years of human experimentation outside the circle of life. The institutions we’ve built, the logic we’ve adhered to, lead us nowhere, except to more of the same. Desperate as we are to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we devote billions of dollars annually to upgrading our own. There are still nearly 16,000 nuclear weapons on the planet, some 1,800 on Cold War-era hair-trigger alert. We’ve been on the brink of self-annihilation for 70 years. What sanity can we access to save ourselves?

“Everything turned red — the ocean, the fish, the sky and my grandfather’s net. And we were 200 miles away from ground zero. A memory that can never be erased.”

These are the words of Tony DeBrum, minister of foreign affairs for the Republic of the Marshall Islands, who, Alvarez tells us in his Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists essay, addressed the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. DeBrum was 9 years old, out fishing with his grandfather, on March 1, 1954, when the Castle Bravo blast — all 15 megatons of it, the largest U.S. nuclear test ever — was detonated on Bikini Atoll. To its innocent witnesses, it must have foretold the end of the world.

The Marshall Islands lawsuits ask: If not us, who? If not now, when? These are the questions asked by those who have no choice. That means all of us should be asking them.

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

Share This Article


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers