Archive | January 6, 2017

New Report Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam*

New Report Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam*

By Alex Newman

An unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group. That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found.

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism (propaganda) efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

The billionaires’ goal, according to the report, was to crush the oil and gas industry, using government power as the weapon of choice, to ultimately gain greater control over the energy sector once again.

“Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy,” the report explains, offering examples.

But Rockefellers are no strangers to underhanded machinations to gain market share. Using extremely shady tactics, the report also details how John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, gained a virtual monopoly over the U.S. energy industry by the 1880s — at least until the feds broke it up into smaller companies.

However, the Rockefellers never went anywhere, using their massive wealth to accumulate massive amounts of power across society. And today, their agenda is almost certainly more nefarious than simply the greedy pursuit of total energy-market dominance. Indeed, the Rockefeller dynasty and its allies have a long track record of promoting tyranny and globalism using whatever pretext might be most convenient, whether that be the environment or anything else. The report by E&E Legal, a market-oriented environmentalist group, does a great service by highlighting some of the history of the Rockefeller dynasty’s unbridled lust for power and control.

One of the key players involved in the latest phase of scam, whether wittingly or not, was New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Seizing on Rockefeller-funded propaganda masquerading as “journalism” alleging that Exxon knew man-made “global warming” was supposedly real, the state attorney general joined with other states’ chief prosecutors to launch the “AGs United for Clean Power.” As reported by The New American and other sources, the radical coalition of rogue prosecutors immediately began going after non-profit groups in what critics said was an outlandish attack on free speech, scientific inquiry, American jurisprudence, and basic common sense. Critics and legal experts blasted Schneiderman’s group as a “criminal conspiracy” to deprive Americans of their rights.

That scheme had its genesis in the summer of 2012, when two Rockefeller-funded climate-alarmist groups held a meeting in California. There, the Rockefellers’ pawns and minions, including leading “climate” alarmists, plotted how best to demonize energy companies.

“During the meeting, leading climate activists crafted a strategy to simultaneously target ExxonMobil through the criminal justice system and national media,” the report explains, noting that the agreed-upon tools to pursue that agenda included New York’s Schneiderman and the largely Rockefeller-dominated Columbia “Journalism” School. The Rockefellers had also “long urged” Schneiderman to investigate Exxon, according to, ironically enough, a Rockefeller-funded “climate” propaganda organ run by a Rockefeller minion known as InsideClimate News.

Next came a January 2016 meeting at the Rockefeller Family Fund’s headquarters that brought together key “climate” alarmists and political hacks to strategize. It was all organized and led by Rockefeller Family Fund Director Lee Wasserman and other statist radicals. The agenda of the secret meeting, according to a memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, was to wage war on oil companies. That would be pursued by, among other tactics, manufacturing a “scandal” by using a state prosecutor to get internal company documents, pushing efforts to have investors divest from oil companies, and applying as much political pressure as possible.

Ironically, among the goals outlined in a memo to attendees were the painting of Exxon as a “corrupt institution” in the public mind, a bid to “delegitimize” the company, and “to drive Exxon and climate into the center of the 2016 election.” They almost certainly could never have imagined that Exxon would indeed be in the centre of the 2016 election — with the company’s CEO, Rex Tillerson, officially nominated by president-elect Donald Trump for the powerful Secretary of State post.

Unfortunately for climate realists and skeptics tempted to laugh at the Rockefellers’ failed scheme, though, Exxon and its chief have a long record of peddling climate alarmism, promoting ludicrous and totalitarian “solutions” to the alleged “problem” of CO2 (“gas of life”) emissions, and more. And of course, Exxon is actually a corporate member of the dangerous Council on Foreign Relations — a globalist and statist institution that also peddles climate alarmism and United Nations schemes, and is intimately tied to the Rockefeller dynasty.

Basically, the Rockefeller clan is the head of the climate snake.

“The Rockefeller family, whose track record of advancing the climate change agenda is unrivaled, appears to have orchestrated the simultaneous media and legal assaults against ExxonMobil,” the E&E Legal report concludes.

“Through their financial influence, it is posited that the Rockefellers planned, coordinated, and subsidized the combined efforts of the Columbia Journalism School and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigation into ExxonMobil.”

But the worst may be yet to come if the schemes are not exposed and stopped.

“The battering of ExxonMobil is only the beginning of a large, widespread, and coordinated effort to collapse the fossil fuel industry in the United States,” the report continued, pointing to e-mails from Schneiderman and his cohorts outlining a scheme to abuse the criminal justice system to “investigate” scientists and non-profit groups under fraud and anti-mafia RICO laws. (Conservative AGs noted that if “downplaying” supposed risks of alleged man-made global-warming is “fraud,” so is exaggerating the alleged risks.)

“This oppressive infringement on constitutionally protected free speech is unprecedented, and demonstrates the lengths the climate change movement will go to force their narrative down the throats of the American people,” E&E Legal concluded.

“When one follows the money, the major initiatives of the green movement always lead back to the usual suspects: activist billionaires such as the Rockefellers seeking control of the energy industry.”

According to the report, the Rockefellers’ ambitions go far beyond energy, though. The family members “are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes,” the report found.

“Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues. Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.”

Indeed, the report notes that, through the Rockefellers’ sprawling web of “family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities,” the dynasty has “gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment.” And they are using these schemes to hijack and weaponize policy to benefit themselves, with a few exceptions who have publicly distanced themselves from the more prominent Rockefeller bosses.

“Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing world’s natural resources,” the report said, highlighting the Rockefeller fingerprints on everything from state and federal policies to U.N. social-engineering schemes such as Agenda 21.

Considering the evidence, there can be little doubt that the Rockefeller cabal’s exploitation of alleged man-made “global warming” as the justification for its totalitarian agenda is just that — a pretext for tyranny and greedy self-interest masquerading as environmental concerns. Indeed, even back during the discredited man-made global-cooling hysteria of the 1970s, when Obama’s forced abortion-touting “Science Czar” John Holdren claimed global cooling would kill a billion people, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was pushing the exact same anti-oil agenda.

In the organization’s 1977 report The Unfinished Agenda: The Citizen’s Policy Guide to Environmental Issues, for example, the Rockefeller outfit demanded, among other schemes, more population control measures, a “progressively increasing gasoline tax,” an “escalating tax on natural gas consumption,” and a “similar tax” to “be applied to all fossil fuels.

Similar schemes have been promoted by the dynasty ever since, though the ostensible justification for them has changed.

Separately, the the Rockefeller Family Fund has long showered its largess on fringe “environmental” groups willing to spout the party the line ranging from the Environment Policy Institute and Friends of the Earth Foundation to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The Rockefeller Foundation has also donated to the NRDC, the anti-human Population Council, the World Resources Institute, and countless other “environmental” groups working to shackle humanity under the guise of “protecting” the “environment.”

Just since the year 2000, tax documents cited in the report show, the four primary Rockefeller foundations have showered tens of millions of dollars on “green” activist groups. Beneficiaries include the Energy Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the New America Foundation, the World Health Organization, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the National Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Center for International Environmental Law, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and more.

A U.S. Senate report exposing what lawmakers described as the “Billionaires Club” and its role in the “Green” movement also revealed, among other information that the Rockefeller Foundation is among the largest donors to “environmental” causes in the United States. Much of the funding is routed through shady “pass through” entities such as the “Energy Foundation” to shower the billionaires’ money on lobbyists and unsuspecting “green” useful-idiot activists while concealing the source of the funds. Some of the outfits that have benefited, according to the report, include the American Lung Association, the Blue Green Alliance, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the NDRC, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and more.

Another key financier of the green scam has been Soros, a protege of the unimaginably wealthy Rothschild dynasty who admitted on TV to having no guilt about helping the National Socialists (Nazis) steal Jewish property. Through his “Open Societies Foundations,” Soros has dumped billions into “green” outfits such as the Aspen Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green for All, the New America Foundation, Presidential Climate Action Project, the Tides Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, the Global Green Grants Fund, the NDRC, and more. Soros also bankrolled Schneiderman’s political career, with the disgraced New York AG receiving more Soros loot than any other politician in the state.

But supposed Rockefeller concerns about the “environment” are almost certainly a ruse concealing more sinister motivations. The real agenda is more establishment control over humanity, less freedom, and a globalist system of governance. Indeed, billionaire extremist David Rockefeller, the dynasty’s current patriarch, has revealed his true totalitarian colours on multiple occasions. In his 2002 autobiography Memoirs, for example, he boasts of being a conspirator working against America in favor of a one-world system.

“Some even believe we [the Rockefellers] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will,” Rockefeller explains in his book.

“If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Before that, he showered praises on the most murderous dictatorship to plague humanity in all of recorded history.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and community purpose,”

Rockefeller claimed in a 1973 New York Times piece about a psychopath’s “revolution” that murdered tens of millions of people in cold blood.

“The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

It is no surprise that leading climate alarmists agree.

Late Hollywood filmmaker Aaron Russo, a longtime friend of Nick Rockefeller, also revealed what the dynasty was up to. After being invited by Rockefeller to join the Council on Foreign Relations, Russo refused.

“The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world,”

Russo said Rockefeller had told him, adding that the establishment wanted to track and control everyone on the planet.

As American citizens, the Rockefellers have a constitutionally protected right to speak freely, even to promote kooky, absurd, dangerous, deadly, and totalitarian ideas to enrich themselves. However, the “mainstream” media also have a duty to expose the dynasty’s totalitarian machinations, and they have so far failed miserably. Meanwhile, members of the political class have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which specifically prohibits much of the Rockefellers’ self-serving totalitarian agenda from being implemented.

As the man-made global-warming theory implodes amid decades with no warming, and the theory’s backers are left with egg all over their faces, it is time for Americans and perhaps even Congress to take a more serious look at the Rockefeller machine. In addition to the “climate” scam, the Rockefellers have bankrolled everything from racist eugenics and abortion to the deliberate dumbing down of the American people via so-called “education.” It is time for the light to be shined on their machinations.

Source*

Related Topics:

NASA Satellite Imagery Reveals Shocking Proof of Climate Engineering*

U.N. Plan to Make Legally Binding Climate Change Laws – Worldwide*

Climate Change in the Universe unravels another Structure*

What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change*

Geoengineering Climate Change*

Paris Climate Change Conference shows Road to NWO Weather Control*

Australian PM Advisor on the NWO Climate Change Hoax*

NWO Agenda: Did You Fall for the Biggest Climate Change March?*

Climategate: March on Climate Change vs. 1000 Int’l Conscientious Scientists*

‘Transgender Studies’ to Be Taught in U.K. Primary Schools*

‘Transgender Studies’ to Be Taught in U.K. Primary Schools*

By Baxter Dmitry

British children as young as seven are to be taught in schools to stop using the terms ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ – in case they discriminate against transgender pupils – as a taxpayer-funded book about transgenderism is being rolled out to primary schools across the United Kingdom.

The book — Can I Tell You About Gender Diversity? — focuses on a 12-year-old who is transitioning from a girl to a boy through drugs. It also lays out ‘ground rules’ for children to follow, advising against using language that suggests there are only two genders. It also condemns saying ‘ladies’ and ‘gents’.

Critics claim the book will confuse its young audience and that the controversial text advocates medical interventions that are harmful.

New American reports:

The book begins, “My name is Kit and I’m 12 years old. I live in a house with my mum and dad, and our dog, Pickle. When I was born, the doctors told my mum and dad that they had a baby girl, and so for the first few years of my life that’s how my parents raised me. This is called being assigned female at birth. I wasn’t ever very happy that way.”

Kit begins to use puberty-blocking drugs to undergo a sex change in the book and “stop my body developing in ways that make me unhappy.”

According to the book’s publisher, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, the book’s intent is to “explain medical transitioning for children aged seven and above.”

The book’s author, CJ Atkinson, told The Guardian that Kit’s transition includes wearing boys’ clothes, using male pronouns, and changing the birth certificate to read Christopher instead of Kit.

Kit also discusses the possibility of taking testosterone at 16 so that her body emulates all the same puberty changes that males experience, as well as surgery. She associates with people who identify by numerous pronouns, including “they” and “xe.”

According to the Daily Mail, the book is set to be distributed by the government-funded organization Educate and Celebrate, for use in 120 “best practice” schools around the U.K. The book also advises teachers, students, and parents to avoid language that indicates that there are only two genders.

A spokesperson for Jessica Kingsley Publishers said the book had been commissioned because of a lack of available resources currently in schools.

“The introduction of gender-neutral toilets and non-binary pronouns are important first steps, but there is a definite lack of resources out there for teachers, parents and children themselves,” the spokesperson told The Guardian.

“This book will spark discussion in the classroom and at home, answering difficult questions that children may have about gender diversity.”

But parents are understandably angered by the book’s placement in school curriculums, asserting that it will do nothing but confuse the vast majority of students who have no confusion about their gender identities.

The Daily Mail’s Sarah Vine said in her column:

In attempting to improve the lives of a vanishingly small minority, we are threatening the sanity of — and yes I’m going to say it — normal children. It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.”

Professor Alan Smithers of the University of Buckingham told the Express that the book is a prime example of “theory gone mad.”

“The vast majority of children are comfortable with being boys or girls and these are the traditional and well-understood terms for how they see themselves,” said Smithers.

 “There are some who are not, and they should be respected and helped to find their identities. But that is no reason for overturning something that has worked since the beginning of time.”

But the author, who identifies as queer, contends that those critics are simply guilty of “trans-panic” and “mudslinging.”

“It causes active harm. When you have a group of transgender young people, one in two will consider suicide, one in three will attempt it,” said Atkinson.

“The world is changing,” argues Atkinson. “A book like this is needed.”

Despite this contention, however, members of the mental health community do not agree. In fact, according to a report published in The New Atlantis, transgenderism is unsupported by science and any notion to the contrary is dangerous, especially for children.

The report, co-authored by former Chief of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Dr. Paul R. McHugh and Arizona State University professor of statistics and biostatistics Lawrence S. Mayer, concludes that “gender identity” is not separate from biological sex.

“Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence,” reads the report’s preface.

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” stated the researchers.

Source*

Related Topics:

Soros’ Money behind the Transgender Agenda*

U.K. Offers Fast-track for Transgender Teachers and a £30,000 Grant*

U.K. Police Target Schoolchildren as Young as 4 with Tax Payer Funded, Transgender Propaganda*

European Parliament asks WHO to remove transgender from Manual of Disorders*

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

U.K. Children as young as 4 being asked their Gender Option other than Male or Female*

The Concept ‘Gender Identity’ came from a Paedophile and Human Experimenter*

To Have Your Life Scripted for a Global Agenda*

Surprise: STD Rates among U.S. Homosexuals ‘alarming,’*

U.K. Offers More Free Condoms, Lubricant for Underage Kids*

Children in Scotland Murdered in Paedophile Snuff Movies*

Ten Differences in Growing Up in 1970s and Today*

I’m Raising My Son as a Boy*

U.K. Judge ‘being driven from the public service’ for Backing Natural Marriage*

Christian Nurse Fired for Offering to Pray with Patients, Now Fighting for her Livelihood*

Gays Who Reject the Illuminati Agenda*

Raised by Transgendered Parent, but against Transgendered Adoption*

Mother Pulls Children Out of School After it Introduced Transgender Awareness Program*

U.S. Deploys Troops on Russian Borders*

U.S. Deploys Troops on Russian Borders*

Map representing the encirclement of Russia and China

Map representing the encirclement of Russia and China

By Vladimir Rodzianko

The Lithuanian government has confirmed the presence of U.S. Special Forces in the country.

According to the Lithuanian Defence Ministry spokeswoman, Asta Galdikaite, the dozens 0f U.S. forces training Lithuanian special forces would remain there as long as they see Russia as a ‘threat’ or however long they see fit.

From Antimedia.org:

“Supposedly, Vladimir Putin has been deploying nuke-ready missiles in the Russian province of Kaliningrad, an area that borders Poland, Belarus, and Lithuania. This move has prompted the neighboring Baltic states to become “highly concerned” about Russian military activity.

The mainstream media has even dubbed NATO’s recent buildup the alliance’s “biggest military buildup on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.” Even Great Britain will be sending fighter jets, as well as troops to Romania in order to counter Russia in the region.

Speaking at a conference in Sochi, Putin previously said it was “stupid and unrealistic” to think Russia would attack anyone in Europe. His American counterparts are well aware of this but press on with NATO’s expansion, anyway. Why?

Russia has intervened in the Middle East and made the U.S.’ role as both caretaker and destroyer of the Muslim world largely redundant. Russia has been a spectacular caretaker and destructive force in the United States’ place, relentlessly bombing al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Aleppo into submission — and killing civilians in the process. Now, there are real hopes that a lasting peace deal might actually form in Syria, a development Washington had no hand in producing.

We’ve all seen this story before, except this time it is being done more overtly as NATO desperately runs out of options.”

Russia has said it would keep short-range ballistic missiles on its border with NATO as Vladimir Putin threatened “counter-measures” against expansion of the alliance. Russia has made it clear that its deployment of missiles is a deterrent against NATO expansion along its borders.

Viktor Ozerov, head of the defence committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, said nuclear-capable Iskander missiles deployed to Kaliningrad in October would stay there permanently as a response to a military build-up of Nato in eastern Europe.

He said the Iskander and S-400 missiles were in the exclave because of the danger posed by the U.S. defence shield, which went operational in Romania in May and which Washington says is to counter any threat from Iran.

In an interview with Oliver Stone back in November, Putin spoke about NATO’s aggressive expansion,

”Why are we reacting to NATO expansion so emotionally? We are concerned by NATO’s decision-making,” he said.

“We must take counter-measures, that is, strike with our missile systems the targets that in our opinion begin to threaten us,” Putin said.

NATO will bolster its presence in the region even more – this spring they plan to deploy battalions of 800 to 1,200 troops to each of the three Baltic States and Poland.

How president-elect Donald Trump will treat Russia in the coming months is being watched with interest in the West and in Russia, and the latest developments in the Baltics will make his rapprochement with Russia that more difficult.

Source*

Hundreds Of US Tanks Arrive In Europe To Support NATO Anti-Russian Buildup

Hundreds Of US Tanks Arrive In Europe To Support NATO Anti-Russian Buildup

Related Topics:

U.S and its Partners in Crime Suffer ‘Meltdown of Sanity’ over Syria’s Aleppo Victory*

Brzezinski Decries Global Political Awakening During CFR Speech*

Putin on the Declining Values of the West and Rising Practice of Satanism

Putin: Illuminati Plans to Use Islam To Spark World War III*

Queen Elizabeth Warns Of ‘Holy War To End All Wars’ *

U.S., NATO Deploy Troops to Russia in WWIII Build-up*

90yo Claimant to Head Romanov Family Dies in Denmark*

NATO Auditor Who Discovered U.S. Funds ISIS Found Murdered*

The Indoctrinated West*

City of London’s Imperialist Designs on Russia

Multiple Paths to One World Government*

Britain’s Role in Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide*

Britain’s Role in Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide*

By Mark Curtis

An edited extract from Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World

In the hundreds of media articles on the 1994 Rwanda genocide, there is barely a mention of Britain being a permanent member of the U.N. security council and in any way responsible for what happened. I recounted Britain’s role in my previous book, The Great Deception, so I will not repeat everything here. Since then, however, another book, by Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, confirms the quite terrible British, and U.S. role.

After the killings began in early April 1994, the U.N. Security Council, instead of beefing up it’s peace mission in the country and giving it a stronger mandate to intervene, decided to reduce the troop presence from 2,500 to 270. This decision sent a green light to those who had planned the genocide that the U.N. would not intervene. A small U.N. military force arrived merely to rescue expats, and then left. Belgium’s senior army officer in the U.N. peace mission believed that if this force had not been pulled out, the killing could have been stopped. Canadian general Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the U.N. force in Rwanda, later said that this evacuation showed “inexcusable apathy by the sovereign states that made up the U.N., that is completely beyond comprehension and moral acceptability”.

It was Britain’s ambassador to the U.N., Sir David Hannay, who proposed that the U.N. pull out its force; the U.S. agreed. According to Melvern, it was left to the Nigerian ambassador, Ibrhaim Gambari, to point out that tens of thousands of civilians were dying at the time. Gambari also pleaded with the Security Council to reinforce the U.N. presence. But the U.S. objected and Britain agreed, suggesting only to leave behind a token force, which became the 270 personnel.

On the Security Council at the time sat – by chance – Rwanda, as one of the ten non-permanent members. So British and U.S. indifference and their policy of reducing the U.N. force, as expressed in the security council, was reported back to those directing the genocide in Rwanda. Melvern notes that “confident of no significant international opposition, it was decided to push ahead with further ‘pacification’ in the south” of the country. This led to tens of thousands more murders.

Romeo Dallaire, who had pleaded for reinforcements, complained that:

“My force was standing knee deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of dying children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a goat, or a chicken, or a songbird, as all the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs”.

By May, with certainly tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another U.N. proposal – to dispatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure mainly from the U.S. ambassador, but with strong support from Britain. Dallaire believes that if these troops had been speedily deployed, tens of thousands more lives could have been saved. But the U.S. and the British argued that before these troops went in, there needed to be a ceasefire in Rwanda, a quite insane suggestion given that one side was massacring innocent civilians. The U.S. also ensured that this plan was watered down so that troops would have no mandate to use force to end the massacres.

Britain and the U.S. also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states that were offering troops for this force. The RAF, for example, had plenty of transport aircraft that could have been deployed. Eventually, with delays continuing and thousands being killed by the day, Britain offered a measly 50 trucks. Lynda Chalker, then minister for overseas development, visited Dallaire in Rwanda in July. He gave her his list of requirements at the same time as noting that

 “I was up to my knees in bodies by then”.

The 50 trucks had still not yet materialised. But later, on BBC2’s Newsnight, Chalker blamed Dallaire’s lack of resources on “the U.N.” which “ought to get its procurement right”.

Britain also went out of its way to ensure that the U.N. did not use the word “genocide” to describe the slaughter. Accepting that genocide was occurring would have obliged states to “prevent and punish” those guilty under the terms of the Geneva Convention. In late April 1994, Britain, along with the U.S. and China, secured a Security Council resolution that rejected the use of the term “genocide”. This resolution was drafted by the British.

The Czech republic’s ambassador to the U.N., Karel Kovanda, confronted the Security Council about the fact of genocide at this time. He said that talking about withdrawing peacekeepers and getting a ceasefire was “rather like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews”. There were objections to his comments, Kovanda said, and British and US diplomats quietly told him that on no account was he to use such inflammatory language outside the Security Council.

29c4d-frantz-fanon-the-idealist-cognitive-dissonanceA July 1994 resolution spoke of “possible acts of genocide” and other Security Council documents used similarly restrained language. A year after the slaughters, the British Foreign Office sent a letter to an international enquiry saying that it still did not accept the term genocide. It said that it saw a discussion about whether the massacres constituted genocide as “sterile”.

Linda Melvern was told by U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that during the genocide he had individual private meetings with the British and U.S. ambassadors (the U.S. ambassador was Madeleine Albright, who went on to become Clinton’s secretary of state). Boutros-Ghali urged both of them to help stop the killing but said their reaction was:

“Come on, Boutros, relax… Don’t put us in a difficult position…the mood is not for intervention, you will obtain nothing…we will not move”.

Let me summarise the British government’s contribution to the genocide in Rwanda. Britain used its diplomatic weight to severely reduce a U.N. force that, according to military officers on the ground, could have prevented the killings. It then helped ensure the delay of other plans for intervention, which sent a direct green light to the murderers in Rwanda to continue. Britain also refused to provide the capability for other states to intervene, while blaming the lack of such capability on the U.N. Throughout, Britain helped ensure that the U.N. did not use the word “genocide” so the U.N. would not act, using diplomatic pressure on others to ensure this did not happen. British officials went out of their way to promote these policies and rebuffed personal pleas to help stop the killings from the U.N. Secretary General and the commander of the U.N. force. 

WRwanda[2]All this information is publicly available. We do not need to look over the Atlantic to think of trials of those who have acquiesced in genocide. There is a long list of British policy makers who are to some degree responsible – Prime Minister John Major, Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, Overseas Development Minister Lynda Chalker and U.N. ambassador Sir David Hannay foremost among them. But these people are being protected by the silence of the media and academia as well as the extreme lack of accountability in the political system.

Melvern notes that, especially in the early stages of the genocide, the press insisted on reporting events as “chaos and anarchy”, not a systematic campaign well planned in advance by Hutu extremists. In her view,

“the media’s failure to report that genocide was taking place, and thereby generate public pressure for something to be done to stop it, contributed to international indifference and inaction, and possibly to the crime itself”.

There was only one press article I could find that went into any detail on Britain’s role on the Security Council. It noted that Britain’s ambassador at the U.N. was still dealing regularly with the ambassador of the government engaged in state-sponsored genocide.

Neither did the mother of parliaments attempt to address the British role in genocide – either at the time, or since. A debate in the House of Commons did not take place until nearly two months after the slaughter began. According to Melvern,

“the Labour party waited until May before putting pressure on the government to act, and then only because Oxfam telephoned the office of David Clark, shadow secretary of state for defence”.

Source*

Related Topics:

Sponsoring Terrorism in Burundi to Rebalkanize Resource-rich Great Lake’s Region*

Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder*

French Terrorists Dispatched to Sub-Saharan Africa*

The Secret Race to get Congo’s Uranium to Destroy Hiroshima*

How the World Runs on Looting the Congo*

Uganda: A Brilliant Genocide*

Hiding Africa’s Looted Funds and the Silence of Western Media*

Chippewa Tribe Calls for Pipeline Removal from all Tribal Land, Refuses Right-of-way Renewal*

Chippewa Tribe Calls for Pipeline Removal from all Tribal Land, Refuses Right-of-way Renewal*

By Claire Bernish

In a spectacular act of resistance to Big Oil, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Council refused to renew a right-of-way easement for an Enbridge crude oil pipeline running through the Bad River Reservation.

While Standing Rock Sioux Tribe members remain entrenched in a battle to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Bad River tribal council passed a formal resolution against renewing rights-of-way for Enbridge’s Energy Line 5 — and officially called for the pipeline to be decommissioned and removed from all tribal lands and the affected watershed.

Originally known as Lakehead Pipeline Company, Enbridge installed the pipeline in 1953; however, by 2013 — when “15 Individual grant of easement rights of way for Line 5 expired” — Band River had reacquired interests in eleven of those parcels.

“As many other communities have experienced, even a minor spill could prove to be disastrous for our people,” Bad River Tribal Chairman Robert Blanchard noted on the remarkable decision in the press release.

“We depend upon everything that the Creator put here before us to live mino-bimaadiziwin, a good and healthy life.”

Blanchard explained the resolution had not been motivated solely by the Band’s concerns — rather, the well-being of the region, as a whole — all inhabitants as well as the living environment.

“We will work with our native and non-native communities to make sure that Line 5 does not threaten rights of people living in our region, and we will reach out to federal, state and local officials to evaluate how to remove Line 5, and we will work with the same communities and officials to continue developing a sustainable economy that doesn’t marginalize indigenous people,” Blanchard stated.

Not wasting any time, the Band has already begun planning for Line 5’s disassembly and removal, taking into account the handling of hazardous materials and remnants of toxic crude. Disposal of the pipeline parts, recycling and disposal of hazardous contents, and restoration of the land to as pristine a state as possible — with minimal impact on the ecosystem — are now of primary concern.

“These environmental threats not only threaten our health, but they threaten our very way of life as Anishinaabe,” Tribal Council Member Dylan Jennings asserted.

“We all need to be thinking of our future generations and what we leave behind for them.”

Where the Bad River Band holds a distinct advantage compared to the Standing Rock Sioux in its fight to protect the water and land perhaps most concerns the location of the pipeline.

Energy Transfer Partners plans for the Dakota Access Pipeline directly threaten the water supply of the Standing Rock Reservation — but the pipeline’s path under the Missouri River’s Lake Oahe reservoir lies just north of government-declared tribal lands.

This means the majority of project in the area traverses private property, which ETP can pay owners for the right-of-way — usually paltry sums forcing them into court battles over valuation — or, as it has done in many places, performed gymnastics to employ the U.S. government’s controversial land-grab policy of eminent domain.

While the Enbridge pipeline obviously already sits on Bad River Band property — making the comparison a bit of apples and oranges — the fact it runs through reservation lands provides the members of the sovereign nation greater muscle in such decisions.

As the statement explains:

“With over 7,000 members, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians is located on an over 124,000-acre reservation in an area within Ashland and Iron Counties on the south shore of Lake Superior (known by the tribe as Gichi Gami). The Ojibwe people have a long and rich heritage throughout the Great Lakes region and at Odanah on Lake Superior prior to European traders, missionaries and settlers and continuing to today. Treaties signed by eleven Ojibwe Tribes ceded territory in the region, including what is currently the upper one third of the State of Wisconsin.”

As this resolution just passed in the later hours on Thursday, a response from Enbridge had not yet been released.

Standing up to Big Oil — thanks to opposition in Standing Rock — has become a national and international movement to begin the necessary move toward renewable forms of energy production.

Constant spills, leaks, and explosions — many with disastrous consequences — go mostly unnoticed in headlines simply for their frequency.

For the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa council to sound a collective halt to Big Oil’s dominance of their land is an admirable — if quiet — act of resistance, indeed.

Source*

Related Topics:

‘We will not buy what is ours’. Challenging terra nullius in the Courts of Guatemala*

Obama Seizes Area near Bundy Ranch in Massive Last Minute Land Grab*

Arrests and Protests Continue over DAPL*

The Battle for Oak Flat against the Resolution Copper Mining Company*

Brzezinski Decries ‘Global Political Awakening’ During CFR Speech*

Obama Quietly Signs the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” into Law*

The ‘Defund DAPL’ Campaign Succeeded in Moving $28mn in Personal Accounts*

Faith Spotted Eagle got Killary Clinton’s Vote*