Nobel Peace Prize
There is no case for Amnesty International. Hypocrites, cheats, lackeys, frauds, war-instruments—and you could think of many more nasty adjectives which would fit this body like a glove.
For a multimillion-dollar world body which claims to have Human Rights as its abiding principle, they had their lips zipped when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and murdered 20,000 of its inhabitants. It whipped up a campaign on Kuwaiti Dead Babies Report and Campaign to promote a war against Iraq and afterwards quietly slunk back in their ratholes when it proved a fake insertion. Never mind, it ended up killing 200,000 Iraqis, half of whom were civilians. Did they ever make a noise against apartheid in South Africa when millions of black people couldn’t even set sight on white rulers’ houses or streets or swimming pools or shopping arcades? Does anyone remember them to have been outraged on Julian Assange who has been hit with 17 Espionage Act, facing a sentence of up to 170 years, a case which whistleblower Edward Snowden has described as the one which would “decide the future of media”?
These mafiadom calls out Narendra Modi’s government on human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir and described Delhi riots of this February as “state-sponsored” which is perfectly in sync how a group which is hand-in-gloves with those who advocate Talibans and terrorists ought to behave. They love Jihadis—be it in Kashmir, in northeast Delhi or Talibans and Islamic State of our world.
They have no compunction to cry “victims” but won’t tell its accounts were seized even in 2018 when there were no Delhi riots. It won’t tell you that it has had to shut its office even before Modi took over India. It won’t tell you that its’ foreign funding was in crosshairs of even Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). It won’t tell you it had backed “Urban Naxal” Arun Ferreira who was arrested on Koregaon Bhima violence and an alleged assassination plot to murder Modi. Yet, our thespian Naseeruddin Shah was more than eager to do a video for Amnesty which painted a grim law and order situation in the country.
Who gets tens of crores of dollars to this body to pick up selective Human Rights violations around the world? Apparently, the colonial and imperialist powers, in the post World War-2 scenario, wanted to keep a tab on their erstwhile “subjects” and floated NGOs in sanguine garbs to pressurize governments less friendly. Amnesty, founded in 1962, profited from this patronage. It would help explain how they acquired the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize or the United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights in 1978. Or how its’ tentacles are spread in nearly 200 countries or its members are close to 3 million.
Don’t you believe that this matter would fade away quietly. Already Indian Express is huffing and puffing and reaching up to European Union for its reaction; BBC is shedding copious tears; Washington Post is comparing India to authoritarian Russia; which should tell you a thing or two how deeply embedded and connected this rotten network is in causing mayhem around the world. All they want is subservient governments; those which surrender their political and economic independence; mortgage their foreign policy; reduce their masses to serfdom and fete these NGOs even as they violate the laws of the land, brazenly flout financial regulations to the tune of millions of dollars, and still preen as if no holier spirit has ever set foot on this planet of ours.
Aren’t you sick of them folks? I already am.
(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
The climate change is for real. Greenland glacial melting is no photo-editing. Wildfires in the Amazon isn’t fake news. Droughts in California are happening. Once Arctic melts and the vast carbon presently in its frozen soils and tundra is released, Global Warming would become more severe. Impact would not only be seen in rising oceans but also on plant, animal, sea and bird life. How do you think water, air and food issues of humanity would then be addressed on an overpopulated Earth?
Climate change or Global Warming has been brought into our drawing rooms by the journey of a Swedish autistic teenager Greta Thunberg who sailed across Atlantic to the United Nations and “dared” world’s politicians into action. She is the same Greta who in February this year urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for action lest he be viewed as one of the “worst villains” in history of the future. Ms Thunberg has now been nominated for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Politicians today are being blamed for inertia on climate change since fossil fuel and the resultant release of greenhouse emissions in the environment continues unabated. Scientists, primarily of UN’s IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change), want no more than 1.5 centigrade rise in global temperature from pre-industrial era. It requires the fossil fuel emissions to drop by a startling 40% in the next dozen years. IPCC would like fossil fuel usage to be almost naught by 2050. This means no gas or diesel for cars and trucks, no coal power plants, and the world agriculture sustaining itself on burning food as biofuels.
Fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) it was which caused the Industrial Revolution and continues to drive humanity towards unprecedented economic, social and technological changes. Needless to say it has made nomadic nations of Middle East into arbiter of world’s geopolitics. Wars are fought, countries destroyed, empires built, driven on fossil fuel.
World’s powers now want a dramatic cut in use of fossil fuels to save the humanity. Developing nations like India cry “foul”. The argument is: You have made your fortune on fossil fuel, now you stop us from doing it in the name of saving humanity. In other words, you want to remain in pole position by stopping others and rule the world by now playing the “climate change” card.
If fossil fuel is causing climate change, they need to be rolled back. Let renewable energy be all we should have. But is fossil fuel really the cause of climate change? And if not who is the real culprit for the misinformation?
Is Fossil Fuel really the culprit?
In 1982, Mostafa Tolba of UN Environment Program (UNEP) warned: “The world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” In 1989, Noel Brown of the same UNEP, rhymed the threat: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising seal levels…by 2000.” James Hansen, one of key doomsday predictors, said that 350ppm of Co2 (greenhouse emission) was the upper limit to “preserve the planet.” Rajendra Pachauri, then chief of the UN IPCC, declared that 2012 was the climate deadline. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” Today, the measured level is 414ppm.
In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning for the last 50 or so years.
So who do we blame for climate change which is for real?
The truth is global warming is a complex phenomenon. It’s a coupled non-linear dynamical system. Oceans change atmosphere and in turn the atmosphere changes the oceans. Both are related to solar cycles. Yet influential scientists, global forums such as UN and world’s powerbrokers who are predicting a doomsday never bother to factor in the activity of the sun and solar eruption cycles.
John McLean, an independent researcher from Australia, sat down to analyse how IPCC arrived at their conclusion on climate change. IPCC primarily uses HadCRUT4 dataset. Yet McLean points out there were places where temperature was calculated from next to no information. For two years the temperatures over Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia. In another place, Caribbean island St. Kitts temperature was recorded at 0 degree Celsius. In essence, IPCC were never scientific in their search for reasons for climate change. All they would say is that it’s man-mad fossil fuel-driven possible extinction of human species.
Who’s the culprit behind this misinformation?
- William Engdahl, a noted geopolitical analyst, says the neo-Malthusian de-industrialization agenda was set by the wealthy Rockfellers in the 1970s. The idea was to prevent use of independent industrial rivals. The influential Rockfellers backed the creation of the Club of Rome, Aspen Institute, WorldWatch Institute and MIT Limits to Growth report. Rockfellers were helped in their mission by a longtime friend, a Canadian oilman Maurice Strong. It was Strong who first propagated the unproven theory of fossil fuels causing rise in global temperatures which threatens human civilization. In essence, he named the real enemy as humanity itself—not 147 global banks, multi-nations, financial hubs which bankroll the “climate change project.”
Strong later became chief policy advisor to Kofi Annan of the United Nations. He was the key architect of the 1997-2005 Kyoto Protocol that declared Global Warming was man-made. In 1988, Strong was instrumental in creation of the UN IPCC and chief protagonist at the Rio Earth Summit which he chaired and which approved his globalist UN Agenda 21.
Rockfellers are one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in the history of the United States. For over a century they have influenced US’ economic, political and public policy. Their “philanthropy” gives them uncommon control on issues such as agriculture, energy, pharmaceuticals and environment etc. They have a web of family foundations, universities and institutions and a complex integration of hedge funds, inter-locking Board positions, and non-profit organizations.
It’s been four years since Maurice Strong is dead. But it would help Greta Thunberg and all of us to know him and not blindly accept the fossil fuel theory on climate change. By creating the brand of “Greta Thunberg Effect,” world’s powers have probably left no scope for arguments. But do lend an ear to men like Donald Trump who are defiant. If the idea is to save humanity from climate change, we do need to know if fossil fuel is really the culprit.