Petraeus Fired to stop his support for Sustainable Security Peace exposing Nobel's War is Peace Whores
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Scarcity: 0 | Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overpopulation: 0 | Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overconsumption: 0 | 900 Vietnam[1], 40 Iraq and Afghanistan[2] Veterans returned their ‘bullshit’ medals to U.S. Congress and NATO. | Nobel Peace Laureates returned their War is Peace Whore Medals: 0
Andrea Muhrrteyn | 18 November 2012 | SQSwans
Correspondence to Director McJunkin: Subject: FBI-DC: Dir McJunkin: RE: FBI's Petraeus Broadwell Investigation [(PDF)]
'All In' Bet: FBI’s Petraeus-Broadwell investigation was used as convenient excuse to fire Petraeus to Protect the ‘War is Peace Whores’ Human Factory Farming War Economy, from the threat of CIA-Petraeus’ implementation of Ecocentric ‘Maria Bochkareva’ Sustainable Security Proactive Peace Plan raised in USCAAF: CCR v. USA, and USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RCFP, et al?
1. USCAAF & USSC Case Overview: Proactive Peace adoption of Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict ‘Maria Bochkareva Oath’ Sustainable Security Plan
2. General Petraeus and CIA’s Proactive Peace adoption of Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict and ‘Maria Bochkareva Oath’ Sustainable Security Plan Threatened to expose the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize - and its recipients, which include President Obama – as ‘War is Peace Whores’.
3. Chronology: 15 Oct: CIA Leaver Peacenik Challenge of Manning’s Ecocentric Motives – 15 Nov: Nobel Laureates salute Manning as War is Peace Whore.
4. National Environmental Security & Peace Strategy: Addressing Scarcity as an underlying Cause of Violent Conflict
1. USCAAF & USSC Case Overview: Proactive Peace adoption of Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict ‘Maria Bochkareva Oath’ Sustainable Security Plan
United States vs. Private Bradley Manning court martial relates to the alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks[1]; the (i) July 12, 2007 US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters air-to-ground attacks in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, Baghdad (“Collateral Murder”[2]); (ii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Cablegate[3]); and (iii) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs[4]) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs[5]).
Center of Constitutional Rights, et al vs. USA and Military Judge Denise Lind[6], is a Petition for Extraordinary Relief seeking public access to documents in the court-martial proceedings against Pfc. Bradley Manning, “including papers filed by the parties, court orders, and transcripts of the proceedings”.
Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae Lara Johnstone in Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective[7] argued, in pertinent part, that (I) it would be impossible for Pfc Manning to receive a free and fair trial in the sustainable security matter, if the media corruptly abuse their publicity power, misrepresenting or censoring Ecocentric or Non-PC arguments; effectively conducting a trial by media, thereby undermining the credibility of the court‘s decisions, due to public ignorance of all arguments submitted to the court; and (II) (II) if Pfc Manning’s actions were indeed Ecocentrically motivated (“his Pale blue dot perspective is that humanity is destroying its home”), he deserved a free and fair truthseeker trial, but that “it is possible that those who prefer a Left/Right wing Propaganda trial, will use their Publicity Power to pressure the court and trial proceedings, and Pfc Manning, to such effect, which would not be in Pfc Manning‘s truth seeking interest.”
In the Petition for Reconsideration[8] the complainant provided Pfc Manning the opportunity, to prove to the court and to Central Intelligence Agency: Director David Petraeus, Manning’s honourable Ecocentric motivations for his Wikileaks disclosure acts.
Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press[9] is an In Forma Pauperis Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, to determine whether the CAAF decision to refuse the Ecocentric Amicus, was (i) a procedural due process failure; (ii) Anthropocentric ‘viewpoint discrimination’, (iii) a violation of Petitioner’s “Religious Free speech’ rights.
2. General Petraeus and CIA’s Proactive Peace adoption of Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict and ‘Maria Bochkareva Oath’ Sustainable Security Plan Threatens to expose the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize - and its recipients, which include President Obama as ‘War is Peace Whores’
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Scarcity: 0
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overpopulation: 0
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overconsumption: 0
900 Vietnam[1], 40 Iraq and Afghanistan[2] Veterans returned their ‘bullshit’ medals to U.S. Congress and NATO.
Nobel Peace Laureates returned their War is Peace Whore Medals: 0
The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s Nobel Peace Prize is effectively a ‘War is Peace Whore’ Prize. Its mandate is to award ‘Peace Prizes’ to individuals who "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
According to Conservapedia[3]: “As an unwritten rule, the [Nobel Peace Prize] is not given to a conservative (such as Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II) or scientists advocating intelligent design, and it is not given to anyone who challenges the scientific establishment on the issues of the theory of evolution or theory of relativity, such as standouts Raymond Damadian, Fred Hoyle and Robert Dicke. The Nobel Prize is not given to any scientist who criticizes, publicly or privately, a liberal icon; the renowned physicist Edward Teller was denied the prize for criticizing the liberal J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the eminent physicist John Wheeler was denied the prize for privately supporting Teller. The award is sometimes given to a liberal politician or diplomat, such as Al Gore and Barack Obama, which can be seen as boosting his agenda. Most recently the award has been the subject of an investigation for corruption.”
Not one of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prizes has ever been awarded to any individual who addresses the root causes of war, by educating and advocating on behalf of Sustainable Security: living in harmony with nature’s carrying capacity, by reducing overpopulation and overconsumption, which are the primary causes of resource scarcity.
For example: During the ANC‘s ‘liberation struggle’ African women were forced (1) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Any woman who refused sex from an ANC cadre or was caught using contraception was detained, accused of being an 'Apartheid agent', given a People‘s Court trial, the sentence was usually Necklacing, including broken bottles shoved up their vagina.[4] Tutu’s TRC covered it all up! Nelson Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, even though the Anti-Apartheid Movement had a deliberate ‘population production’[5] breeding war policy, to create greater resource scarcity and destabilize African communities, so that poverty stricken individuals in such communities misery could be blamed on Apartheid, and such individuals would easily be convinced to become ANC cannon fodder.
The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee has refused to consider the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war, where surplus populations are used as standing armies, and how those profiteering from overconsumption use their profits to promote pretend peace congresses and pretend Nobel Peace Prizes, awarding War is Peace Whore Prizes to perpetuate the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm.
The possibility that the Worlds Most Respected General and Military Strategist – General David Petraeus – and the Central Intelligence Agency, may take serious the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s argument that ‘resources are finite’, and follow the CIA’s mantra of “unvarnished truth’ to “Follow the Truth, Wherever it Leads”, by choosing to proactively -- CIA & Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resources Wars[6] -- educate the world on the overpopulation and overconsumption causes of resource scarcity and war, by establishing the ‘Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Honor Medal’, to be awarded to individuals who educate their community, or nation on the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as factors pushing society to conflict and war; is a massive existential threat to the Foxy Liberal Nobel Peace Committee, exposing its ‘Nobel Peace Prize’, and its recipients, which include President Barack Obama, as nothing more than: ‘War is Peace Whores’.
3. Chronology of Events: 15 Oct: CIA Leaver Peacenik Challenge of Manning’s Ecocentric Motives – 15 Nov: Nobel Laureates salute Manning as War is Peace Whore.
[Read Here]
4. National Environmental Security & Peace Strategy: Addressing Scarcity as an underlying Cause of Violent Conflict
“There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.” - Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 1990
***
“According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”[1]
***
“The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict.[2] The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.[3] When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further.[4] The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world."[5] It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.[6] Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.” [7]
***
“Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow.[8] It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.”[9]
1974: NSSM 200: National Security Study Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)[10]:
Rapid population growth adversely affects every aspect of economic and social progress in developing countries. It absorbs large amounts of resources needed for more productive investment in development. It requires greater expenditures for health, education and other social services, particularly in urban areas. It increases the dependency load per worker so that a high fraction of the output of the productive age group is needed to support dependents. It reduces family savings and domestic investment. It increases existing severe pressures on limited agricultural land in countries where the world's "poverty problem" is concentrated. It creates a need for use of large amounts of scarce foreign exchange for food imports (or the loss of food surpluses for export). Finally, it intensifies the already severe unemployment and underemployment problems of many developing countries where not enough productive jobs are created to absorb the annual increments to the labor force.
Even in countries with good resource/population ratios, rapid population growth causes problems for several reasons: First, large capital investments generally are required to exploit unused resources. Second, some countries already have high and growing unemployment and lack the means to train new entrants to their labor force. Third, there are long delays between starting effective family planning programs and reducing fertility, and even longer delays between reductions in fertility and population stabilization. Hence there is substantial danger of vastly overshooting population targets if population growth is not moderated in the near future.
[..] Moderation of population growth offers benefits in terms of resources saved for investment and/or higher per capita consumption. If resource requirements to support fewer children are reduced and the funds now allocated for construction of schools, houses, hospitals and other essential facilities are invested in productive activities, the impact on the growth of GNP and per capita income may be significant. In addition, economic and social progress resulting from population control will further contribute to the decline in fertility rates. The relationship is reciprocal, and can take the form of either a vicious or a virtuous circle.
Implications of Population Pressures for National Security
It seems well understood that the impact of population factors on the subjects already considered -- development, food requirements, resources, environment -- adversely affects the welfare and progress of countries in which we have a friendly interest and thus indirectly adversely affects broad U.S. interests as well.
[..] A recent study* of forty-five local conflicts involving Third World countries examined the ways in which population factors affect the initiation and course of a conflict in different situations. The study reached two major conclusions:
1. ". . . population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the special location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence...
2. Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots: Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities."
[..] Professor Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago has suggested the concept of "population complosion" to describe the situation in many developing countries when (a) more and more people are born into or move into and are compressed in the same living space under (b) conditions and irritations of different races, colours, religions, languages, or cultural backgrounds, often with differential rates of population growth among these groups, and (c) with the frustrations of failure to achieve their aspirations for better standards of living for themselves or their children. To these may be added pressures for and actual international migration. These population factors appear to have a multiplying effect on other factors involved in situations of incipient violence.
These adverse conditions appear to contribute frequently to harmful developments of a political nature: Juvenile delinquency, thievery and other crimes, organized brigandry, kidnapping and terrorism, food riots, other outbreaks of violence; guerrilla warfare, communal violence, separatist movements, revolutionary movements and counter-revolutionary coupe. All of these bear upon the weakening or collapse of local, state, or national government functions.
Beyond national boundaries, population factors appear to have had operative roles in some past politically disturbing legal or illegal mass migrations, border incidents, and wars. If current increased population pressures continue they may have greater potential for future disruption in foreign relations.
Perhaps most important, in the last decade population factors have impacted more severely than before on availabilities of agricultural land and resources, industrialization, pollution and the environment. All this is occurring at a time when international communications have created rising expectations which are being frustrated by slow development and inequalities of distribution.
Population growth and inadequate resources. Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be. A sense of increasing crowding, real or perceived, seems to generate such tendencies, especially if it seems to thwart obtaining desired personal or national goals.
2. Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the "establishment," "imperialists," multinational corporations, or other ── often foreign ── influences blamed for their troubles.
3. Population factors with social cleavages. When adverse population factors of growth, movement, density, excess, or pressure coincide with racial, religious, color, linguistic, cultural, or other social cleavages, there will develop the most potentially explosive situations for internal disorder, perhaps with external effects. When such factors exist together with the reality or sense of relative deprivation among different groups within the same country or in relation to other countries or peoples, the probability of violence increases significantly.
1995: White House: National Security Strategy[11]:
“Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered 'free' goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to large-scale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification, oceanic pollution and ultimately climate change.[12]
2010: White House: National Security Strategy[13]:
Challenges like climate change, pandemic disease, and resource scarcity demand new innovation. Meanwhile, the nation that leads the world in building a clean energy economy will enjoy a substantial economic and security advantage. That is why the Administration is investing heavily in research, improving education in science and math, promoting developments in energy, and expanding international cooperation. Transform our Energy Economy: As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.
Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense[14]:
In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a “Smart Defense” approach to pool, share, and specialize capabilities as needed to meet 21st century challenges. [..] Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities. [..] A reduction in resources will require innovative and creative solutions to maintain our support for allied and partner interoperability and building partner capacity. However, with reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations. [..] The balance between available resources and our security needs has never been more delicate.
Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations[15]. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28.
The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict[16] says: “Contextualization: Effective humanitarian action should encompass a comprehensive view of overall needs and of the impact of interventions. Encouraging respect for human rights and addressing the underlying causes of conflicts are essential elements. (own emphasis)
Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace[17]; US Army War College:
[Report on the Dept of Defense effort to create a Proactive Environmental Security Peace Strategy as part of the Fifth Senior Environmental Leadership Conference.]
“Environmental degradation imperils nations' most fundamental aspect of security by undermining the natural support systems on which all of human activity depends.” - Michael Renner, 1989[18]
The DOD environmental security mission has its roots in the fact that environmental problems that lead to instability and contention are being ignored, and U.S. combat forces are becoming involved in the resulting conflict. In addition, DOD's environmental security mission supports the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States and must be understood in that context.
As stated by the National Security Strategy, "The stress from environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict." Recognizing the importance of environmental issues to U.S. national security interests, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security defined DOD's role in environmental security to include "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability."[19]
Instability and conflict often result from the poverty created by the economic regression of resource depletion or scarcity. The abuse of power by the leaders of many developing countries has frequently manifested itself in exploitive resource management practices, a wasting away of the economic infrastructure, human suffering and ethnic-based competition for increasingly scarce resources, and, ultimately, to conflict.
[..] The global population has grown geometrically and will double over the period from 1950 to 2000, bringing environmental issues to the fore. Rates of global population continue to increase, particularly in the vulnerable developing world, accelerating demand for food and a broad range of other natural resources. The global rates of consumption of natural resources are far greater than the ecosystem has previously endured.10 The world is rapidly moving beyond local shortages, which historically have created local conflict, to regional or transboundary resource shortages with the potential to escalate into far reaching hostilities involving U.S. forces. In numerous regions the ability of the earth to replenish its renewable resources, even with the human intervention of irrigation and fertilizer, has already been exceeded. Indeed, these very interventions often create unforeseen, adverse environmental consequences. Thus, the frequently ignored, long-lead-time environmental factors have reached their thresholds and are causing instability that security policy analysts cannot ignore.
[..] The most notable environmental threats to U.S. security are:
• Global: competition for or threatened denial of strategic resources; ozone depletion; global warming; loss of biodiversity; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effects of demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons; space debris; and inability or unwillingness of countries to comply with international environmental agreements and standards.
• Regional: environmental terrorism, accident or disaster; vector-borne communicable diseases; regional conflicts caused by scarcity/denial of resources; cross border and global common contamination; and environmental factors affecting military access to land, air, and water.
• State: environmental degradation of the resource base on which governmental legitimacy depends; risks to public health and the environment from DOD activities; increasing restrictions on military operations and access to air, land, and water; inefficient use of military resources; reduced weapons systems performance; demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, and conventional weapons systems; and erosion of public trust.
Recommendations:
• Appoint a special assistant to the National Security Advisor for International Environmental Security Affairs and create an interagency working group, chaired by the Special Assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document establishing U.S. environmental security policy.
• Establish environmental security as a principal objective of the National Security Strategy and include environmental issues in National Security Council threat assessments and foreign policy planning.
• Emphasize the linkage between environmental security objectives and the achievement of current, primary congressional and administration interests of democratic reform, economic development, and conflict resolution.
• In conjunction with the United Nations, use DOD capabilities to enforce international treaties and agreements.
• Create a DOD Environmental Crisis Monitoring Center to warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental issues before political positions have hardened and policy options have narrowed.
USCAAF: CCR v USA: Brief in Propria Persona by Amici Curiae Lara Johnstone in Support of an Ecocentric Wild Law Sustainable Security Perspective[20]:
A Wild Law[21] regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability[22]. A Sustainable society practices Sustainable Procreation and Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour[23].
Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non[24] foundation for all other Rights[25].
Sustainable Security: “There is no security without sustainability‘[26]: In the absence of a new moral order[27] where Wild Laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre- industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation[28] and resource scarcity[29] will result in conflict and war[30] (perhaps nuclear[31]) confronting regions at an accelerated pace’[32], and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”[33] by 2050[34].
Challenging Pfc. Manning’s Ecocentric Motivations: USCAAF: Petition for Reconsideration: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath[35]:
[E] Finite Resources & Control of Reproduction Breeding War Acts of War: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath:
In appreciation of the government’s oral argument that ‘resources are finite’[36], and the Central Intelligence Agency’s “unvarnished truth’[37] and “Follow the Truth, Wherever it Leads”[38].
Acknowledging Pfc Manning’s Anthropocentric and Ecocentric Military Necessity Motivations for his Actions[39].
Challenging Pfc Manning’, Peacenik Appellants and their ‘Anti-War’ and ‘Peace’ community friends: Are you Willing to Pay the One Child Per Family Price for Peace?
Attached please find Petitioner’s: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath: ‘I am a Leaver, who is willing to pay the one Child per family Price for Peace’ submitted to USCAAF Judges and the Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency: General David Petraeus.
[..] Sincere Peaceniks are challenged to fill out the attached Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath: ‘I am a Leaver, who is willing to pay the one Child per family Price for Peace’ Form; and submit a copy to: .. General David Petraeus: Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20505. Fax: (703) 482-1739
USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: In Forma Pauperis Petition for a Writ of Certiorari:
Argument: Laws of Nature determine that Sustainability is the Sine Qua Non for All Manmade Rights: Peak NNR/Oil Ecological Tipping Point reality demands a reduction of ‘Free Press’ Rights to Journalists or Citizens who do not practice Problem Solving Honourable Sincere Peacenik scientific journalism
4g. A Post Peak NNR/Oil, Laws of Nature Sustainable Security World requires the limitation of rights, to ‘Breeding/Consumption War Combatants’ and/or those who refuse to practice Scientific Journalism:
In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace[40], Dr. Alpert argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured “peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals” which “cause people to relinquish freedoms” but, “do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction”[41]:
result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.Put simply: In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World it is imperative to publicly recognize that any citizen who supports the Inalienable Right to Breed, Consume and/or Vote; and/or whose procreation and/or consumption lifestyle is above the nation’s carrying capacity are contributing towards resource scarcity, and are consequently PRO-WAR (class/race civil war, and/or national resource war) irrespective of their verbal diarrhoea ‘anti-war’ or ‘civil rights’ rhetoric.
Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict, is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace.
Today we, as peace seekers, have to face reality. We have no plan for the peace of our great grandchildren or beyond. We will have no plan until we focus on changing the personal behaviors of 6 billion people. Those changes will require either, very unpleasant institutional actions, or a universal change in the cognitive processes which assign value to a never experienced abstraction [the rights of nature].
In our Post PeakNNR/Oil globalized world of 7 billion citizens and exponentially declining per capita supply of all goods; aggravating resource scarcity potential for race/class civil and international resource wars; the greater the necessity for the limitation of the right for ‘breeding/consumption war combatants’ – who insist on abusing their publicity power, and refuse to practice honourable sincere peacenik scientific journalism -- in highly controversial resource scarcity national security trials.[42]
Conclusion:
So, Director McJunkin, what do you think? Was FBI’s Petraeus-Broadwell investigation used as a convenient excuse to fire Petraeus to Protect the ‘War is Peace Whores’ Human Factory Farming War Economy, from the threat of CIA-Petraeus’ implementation of Ecocentric ‘Maria Bochkareva’ Sustainable Security Proactive Peace Plan raised in USCAAF: CCR v. USA, and USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot vs. RCFP, et al?
Encl: Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik Oath
» » » » [SQSwans (PDF)]
No comments:
Post a Comment