Gertee: Make Yourself at Home DIY Media Package

It got real cold again, last we checked it was 27 below. The new insulation really helps though, and we're half way through the winter now and gaining daylight! Happy New Year everybody!

I haven't set it up to take paypal payments yet, but if you'd like to order one with paypal just click the paypal donation button on the right and write GERTEE in the subject/message line. I will give a flat 40% discount to homeless advocacy groups and churches. Other bulk orders get discounts as follows: 10 to 49, 25% off, 50 to 99, 35% off, 100 or more, 60% off. All bulk orderers pay their own shipping costs, TBD. Available only in English. Translations coming soon!

The Illuminati are the Nephilim, by Jeffery Grupp

This is wild. I just learned what anti-matter is last night, from a trashy novel I grabbed from a box of throwaway paperbacks up at Tims. It's called Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, and I thought it would be mindless fun to read it at the same time I'm studying Malachai's "novel."

The entire plot of this fiction thriller is somebody acting like Illuminati stole the first collected specimen of anti-matter. So the author had to spend a few pages explaining it to dummies like me. Brown also gives a history of the Illuminatti that I've never read, and I've read quite a bit now. Fiction or fact - oh how the lines are blurred. How can anyone call THAT illuminated? And then, I only opened this email because I'm making a gertee DVD and am interested in how people are marketing them now. I was blown away by name of the maker's radio show, and then I took the link to the preview of his DVD Series. It's taking forever to download so I haven't seen it yet, but it sure looks like it ties into the topics I'm "studying" lately.

The mysteries of who we are and where we came from always lead back to the same sources. Maybe the information about the Illuminati is part of the plan for diverting humans from the present. Maybe it leads to the original founders of the plan. I don't know. Our focus had been primarily on the current manifestation of communitarianism. I prefer using current, verifiable sources. But who's to say whether one version of ancient history is more accurate than another, when there is evidence of all sorts of secret socieities, plots, (H) assassinations, poisonings, intriques, gossip, rumors, rapes, pillages, crusades, wars of aggression, religious persecution and sacrifices, human slavery, torture, mass genocide and canibalism.

There is ample evidence of communitarian ethics and morals in the news today. I don't know if they're illuminated into Light Beings or not, but our modern moral leaders recycle the human organs of their enemies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

I used to try to maintain a certain journalistic standard, as with all my citations in my lengthy quasi academic papers designed to challenge Etzioni and his Network. When I had to include a topic at the ACL I knew academia deemed "conspiracy theory," I tried to be as detached as possible and presented all sides of the topic. There are always many sides to every topic under the communitarian umbrella, and sadly, most (if not all) are completely controlled by communitarian facilitators. Over the years I realized this is my blog and I don't have to kow tow to the information gatekeepers here. That's when I started having fun with it and posting photos of things like my tents, my camps, my projects, Obama as a Pharoh and Chris Katko's political cartoons. Today I'll write about and post anything I want on my blog. I've been called a conspiracy theorist for so long I'm numb to it.

This whole concept of natural science based entirely upon universal law of opposites is causing my brain to do flip flops. Why does everything appear to support Hegel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3_unm0Vv7k

Jeffrey Grupp
Web site: www.AbstractAtom.com
Youtube channel: www.youtube.com/antimatterradio

Is China too big to negotiate? by Rowan Callick

(6) Is China too big to negotiate?

Rowan Callick, Asia-Pacific editor The Australian December 24, 2009 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/is-china-too-big-to-negotiate/story-e6frg6zo-1225813288687

MANY of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's fellow leaders at Copenhagen last weekend were convinced that he was behaving like an impressively deadpan shopper at Beijing's Silk Market.

The classic play for the experienced shopper in China is to bargain down as far as you can, then walk away, shaking your head in sorrow that you cannot afford the seller's exorbitant price.

Then if the stallkeeper remains confident of still being able to chalk up a profitable sale, they will send an acolyte to summon you back for a further round.

But Wen was never going to return once he left the room at the climate change conference, regardless of the loud appeals from Europeans and many developing countries for China to sign up to a different deal.

What Wen took going in to the conference was not an offer or a negotiating position. It was a commitment, which had taken a long time inside Beijing's complex, faction-ridden governing machinery to nut out. ...

Beijing, whose priorities are invariably domestic, does not tolerate ceding ground to multilateral pressure. Germany has finally moved on from the effect of the Versailles peace treaty after World War I, but Beijing has never forgotten that the great powers gathered there handed over the German ports in China to the Japanese rather than returning them to Chinese control.

It's not so hard, really, to work out what Chinese leaders mean in their statements. They mean what they say.

Beijing insists that China's prospect of catching up with its Japanese and South Korean neighbours' living standards is not negotiable, even over global warming. Its Global Times editorialised: "The majority cannot sacrifice their life to build a greener world for the few."

The global financial crisis that laid the Western world low has reinforced Chinese leaders' sense that they are at the centre of international affairs and do not need to play Western negotiating games. Engineers and other technological experts have recently dominated public life in China. Wen himself is a geologist. Bridges are properly built or they collapse. You don't negotiate their feasibility.

Mao Zedong said: "The revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery."

Nor is the revolution a multilateral agreement.

What are the game rules for the Western negotiators? MahJongg? Chess? Game Theory?

Do Communities Have a Right to Impose?

I got an email earlier this month from this student in the London Metropolitan University PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economy) program asking me for my opinion on communitarianism. In my response I asked him if his class had been introduced to Friedrich List's National System of Political Economy, and he replied no, he's never heard of List. Oliver is a third year bachelor.

Do communitarians believe the state has a right to impose a form of life on it’s citizens?

By

Oliver Hovorka (07016844)

Introduction to communitarians

Although the label communitarian is attached to certain thinkers most do not regard themselves as such, but combine certain core approaches towards community and the state. In this essay I will point out ideology that combines the communitarians in their thought, especially towards the state and try to draw a perspective on certain consequences. I will also take a critic approach towards the realization of communitarian politics on a national level.

The origins of the communitarian ideology are consisting of a wide spectrum of ideas; arguably the most significant influences arise from Aristotle’s, Hegel’s and Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Charles Taylor argues in the Aristotelian way that “Man is a social animal, indeed a political animal, because he is not self-sufficient alone, and in an important sense is not self-sufficient outside a polis”¹. Hegel’s notion of “Sittlichkeit” applies to the same thought implying “substance of the will” through “community” (family, civil society and state). The last and arguably most important influence to communitarians is Wittgenstein. In his opinion “all human goods derive from a framework of overlapping communal practices and traditions”.²

Communitarianism as it is known today was founded in the late 20^th century by the critical reaction towards liberalism (Rawls and Nozick in particular). Communitarians reject the notion of individualism in the sense that the state should provide economic and social structures that base sole on the idea of a self centered individual. Communitarians argue that there needs to be a balance between individual private interest and the common good. They emphasize that the individual is shaped by his or hers community and therefore not only learn linguistic behavior from birth, but also the way to act and behave and therefore translate this to the world they live in. These structures are built over time and interpretation of the common good can differ between societies, hence there is no overall theory. If the common good is not seen as a prime judgment in that community, but rather an “alienating” liberal individualistic view of rights, than the individual turns self centered which becomes destructive towards the social environment.

Therefore communitarianism is a critique of liberalism and its core value of individualism which when applied “one to one” leads according to Michael Walzer to:”...no consensus, no public meeting of minds, on the nature of the good life, hence the triumph of private caprice...the ideological reflection of everyday capriciousness”³. This means that there are no consequential and developed decisions but rather inconsequent short lived ones without a debate in public space. In its core Communitarianism therefore points out to the interest of communities and societies en bloc over those of the individual and therefore sees a need to balance individual rights towards a consensus. Communitarians see western societies of today as almost fragmentised and lacking a sense of overall purpose which could lead to an endless search for identity.

Communitarians and the State

The communitarian view of the role of the state is again in its main point a strong contrast towards liberal theory. Especially Nozicks conception is a good way to point this out, as he advocates a minimal state and does not see human beings as social entities that have an interest, or are even capable of deciding on the common good and refers to the free rider problem. According to a communitarian this would have the consequence that “their thinking is trapped by their self-imposed moral neutrality”⁴. Communitarianism supposes state legislation should promote, indeed favour, laws that are seen as a clear benefit towards the common good rather than pure individual benefit, which at the end will benefit the individual less. In the communitarian thinking individuals who want to achieve solely their own goals and still believe in liberal market mechanism are leading the state citizens towards exclusion, of participation in economic and cultural questions and therefore undermine the common good. In communitarianism citizens should be engaged in politics as a member of a nation/community in order to advance the common good rather than the private particular interest. Basically communitarians should participate “wherever the issue of power structure arise...in addition to what goes on in state institutions , citizens should be concerned with the impact of activities in the business sector, and in third sector of voluntary organization and community groups”. ⁵

In consequence this means that even at the lowest level of power the community should participate and decide on the common good. If this is not achievable , e.g. in community groups, the state institutions should respond to the issue. This also reflects the more direct approach to democracy as there are different communities such as historical developed or face to face commodities, which should be considered and given certain state privileges (i.e. the decisions if a new shopping mall should be built). In general rules and laws are different in societies as there is no universal or timeless approach but rather a specific community approach with different traditions and values.

An example of communitarian politics is Tony Blair’s “third way”, which combines socialist and conservative policy towards a communitarian like approach. A recent policy is the “Train to Gain” founded in 2006. It offers publicly funded training and education for business and specific training for employees which should benefit the business, economy and the individual skills of each worker. If a firm is willing to demand the “traintogain” depends on the majority of employees participating in it⁶. In theory, the policy benefits not only the individual but also the overall business. Consequently public money has been used to develop and run the scheme with the tax payer investing in the “common good” of training for an economic growth. The labour government has promoted the idea throughout the country and has reached over 143,000 businesses during the last 3years⁷. The government has therefore not imposed the policy on its citizens but promoted it in a manner that business not participating will have disadvantages. This approach is a non-neutrally one as the state promotes certain legislation or offers, based on the community, which according to communitarians holds a better form of life for individuals. Hence the negative rights system which protects the individual from the state is balanced towards the obligation each individual has towards the community.

Consequence and Criticism

The communitarian ideology in general and especially towards the state has made itself open to criticism. Although liberal ideas could be regarded as being promoted in western culture still every individual has the right of free choice.

In Communitarian politics this right is balanced with the obligation towards the community and in consequence restricted by the law in certain points. The general approach therefore raises questions. If the community balances the rights what consequences could occur. In my opinion it could mean that the community “we” expect to behave and obligate in a certain manner and “they” who behave anti social in whatever sense must except to be punished. This could certainly turn into a sort of community justice promoted by the government which splits life inside these communities into “we” and “them” with the state institution delivering certain outcomes in favour of this thinking. Not surprisingly the leader of the influential “Responsive Communitarian Platform”, Amitai Etzioni, a Lecturer at the George Washington University, has his own view of justice. On the question if there should be justice for terrorist, Etzioni defended his view that people who act like “civilians” in society but work against it do not deserve a fair judgment and should be regarded as “traitors” towards society. Or how he puts it “If someone in your own community attacks you it is particular offensive” and therefore should even receive a “harder punishment” without a fair trial. This seems like a community punishment for “traitors”, hence implied self justice.⁸ His ideas of limitations on free speech are very much leaning to community unity and in a recent interview he talked about the limitations he would suggest could not be committed publicly as “there would be a nonstop scandal on my campus”⁹.

The example of Etzionis justice is of course just one and there are numerous other opinions towards this. Still the argument that an individual inherits a feeling for the common good and to apply this nationwide with favouring laws, by the communitarian majority consensus, is in my opinion asking for misuse and Etzionis views can be interpreted in this way. The notion of a certain homogenous community, balanced by moral and cultural bonds acting as a “guard” against individualism seems almost utopian in certain aspects. In a world where everybody knows his place (e.g. case system) this is by no means automatically a balanced and equal society. This may be a western liberal perspective but if western societies have turned into a liberal mechanism it is also doubtful that this will shift if there was ever such a thing as ideal communitarians. One could even say that the great diversity in society and modern day democracy with the liberal spirit of contemporary society, means that a government which aims at realizing the communitarian ideology and harmonize society by balancing rights, needs to imply a certain form of life and behavior to be practical.

This will mean that an educational process needs to be involved which will remove liberal individualistic ideas that“…have infected the body politics, if you will”¹⁰.

Arguably this can easily tend to a “top-down” system outgrowth and leads to injustice towards different minority thoughts, with the argument of the common good and its educational process. The state even under ideal communitarian arguments favors and leads towards a certain moral obligation and behavior in regard to the majority. In addition the pressure to participate in the community at every level is on a large scale for the individual. John Rawls expressed the fear of totalitarian or authoritarian political programs that misuse communal solidarity as “the fact of pluralism”. Another main argument is that the communitarian ideology is not only vague but also empty, especially in universal aspects and such circumstances will most probably undermine the real spirit of communitarian solidarity.

Or how, Niki Rapaana co founder of the anti-communitarian league argues: “Not only is the ideology vague and not clearly structured, it is so full of holes a second grader can find them”¹¹. A government on a national level is more or less invited to misuse it and imposing rather than favoring a form of life if nationwide implied. Etzioni made it clear that justice and freedom are having certain elements that must be “sacrificed” for the communitarian state. He himself grew up in an Israeli kibbutz where a form of communitarianism may have worked but to imply it nationwide seems unrealistic in western societies. In contrast Singapore has a communitarian political system and it has been an economical success. But at the cost of individual freedom (ranked 133 in worldwide list of free speech¹²) and certain policies that have almost perverse implications. The so-called “graduate mother policy” is such an example. Less educated woman are getting paid money to birth just one or two children in order to not “thin the gene pool” for the community.¹³ This strengthens me in the idea that communitarianism is not applicable on a national scale in western societies. Though in my opinion communitarians do think the state has a right to imply a form life on its citizens, in terms of favoring it and therefore promote it acting on the behalf of the common good and consensus, the ideological backbone of communitarianism is just too weak in its structure to exclude massive misinterpretation of this if practically applied.

Or how Beng-Huat Chua puts it.” The conflation of state /society not only legitimizes an interventionist state but also enables the guardians of the state to slip easily into authoritarianism”¹⁴


Bibliography

Tam, H. (1998), Communiterianism, MacMillan Press

Etzioni, A. et al (1995), New Communitarian Thinking, University Press of Virgenia

Paul, E. et al (1996), The Communitarian Challenge to Liberalism, Canbridge University Press

Bell, D. (1993), Communitarianism and its critics, Oxford University Press

Chua, B-H. (1995), Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapor, Routledge

Taylor, C. (1985), Philosophical Arguments, Harvard University Press

Frazer, E. (1999), The Problem of Communitarian Politics, Oxford University Press

Email question by the author of the essay to the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League, Niki Raapana

www.youtube.com, Amitai Etzioni on the rights of terrorists, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byrcN1fgPlk&feature=related

www.youtube.com, Amitai Etzioni on free speech, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6IiG2k--dA&feature=related

Reporters Without Borders, Press Freedom Index 2009, http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

Harvey Shoolman, Lecture Notes Week 9 , Justice, Rights and the State

Reflections on Copenhagen from Peter Myers

Here's one thing the Australians have in common with the US:

(1) China launches world's fastest train - yet counted as a Developing Nation at Copenhagen

Peter Myers, December 28, 2009

Developed nations are counted as Annex 1 nations, in UN documents of the Rio Earth Summit and the Kyoto Protocol. Japan is the only non-Western Annex1 nation listed.

Annex2 nations are those developed nations who have to PAY for the environmental costs of the Developing nations.

This obliges us even though we "Developed" nations are in serious debt to such Developing nations, having moved our manufacturing industries there, as per the UN-sponsored Lima Declaration of 1975.

China's launching of the fastest train in the world, on top of its manned space launches, shows that the UN's division of countries into two categories, Developed and Developing, with China in the latter, is ludicrous.

The Rio Summit & the Kyoto Protocol even bind Western Countries heavily indebted to China, to PAY for China's voluntary efforts under Kyoto (only Annex 1 & 2 countries are BOUND).

Reclassification of countries from Developing to Developed is VOLUNTARY.

This was the chief sticking point at Copenhagen. Western countries tried to get around it by issuing the "Danish text" (Danish draft). China rallied the "Developing" countries against it, accusing the West of trying to void the Kyoto Protocol.

The Rio Earth Summit & Kyoto Protocol say that Developed countries must PAY not only their own environomental costs, but those of Developing countries, as reparation for the Historic Injustice of the last 200 years (associated with Western colonialism).

A counter-argument to that is that there's been a huge Technology Transfer from Western/Developed countries to Developing countries, which cancels any such reparations, if indeed such a claim was valid.

The UN's Lima Declaration of 1975 sets out a program of the dropping of import tariffs, to transfer Industry from the West to the Third World. The document has a Marxist tone.

Now, 34 years later, it's clear that the major benificiaries of that policy have been Confucian countries (China, Singapore, Hong Kong), which have displaced the West as colonizers.. They are now major financial centres, lenders to the West, and colonizers of Africa and other Third World zones.

The Marxists at the UN cannot wrap their minds around such realities, so fixed is their focus on Western Imperialism.

The 1975 Lima Declaration, formally called Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation, was adopted on 27 March 1975 in Lima by the Second General Conference of UNIDO, by 82 votes in favour, 1 against (United States), and 7 abstentions (Belgium, Canada, West Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, UK.).

Israel's abstention shows that Zionist Jews had split from Marxist Jews by that time.

Reference:
Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: vol 2, G to M, By Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, Anthony Mango, 2003/4

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QqlFx7xHiSUC&pg=PA1325&lpg=PA1325&dq=%22Declaration+and+Plan+of+Action+on+Industrial+Development+and+Cooperation%22+1975+in+Lima+%22Second+General+Conference+of+UNIDO%22&source=bl&ots=vGxMOxYvFp&sig=vclip4ewgFQ3VwdcBnSDBKCfJO8&hl=en&ei=vpA4S-LxEo3Y7AOOkNgo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA

These same Marxists hoped to get the world to sign up to World Government at Copenhagen ... in the fine print.

Subsequent bulletins will make that case.

China was the one country smart enough, organized enough, and strong enough, to see the ruse and destroy it.

The message is that the Marxists will never get their World Government after all. Perhaps they'll reconsider their policies which are transferring the Imperial Succession from West to East.

Peter's forward included the text of the 1975 Lima Declaration, wikipedia information on the Kyoto Protocols and the Rio Accords in 1992. Closest I've ever seen him get to LA21. I can't imagine why Marxists would reconsider their policies when it could easily be that transferance is one of their goals. I personally think China is a big part of the original ruse.

Kind of overkill with the number of reported "leaks" if you think about the global stage actors and the drama they all played out for our benefit. It's almost comical the way it went down.

(9) Danish text divides; China, India, Sudan, Venezuela block "One World" agenda

Copenhagen: The last-ditch drama that saved the deal from collapse

In the end it came down to frantic horse trading between exhausted politicians. After two weeks of high politics and low cunning that pitted world leaders against each other and threw up extraordinary new alliances between states, agreement was finally reached yesterday on an accord to tackle global warming. But the bitterness and recriminations that bedevilled the talks threaten to spread as environmental activists and scientists react to what many see as a deeply flawed deal

John Vidal and Jonathan Watts

Sunday 20 December 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-global-warming

The Copenhagen accord was gavelled through in the early hours of yesterday morning after a night of extraordinary drama and two weeks of subterfuge. It is a document that will shape the world, the climate and the balance of power for decades to come, but the story of how it came into existence is one of high drama and low politics.

Amid leaks, suspicion, recriminations and exhaustion, the world's leaders abandoned ordinary negotiating protocol to haggle line-for-line with mid-level officials. An emergency meeting of 30 leaders was called after a royal banquet on Thursday evening because of the huge number of disputes still remaining.

China and India were desperate to avoid this last-minute attempt to strong-arm them into a deal. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's plane mysteriously developed a problem that delayed his arrival. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao simply refused to attend, sending his officials instead. In a collapse of protocol, middle-ranking officials from the two countries negotiated line by line on a text with Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Germany's Angela Merkel and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Gordon Brown felt the only way to overcome the logjam was for leaders to descend into the detail and take on officials. Yet there was still no agreement by 7am on Friday.

"I thought it was meltdown," said Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change. Brown returned to the fray, cranking out 13 amendments designed to overcome the objections of the developing nations and press home Europe's desire to commit to a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and a determination to make the process legally – not just "politically" – binding on all parties. Both goals were rejected by China and India, which had formed a strong alliance.

During the day, and the flurry of different texts, the leaders battled on, trying to reach an agreement that was not just about saving the Earth from global warming, but would also play an important role in reshaping the global balance of power. Barack Obama, who had flown in on Friday morning on Air Force One, joined the discussions immediately and held two sets of direct talks with Wen, who never once participated in the closed-room group meetings.

Around 8pm, after the second of these bilateral meetings, Obama returned to the negotiating room saying he had secured an agreement from Wen on the key issue of how promises to cut emissions would be verified by the international community. But a new fight then erupted in which China bizarrely insisted that Europe lower its targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

Merkel wanted to set a target for developed nations to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, but in the last gasp, China declared this unacceptable. This astonished many of those present: China was telling rich nations to rein back on their long-term commitment. The assumed reason was that China will have joined their ranks by 2050 and does not want to meet such a target. "Ridiculous," exclaimed Merkel as she was forced to abandon the target.

But it was not to be the final battle in a bruising conflict that left the negotiators drained and the draft diluted. The final text was released shortly before midnight. The final two-and-a-half-page political agreement – the Copenhagen accord – was vaguely worded, short on detail and not legally binding. Although it was hailed as a step forward by Brown and Obama, the weak content and the final huddled process of decision-making – ignoring the majority of the 192 nations present – provoked disappointment and fury.

Part of the frustration was the lack of new ambition. Due to the leaks, hold-ups and suspicion, China barely budged and the EU refused to raise it sights. Before the Copenhagen conference, the EU said it was willing to raise its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% by 2020 if other countries also lifted theirs. That never happened. European commission president José Manuel Barroso said not one country asked the EU to move up to the higher figure, but counterparts had pulled down EU proposals to set a target for 2050.

"It was extraordinary," he said. "This is important for the record. Other parties do not have the interest and awareness in climate change that we have." Which other party was soon apparent. That night, immediately after the accord was announced and denounced for its weakness, the Observer asked the director general of the Swedish environment protection agency, Lars-Erik Liljelund, who was to blame for blocking a 2050 target for cutting emissions.

"China," he said after a dramatic pause. "China doesn't like numbers."

The drama was not over. Without recognition by the plenary session of all the delegate nations, the agreement was almost worthless. But the anger in the hall meant that approval was far from certain. When the Danish chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, gave delegates just an hour to consider the accord, he was assailed by a storm of criticism.

The Venezuelan representative raised a bloodied hand to grab his attention. "Do I have to bleed to grab your attention," she fumed. "International agreements cannot be imposed by a small exclusive group. You are endorsing a coup d'état against the United Nations."

While the debate raged, China's delegate, Su Wei, was silent as Latin American nations and small island states lined up to attack the accord and the way it had been reached.

"We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark," fumed the Bolivian delegate. "It does not respect two years of work."

Others resorted to histrionics. The document "is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.

It was too much for Rasmussen, who looked strained and exhausted after a week spent vainly trying to bridge the schisms between the parties. He raised his gavel to close the debate, which would have aborted the Copenhagen accord and condemned the summit to abject failure.

The document was saved at the last second by Miliband, who had rushed back from his hotel room to call for an adjournment. During the recess, a group led by Britain, the US and Australia forced Rasmussen out of the chair and negotiated a last-minute compromise. The accord was neither accepted or rejected, it was merely "noted". This gave it a semblance of recognition, but the weak language reflected the unease that has surrounded its inception. Copenhagen was the leakiest international conference in history. The first leak, on the second day of the conference, came after a mysterious telephone invitation to meet a diplomat in a cubbyhole at the back of one of the delegation offices.

Two sheets of paper were handed over. They were the detailed analysis of the "Danish text", a widely rumoured but never seen document prepared by a few rich countries in secret and almost certainly intended to be sprung on unsuspecting developing countries when there was an impasse at a late stage in the negotiations.

But without the actual text, the document was incomplete and hard to use. The leaker said that other papers would be handed over to the Guardian off the premises the next day, but the call never came. The day was only saved by an another leaker from another country who handed over a copy of the Danish text within 24 hours. The two leaks together exploded into the negotiations, with developing countries convinced of a conspiracy and rich countries furious as their plans were revealed. If adopted, the text would have killed off the Kyoto treaty, which puts legal demands on rich nations, but not developing ones.

As the conference went on, the leaks became more regular, until by the end there was a flood. Three days before the end, a confidential scientific analysis paper emerged from the heart of the UN secretariat, showing that the emission-cut pledges countries had made by that point would lead not to a 2C rise, as countries were aiming for, but a 3C rise that would frazzle half the world. Britain and other rich countries claimed that the figures were wrong, despite other analyses agreeing with them. But developing countries accused the UN of knowingly consigning countries to destruction.

In the last 24 hours, it became negotiation by leak. Secret documents were deliberately left on photocopiers, others were thrust into journalists' hands or put on the web. People were photographing them and handing them around all the time. All eight versions of the final text that world leaders were asked to sign up to were leaked within minutes of being published. The talks repeatedly teetered on the brink of collapse.

As the talks were snared on procedural issues inside the conference hall, civil society was getting angry. As the arrival of the 120 world leaders approached, more and more restrictions were imposed on who was allowed in. The 7,000 colourful and noisy kids, environmentalists, church groups, lobbyists, students, activists and others who had been allowed into the Bella centre every day were first reduced to 1,000 and then to just 90 on the last day.

Mainstream groups such as Friends of the Earth International and Greenpeace were cut down from hundreds of activists to only a few each. Asian and African groups were hit the hardest because entry was in proportion to membership size.

Posters went up – "How can you decide for us without us?" and "Civil society silenced" – and there were demonstrations, but by the end the Bella centre was silenced.

Before the start of the conference, it had been assumed the leaders would only have to settle two or three issues when they arrived at Copenhagen, but by the time they walked in there were still 192 disputed pieces of text in the drafts.

Rather than reopen debate following the frantic final 24 hours of horse trading, the new chair gavelled through the decision in a fraction of a second. Sudan, China and India expressed concerns, but the Copenhagen accord had been born. Though frail and unloved, this document will shape the lives of generations. Though many environmentalists claimed no deal was better than such a weak deal, those most closely involved in the negotiations said it marked progress of a sort.

"It was definitely worth saving," said Miliband. "This is the first time that developed and developing nations have agreed to deal with emissions and the first time the world has agreed on a deal on climate finance."

Money is likely to oil the deal. Only nations that accept the UN document will be entitled to some of the $30bn dollar start-up fund that will be made available over the next three years to tackle deforestation, share technology and deal with the impact of climate change.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said the negotiations that ultimately involved 113 leaders were unprecedented in UN history, but the effort had been worth while.

"Finally we have sealed the deal. Bringing world leaders to the table paid off," said Ban, who had slept only two hours in the previous two days. "It's not what everyone hoped for, but this is a beginning."

The sentiments were echoed by John Hay, spokesman for the United Nations framework convention on climate change: "At the UNFPCCC, there has been quite a bit of drama over the years. But this may top the list."

Outside the conference hall yesterday, more than 100 protesters chanted: "You're destroying our future!" Some carried signs of Obama with the words "climate shame" pasted on his face.

Friends of the Earth said the "secret backroom declaration" failed to take into account the needs of more than a hundred countries". "This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as a historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize-winning president," said the group's spokeswoman, Kate Horner.

Negotiators put on a brave face. In the early hours, as he headed out into the bitterly cold, Brian Cowen, the Irish taoiseach, expressed disappointment at the outcome.

"The substance of the European Union's [offers] was robustly put, but we couldn't get the commitment of others," Cowen said. "We did not achieve everything we wanted, but the reality is that this is as much as can be advanced at this stage."

China seemed more satisfied. "The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy," said Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation.

The Keys of This Blood, by Malachi Martin

Fred's ready for winter fun now!

I received a copy of this book from one of my readers for Christmas:

The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990, ISBN 0671691740

by Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit Priest who left the Vatican to become a writer in NYC.

I'm learning a lot about Roman Catholic traditions and beliefs from this book. I didn't know anything about the Keys to Christ's Church coming from Simon Peter and being passed down 265 times and all that. In the past couple years I've been learning a bit here and there from my Catholic neighbors, they still act like they believe in Christ even though they left their church over the 501 tax exempt status issue, they couldn't go along with the way that changed sacred marriage vows into something other than what they believe in. We've had more than one all night conversation and it's really helped me. I'm one of those former Lutherans who barely understand the church I was baptized in, let alone anybody elses. About all I remembered was Catholic church adornments and rituals were somehow an affront to God. Religion played no role in the choices I made in my early adult life, and I married a former alter boy in 1988. I had no problem pre-agreeing and promising a Priest to allow our blood children to be raised Catholic.

At first my husbands' Irish Catholic family automatically assumed I would convert, and I did consider it, right up until I realized my future husband had no belief in anything Christlike that I could recognize. When we divorced 4 years later, I put a serious blot on their family records (and they have never forgiven me for it). I allowed him to raise our son, but only if he promised to provide him with a good education. My Marine was in a private Catholic school for 12 years.

So the point is, I have a personal interest in understanding the Catholic church as well as an ACL interest. I always assumed it was good at it's core because I wanted to believe that. Now I'd like to know what my son believes in without exposing the role it plays in the new world order, but that's beyond impossible. A big part of me avoided this piece because I already saw the huge role the Pope played in introducing the world to communitarianism. It was a Jesuit Priest whose words validated our ACL thesis, and I just did not want to insult my son's faith. I never wanted to insult anyone's faith, but especially not the spiritual or religious beliefs of my children.

This book is a real eye opener. I'm about 200 pages into it and wishing I'd have grabbed a pen and marked off all the places where Martin explains away the dialectical tensions between what Pope John Paul called the Capitalist West and the Soviet East. He even spends a couple pages teaching us about Hegel and how the dialectic worked to establish Marxist communism. (It's the first time I've read anything about Marx's involvement with the Satanic church so that was news to me.) But, so far anyway, Martin has not once explained that the "tension" between the US and USSR was also a dialectical drama. He does not call the Pope's amazing grasp of the global need for a spiritual synthesis between capitalism and communism anything but God inspired wisdom that only the Pope could possibly understand. He describes Gorbachev's arrival on the scene as practically divine intervention in worldy affairs, and curiously leaves out any of the British or Israeli contributions to the emerging supranational authority he otherwise describes in detail. How is it possible that a Priest-writer-Vatican insider did not know that communitarianism is the synthesis between capitalism and communism, when Pope John Paul himself explained it?

And in discussing this, how is it possible to leave out Israleli IDF Amitai Etzioni's Kabbalistic sociological theory of communitarianism? It was published at the exact same time the Pope published it, and Etzioni's Talmudic version agrees with the Pope's Catholic NT version 100%.

"Pope John Paul's great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible. The essence of communitarianism, as put forth by the Vatican, consists of seeking middle ground between Marxist collectivism and rigid individualism and capitalism. Phillips traces the history of communitarianism through Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian writings, clarifying the proper function of the community in helping individuals help themselves by mobilizing church resources and countering anti-religious movements such as Nazism and communism. Communitarianism presents an encouraging universal notion of freedom, transcending the one-sided stances of Marxism and libertarian capitalism and promoting the vision of a unified human destiny." Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order by Robert L. Phillips, Carnegie Council.org. {Added to our Dialectic research Oct 6, 2005}, www.cceia.org/resources/journal/05

(I got several comments last month when I posted this quote here, and more than one chastized me for using the term Judeo-Christian in my title. I was repeating its use from the above passage, which apparently none of those commentors read.)

Martin spends a lot of time on Gorbachev, the USSR, and Soviet beliefs too, but again, no mention at all of Amitai Etzioni's collaboration with Gorbachev to set forth many details of the new world order, including the Catholic Church's exact same economic theory of communitarianism. According to Martin, the Pope somehow knew there would be a new world government structure introduced in 1992. That it did happen in 1992 (LA21) should be at least some indication that the name for the final, more enlightened synthesis between East and West existed before Pope John Paul, Gorbachev, and Bush all declared simultaneously that there was an immediate need for a new communitarian world order. Of course the fact that they called it that is rarely mentioned, and true to form, I see no references to communitarianism anywhere in this book, but maybe it's buried somewhere. I'll read the whole book just to find out. :)

I'll write more later about Martin's book after I finish it, because there are some freaky similarities to the stuff I've been reading on our local community league websites. The word enlightenment is used by all of them. He lays out how the church was undergoing a huge inside rebellion in the heirarchy and how the Pope wouldn't stop it. Martin has also written of how the church was infiltrated by Satanists (http://www.tldm.org/news/martin.htm). I'm extremely curious to learn where he's leading me with The Keys to This Blood.

Maybe it was just because I was reading it on Christmas, but the story of the Pope going to Poland made me cry. It made me cry all that much harder as the realization of what he was actually doing there sunk in. I found myself wishing the Pope was an authenic representative of Christ on earth... that there was somebody like that who wasn't part and parcel connected to the whole scam against humanity. The need for a "Savior of mankind" is so much a part of what I believed in as a youth that it still lives deep in my heart. The thought of all those Poles and slavs in the Eastern bloc being tricked was like a knife in my chest. How is it possible I still grieve?

Obama establishes communitarian supremacy of law

I agree with Pete who sent this, it doesn't look good to me either.

"In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves."http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/

Communitarian policing was introduced to the world in the mid 1990s. One of the first "triggers" for me, the thing that pushed my involvement into high gear and led to Dawson v. Seattle, was when Community Policing Officer Hope Bauer told the Dawson hostages to shut up about their "rights" because, "You people have too many rights in this country as it is."

I spent years looking for the answer to why she said that. Starting with the new concept for community policing naturally led me to the new concept of international community justice. Now I finally understand WHY Americans could not be told about this new legal system, and still can't be told, even when they're being told.

It drove me bonkers when the term "communitarian law" was discounted as unverifiable. I've since posted hundreds of links to case law, universities and seminars openly teaching communitarian principles for international justice. At some point the Americans have GOT to start studying the actual LAW, don't they?

Now our fellow citizens (my son included?) can be arrested on US soil for communitarian crimes by international communitarian police and tried in an international communitarian court practicing international communitarian law. But don't worry everybody, we can rest assured they will be well defended by local communitarian lawyers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425