Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Promote
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/4/2018 6:36:51 PM
Info

Ice Age Farmer Report: "End of the World?" - 'Deep adaptation' vs Grand Solar Minimum

crop damage
Media screams IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! (...but only for alarmists!) "Deep Adaptation" incorporates Agenda 21 + GSM preparedness -- can you see through their ruse?

Denmark announces worst crop yields in 100 years as global temperatures continue their decline.

Christian picks apart the alarmist fear mongering -- the world is not ending. BUT IT IS CHANGING...and so must you.

Sources

(sott.net
)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/4/2018 6:51:38 PM
Dreamsicle

Love Him or Loathe Him, Donald Trump is on a Mission to End The Wars and Dismantle The Pentagon's Empire

trump moon korea
More than any other presidency in modern history, Donald Trump's has been a veritable sociopolitical wrecking ball, deliberately stoking conflict by playing to xenophobic and racist currents in American society and debasing its political discourse. That fact has been widely discussed. But Trump's attacks on the system of the global U.S. military presence and commitments have gotten far less notice.

He has complained bitterly, both in public and in private meetings with aides, about the suite of permanent wars that the Pentagon has been fighting for many years across the Greater Middle East and Africa, as well as about deployments and commitments to South Korea and NATO. This has resulted in an unprecedented struggle between a sitting president and the national security state over a global U.S. military empire that has been sacrosanct in American politics since early in the Cold War.

And now Bob Woodward's Fear: Trump in the White House has provided dramatic new details about that struggle.

Trump's Advisers Take Him Into 'the Tank'

Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S. military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed, "We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he would invest in rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure.

In a meeting with his national security team in the summer of 2017, in which Secretary of Defense James Mattis recommended new military measures against Islamic State affiliates in North Africa, Trump expressed his frustration with the unending wars. "You guys want me to send troops everywhere," Trump said, according to a Washington Post report. "What's the justification?"

Mattis replied, "Sir, we're doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square," to which Trump angrily retorted that the same argument could be made about virtually any country on the planet.


Comment: I.e., it's a bull**** narrative that has no 'exceptional' traction for him just because it's America using it.


Trump had even given ambassadors the power to call a temporary halt to drone strikes, according to the Post story, causing further consternation at the Pentagon.

Trump's national security team became so alarmed about his questioning of U.S. military engagements and forward deployment of troops that they felt something had to be done to turn him around. Mattis proposed to take Trump away from the White House into "the Tank" at the Pentagon, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff held their meetings, hoping to drive home their arguments more effectively.

It was there, on July 20, 2017, that Mattis, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior officials sought to impress on Trump the vital importance of maintaining existing U.S. worldwide military commitments and deployments. Mattis used the standard Bush and Obama administration rhetoric of globalism, according to the meeting notes provided to Woodward. He asserted that the "rules-based, international democratic order" - the term used to describe the global structure of U.S. military and military power - had brought security and prosperity. Tillerson, ignoring decades of U.S. destabilizing wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, chimed in, saying, "This is what has kept the peace for 70 years."

Trump said nothing, according to Woodward's account, but simply shook his head in disagreement. He eventually steered the discussion to an issue that was particularly irritating to him: U.S. military and economic relations with South Korea. "We spend $3.5 billion a year to have troops in South Korea," Trump complained. "I don't know why they're there. ... Let's bring them all home!"

At that, Trump's chief of staff at the time, Reince Priebus, recognizing that the national security team's effort to get control of Trump's opposition to their wars and troop deployments had been an utter failure, called a halt to the meeting.

In September 2017, even as Trump threatened in tweets to destroy North Korea, he was privately hammering aides over the U.S. troop presence in South Korea and repeatedly expressing a determination to remove them, Woodward's account reveals.

Those Trump complaints prompted H.R. McMaster, then the national security adviser, to call for a National Security Council meeting on the issue on Jan. 19. Trump again demanded, "What do we get by maintaining a massive military presence in the Korean peninsula?" And he linked that question to the broader issue of the United States paying for the defense of other states in Asia, the Middle East and NATO.

Mattis portrayed the troop presence in South Korea as a great security bargain. "Forward-positioned troops provide the least costly means of achieving our security objectives," he said, "and withdrawal would lead our allies to lose all confidence in us." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, argued that South Korea was reimbursing the United States $800 million a year out of the total cost of $2 billion, thus subsidizing the United States for something it would do in its own interests anyway.

But such arguments made no impression on Trump, who saw no value in having troops abroad at a time when the United States itself was crumbling. "We have [spent] $7 trillion in the Middle East," Trump said at the end of the meeting. "We can't even muster $1 trillion for domestic infrastructure."

Trump's belief that U.S. troops should be pulled out of South Korea was reinforced by the unexpected political-diplomatic developments in North and South Korea in early 2018. Trump responded positively to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's offer of a summit meeting and signaled his readiness to negotiate with Kim on an agreement that would both denuclearize North Korea and bring peace to the Korean peninsula.

Before the Singapore summit with Kim, Trump ordered the Pentagon to develop options for drawing down those U.S. troops. That idea was viewed by the news media and most of the national security elite as completely unacceptable, but it has long been well known among military and intelligence specialists on Korea that U.S. troops are not needed - either to deter North Korea or to defend against an attack across the DMZ.


Comment: They're 'needed' as human shields, literal pawns on the chessboard, such that if anything were to happen to them, the US would be justified in blitzing Beijing or Pyongyang.


Trump's willingness to practice personal diplomacy with Kim and to envision the end or serious attenuation of the U.S. troop deployment in South Korea was undoubtedly driven in part by his ego, but it could not have happened without his rejection of the ideology of national security that had dominated Washington elites for generations.

Fights Over Syria and Afghanistan

Trump was impatient to end all three major wars he had inherited from Barack Obama: Afghanistan and the wars against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Woodward recounts how Trump lectured McMaster, Porter, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in July 2017 on their return from a golf weekend about how tired he was of those wars. "We should just declare victory, end the wars and bring our troops home," he told them, repeating - probably unconsciously - the same political tactic that had been urged by Vermont Sen. George Aiken in 1966 for ending the U.S. war in Vietnam.

Even after a massively destructive U.S.-NATO bombing campaign forced Islamic State to abandon its capital in the city of Raqqa, Syria, in October 2017, Trump's national security team insisted on keeping U.S. troops in Syria indefinitely. In a mid-November briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Mattis declared that preventing the return of Islamic State was a "longer-term objective" of the U.S. military, and that U.S. forces would remain in Syria to help establish conditions for a diplomatic solution. "We're not going to walk away before the Geneva process has traction," Mattis said.


Comment: In fact, it can't gain traction until the Americans buzz off.


But Mattis and Tillerson had not changed Trump's mind about Syria. In early April 2018, the Pentagon gave Trump a paper that focused almost entirely on different options for remaining in Syria, treating full withdrawal as a clearly unacceptable option. In a tense meeting, Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dunford warned that complete withdrawal would allow Iran and Russia to fill the vacuum - as though Trump shared their assumption that such an outcome was unthinkable. Instead Trump told them he wanted U.S. troops to wrap the war with Islamic State in six months, according to a CNN account from Pentagon sources. And when Mattis and other officials warned that the timeline was too short, "Trump responded by telling his team to just get it done."

A few days later, Trump declared publicly, "We're coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon we're coming out."

After John Bolton entered the White House as national security adviser in April, however, he persuaded Trump to view Syria in the context of the administration's vendetta against Iran - at least for the time being. Bolton declared this week that U.S. troops would not leave Syria as long as Iranian troops serve outside Iranian borders. But Mattis contradicted Bolton, saying the troops remained in Syria to defeat Islamic State and that the commitment was "not open-ended."

Trump had been calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan for years before his election, and he felt passionate about getting out. And Woodward reveals that the NSC's chief of staff, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, supported the idea of U.S. withdrawal. When the National Security Council met in July 2017 to discuss Afghanistan, Trump interrupted McMaster's initial presentation to explain why the war was "a disaster": Nonexistent "ghost soldiers" in the Afghan army were being used to rip off the United States, as corrupt Afghan leaders milked the war and U.S. assistance to make money. When Tillerson tried to place Afghanistan in a "regional context," Trump responded, "But how many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?"

The Pentagon and McMaster nevertheless pressed on with a plan to increase the U.S. military presence. At a climactic meeting in mid-August on Afghanistan, according to the account in Woodward's book, McMaster told Trump he had no choice but to step up the war by adding 4,000 troops. The reason? It was necessary to prevent al-Qaida or Islamic State from using Afghan territory to launch terror attacks on the United States or Europe.

Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe in." Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the answer is to get deeper in."

Mattis spelled out the argument in terms that he hoped would finally get to Trump. He warned that what had happened to Obama when he withdrew forces from Iraq prematurely would happen to Trump if he didn't go along with the Pentagon's proposed new strategy.


Comment: Indeed; 'ISIS' appeared on the scene - although that was 3 years later, after Russia retook Crimea. So was Mattis warning Trump, or threatening him with more proxy jihadi wars?


"I still think you're wrong" [about the war], Trump said, [it] "hasn't gotten us anything." But he went along with Mattis and announced that he had been convinced to go against his own "instincts" by approving the 4,000-troop increase.

He was being cowed by the same fear of being accused of responsibility for possible future consequences of defeat in a war - a fear that had led Lyndon Johnson to abandon his own strong resistance to a full-scale U.S. intervention in Vietnam in mid-1965 and Barack Obama to accept a major escalation in Afghanistan that he had argued against in White House meetings.

Trump announced a new strategy in which there would be no arbitrary timelines for withdrawal as there had been under Obama and no restrictions on commanders' use of drones and conventional airstrikes. But since then, all accounts have agreed that the war is being lost to the Taliban, and Trump will certainly be forced to revisit the policy as the evidence of failure creates new political pressures on the administration.

Trump's economic worldview, which some have called mercantilist, poses economic dangers to the United States. And given Trump's multiple serious personal and political failings - including his adoption of a policy of regime change in Iran urged on him by Bolton and by Trump's extremist Zionist campaign donor Sheldon Adelson - he may finally give up his resistance to the multiple permanent U.S. wars.

But Trump's unorthodox approach has already emboldened him to challenge the essential logic of the U.S. military empire more than any previous president. And the final years of his administration will certainly bring further struggles over the issues on which he has jousted repeatedly with those in charge of the empire.

Comment: Just to emphasize Porter's final paragraph, Trump may yield, but to date he's put up more fight than all US presidents since 1945 combined. As such, that makes him worthy of honor, not opprobrium. How people (who really should know better) can't see that is beyond us.

There's every reason to dislike Trump (for relatively superficial reasons): he's using US financial dominance to tax foreign countries' exports; his pro-Israeli stance is barf-inducing; he insults everyone with both his spontaneous statements and tweets, and some of his prepared speeches; he is loud and ultra-American; he (presumably) cheated on his wife with a porn star...

But if he is a 'racist' for wanting to defang the Pentagon Global Death Star, then he is the least racist US president in a while, possibly ever. That is why Sott.net is supportive of the man on this essential matter, one with the greatest actual consequences for people and planet.

(sott.net)



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/4/2018 7:02:40 PM
Stock Down

'Typical mistake of any empire': US undermines dollar by imposing sanctions globally - Putin

US Dollar
© Dado Ruvic / Reuters
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Washington is making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by imposing sanctions around the world and exploiting its dollar dominance, warning there will be consequences.

"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," he said, suggesting that the US is undermining confidence and faith in the dollar as a universal tool.

Putin made the comments while speaking at the Russian Energy Week Forum on Wednesday. "This is a typical mistake of any empire," he said, explaining that the potential negative consequences are ignored when everything is strong and stable."But no - the consequences come sooner or later."

Russia has recently been trying to decrease the share of US dollar in its economy. The de-dollarization of Russia has been actively discussed in the country lately due to the tightening of US sanctions, said VTB Bank head Andrey Kostin, Tuesday.

In May, President Putin said Russia can no longer trust the US dollar-dominated financial system since America is imposing unilateral sanctions and violating World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Putin added that the dollar monopoly is unsafe and dangerous for the global economy.

The Russian government notes that it is not interested in ditching the dollar completely, but at the same time it is working on ways of reducing the dependence of the economy on the US currency.



(sott.net)



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/4/2018 7:08:14 PM
Crusader

Divine Will? New film claims Trump's election was an act of God

More than 1,000 US cinemas are screening The Trump Prophecy - which posits that God chose the philandering billionaire to restore America's moral values

Pastors from Nevada pray with Donald Trump during a visit to Las Vegas in October 2016. Plenty of moviegoers in Lynchburg, Virginia, heaped praise on the movie.
© Evan Vucci/AP
Pastors from Nevada pray with Donald Trump during a visit to Las Vegas in October 2016. Plenty of moviegoers in Lynchburg, Virginia, heaped praise on the movie.
It was, everyone agreed, a miracle. The unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016 was an act of God, who chose the philandering billionaire and reality TV star to restore America's moral values.

This is the theme of The Trump Prophecy, a movie telling the story of Mark Taylor, a former fireman from Orlando forced to retire after suffering from PTSD, which premiered on Tuesday.

Between graphic nightmares featuring demonic monsters and hellish flames, Taylor received a message from God in April 2011, while he was surfing television channels.

As he clicked to an interview with Trump, Taylor heard God say: "You are hearing the voice of the next president."

And so it came to pass, although it took another five years and a national prayer campaign. Taylor duly wrote a book, The Trump Prophecies: The Astonishing True Story of the Man Who Saw Tomorrow ... and What He Says Is Coming Next, on which the movie is based.

The belief that Trump's election was God's divine will is shared by others. Franklin Graham, the prominent conservative evangelical, said last year that Trump's victory was the result of divine intervention. "I could sense going across the country that God was going to do something this year. And I believe that at this election, God showed up," he told the Washington Post.

Taylor has made other claims, which he calls "prophetic words", including that Trump will serve two terms, the landmark supreme court ruling on abortion in the Roe v Wade case will be overturned, and that next month's midterm elections will result in a "red tsunami", strengthening Republican control of both houses of Congress.

Barack Obama will be charged with treason and Trump will authorise the arrest of "thousands of corrupt officials, many of whom are part of a massive satanic paedophile ring". Trump will also force the release of cures for cancer and Alzheimer's that are currently being withheld by the pharmaceutical industry.


Comment: Nice thoughts, but we aren't holding our breath.


About 1,200 cinemas across the US were screening The Trump Prophecy on Tuesday and Thursday this week. There may be repeat showings if there is demand. Given several rows of empty seats in the Regal River Ridge Stadium in Lynchburg, Virginia - a conservative evangelical heartland - that may prove unnecessary.

But there were plenty in the audience that heaped praise on the movie and its lengthy coda of talking heads hailing America's leadership in the world, strong economy, military prowess, defence of Israel and general godliness.

"God is definitely using Trump to restore America and bring revival to our land," said cinemagoer Kathy Robinson. "He stands for the common man and protects our freedoms. And he's a good man himself - not perfect, but none of us are."

Doug Barringer was impressed with the movie. He was sceptical of Trump "right up until election night. But what I've seen him doing since has led me to believe that maybe he is an instrument of God."

There was no doubt in Jayne Gillikan's mind. "Trump is God's will, there's no other way to explain it. I prayed for him through the [2016 election] campaign. I know in my heart that God raised him up for this time in our country."

The £2m movie was a collaboration between ReelWorks Studios and the film school at Liberty University, an evangelical Christian institution in Lynchburg. More than 50 students and nine members of faculty were involved in the production.

But some students objected to the movie on theological grounds. They launched an online petition calling for the project to be cancelled.

"This movie could reflect very poorly on all Liberty students and Liberty University as a whole," the petition said. "Mark Taylor claims to have received prophecies directly from God that do not align with the Bible's message."

It added: "Some cinematic arts students have expressed that they are disheartened by being forced to be a part of promoting a man that they don't agree with. Many do not want this movie on their résumé."

Liberty was already ranked the most conservative college in America. "Further actions such as this will only hurt students' chances of finding jobs in more liberal work environments," it said.

By the time of Tuesday's premiere, it had been signed by 2,286 people.

Stephan Schultze, Liberty's professor of cinematic arts and the movie's director, dismissed the petition. "We had one student in our cohort who asked to be transferred to an alternative project. Most students were very positive," he said.
Liberty University students in 2016. A petition said the movie could reflect ‘very poorly’ on the university
© Zuma/Rex/Shutterstock
Liberty University students in 2016. A petition said the movie could reflect ‘very poorly’ on the university.
The film was "a very pivotal, significant moment" for Liberty's cinematic arts department. It was only the second time that a US film school had been involved in a feature film scheduled for theatrical release, he said.

Sean Barlow, a Liberty cinematic arts student who was a camera operator on the movie, said it had been a "great experience" while acknowledging that "a lot of people weren't happy". But, he added: "The message of unity is something this country really needs right now."

Social media companies were also reluctant to be associated with the movie, according to the producers.

Facebook deemed adverts for the film to be political, according to a report by Fox News.

Rick Eldridge, CEO of ReelWorks and the film's producer, told the Guardian it was targeted at "a conservative audience, a faith community, but every American who loves his country should appreciate the movie and be inspired by it".

Comment: One man's angel is another's demon. Trump appears to have been crowned king of the political divide - there's no middle ground, he is either adored or loathed. The trailer for the film:



(sott.net)



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
10/5/2018 10:15:41 AM
Heart - Black

Nestlé corporate greed deprives Canadian indigenous community of drinking water

Nestlé
© Corbis / Agence France-Presse / RT
While Nestlé extracts millions of litres from their land, residents have no drinking water

Just 90 minutes from Toronto, residents of a First Nations community try to improve the water situation as the beverage company extracts from their land

The mysterious rash on the arm of six-year-old Theron wouldn't heal. For almost a year, his mother, Iokarenhtha Thomas, who lives in the Six Nations of the Grand River indigenous reserve in Ontario, went to the local doctor for lotions for the boy. It worked, for a time. But the itchy red rash always returned. Thomas came to suspect the culprit behind the rash: water - or, rather, the lack of it.

Thomas, a university student and mother of five, has lived without running tap water since the age of 16. Her children lack access to things commonplace elsewhere, like toilets, showers and baths. For washing and toilet usage, they use a bucket.

canada indigenous boil water
© Jennifer Roberts for the Guardian
Ken Greene boils water in his home at the Six Nations reserve in Ontario.
It is a challenging existence, full of frustration, exhaustion and health problems, and reminiscent of life in some developing countries. But this is not the "third world". It is Canada, which regularly ranks as one of the United Nations' top places in the world to live. Moreover, this Native community is located in prosperous southern Ontario, 90 minutes from Canada's largest and richest city, Toronto.

Meanwhile, while Thomas and her family do without water, the beverage company Nestlé extracts millions of litres of water daily from Six Nations treaty land.

Twice a week, Thomas and her husband grab jugs, pails and whatever else they have in the house, and drive 8km to a public tap to fill up. The water isn't drinkable, however, so once a week they also drive 10km to the nearest town, Caledonia, to buy bottled water to drink.

"When my husband isn't here, it makes it difficult to do the dishes or anything because I don't have the strength to carry all the jugs of water," Thomas said.

"When I start to compare my life to someone who isn't living on reserve, I start feeling angry at the government," she said. "Because our people don't have running water. But that's just the reality of living on reserve. You grow up being treated unfairly."

Each container of the store-bought bottled water weighs more than 40lb, so a little over a year ago, Thomas, a slight, willowy woman, began supplementing them with rainwater collected from her rooftop gutters. She would have continued had it not been for her son's rashes, later diagnosed as impetigo, which she believes came from bacteria on the roof's shingles. "It made me feel like a bad mother to know that he had all these skin issues from washing with [rain] water."
nestle water indigenous people
© Jennifer Roberts for the Guardian
Ninety-one percent of the homes in this community aren't connected to the water treatment plant, says Michael Montour, director of public works for Six Nations. Some, like the Thomas home, have no water at all. Others have water in their taps, but it is too polluted to drink.

The Six Nations are not the only First Nations community in Canada with a water crisis. There are currently 50 indigenous communities with long-term boil water advisories, which means an estimated 63,000 people haven't had drinkable water for at least a year - and some for decades. But this may underestimate the size of the problem, since some indigenous communities, such as Six Nations, have a functional water plant but no workable plumbing. The lack of water has been linked to health issues in indigenous communities including hepatitis A, gastroenteritis, giardia lamblia ("beaver fever"), scabies, ringworm and acne.

"Why do white people live with water and we don't?" said Dawn Martin-Hill, a Six Nations local and professor of indigenous studies at McMaster University. "They don't have to live like we live. There's a lot of environmental racism."

It seems difficult to believe that anyone in Canada, a large, sparsely populated country home to 60% of the world's lakes and one-fifth of the world's fresh water, could be without clean water.

Canada's bounty has made it an attractive destination for beverage brands such as Aquafina and Dasani, which pump and bottle the abundant freshwater. But the distribution is rarely according to need. Nestlé, the world's biggest bottler, is extracting up to 3.6m litres of water daily from nearby Six Nations treaty land.

"Six Nations did not approve [of Nestlé pumping]," Martin-Hill said. "They told Nestlé that they wanted them to stop. Of course, they are still pumping as we speak."

Nestlé pumps springwater from the nearby Erin well, which sits on a tract of land given to the Six Nations under the 1701 Nanfan Treaty and the 1784 Haldimand Tract, said Lonny Bomberry, Six Nations lands and resources director.

The Six Nations - Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca and Tuscarora - sided with the British during the American revolution; as a reward they were given an area of approximately 3,845 sq km around the Grand River. Later, Ontario broke the treaty, reducing it to the current 194 sq km.

nestle indigenous water
© Jennifer Roberts for the Guardian
Ken Greene gathers water for his home.
The land's legacy may be 300 years old, but for Six Nations residents, it is alive and present. Many are outraged at Nestlé's practices, including JD Sault, a self-employed mother of two. Like the Thomases, she lacks drinking water in her home. She paid several thousand dollars for her house to be connected to a nearby well - then found the water too polluted to drink. There is probably sewage contamination from her neighbours' septic beds, she said. She worries about E coli and other bacteria.

"Nestlé are taking out water for free, so why don't they dispense it to people?" Sault said. "It's the indigenous resources they are taking. It's unreal what [Nestlé] are doing. It's unreal the way they operate."

No one disputes the existence or legality of the Haldiman or Nanfan treaties. If anything, their legality is finally being taken seriously, thanks to a shift in the national political climate toward greater recognition of indigenous rights, including several wins in the supreme and lower courts.

But the question of who owns Canadian water is as murky as the water on many First Nations lands. In theory, the provinces have owned the water since 1930, when the federal government delegated ownership with the Natural Resources Transfer Act. According to that act, the provinces have the right to sell their water to whomever they want, including companies like Nestlé.

But water is also supposed to be regulated by the federal government, which is responsible for the natural environment and Canada's waterways. And, according to the Canadian constitution, the federal government has a "duty to accommodate and consult" First Nations and to make sure other parties do the same when extracting any natural resource, including water, from indigenous land.

This legal ambiguity has allowed Nestlé to move in and extract precious water on expired permits for next to nothing. Nestlé pays the province of Ontario $503.71 (US$390.38) per million litres. But they pay the Six Nations nothing.

In response, the Six Nations are suing the province, in a case before the superior court of Ontario.

"We are working hard on developing our relationships with local First Nations communities, and look forward to working together," Jennifer Kerr, director of corporate affairs for Nestlé Waters Canada, wrote in an email to the Guardian.

"Everything has to do with the water," explained Ken Greene, 53, who lives with his wife in a one-bedroom trailer without running water. "Because it has to do with the land. Land needs water. We need water. We can't survive without it."

The disputed Erin well is located in a drought-stricken area, explained Emma Lui, a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians, a progressive not-for-profit that works on environmental causes. The drought has dried the wetlands surrounding Greene's 10-acre property. It has also decimated the local populations of salmon, trout, pike and pickerel, Greene said.

Martin-Hill told me that indigenous leaders can do little to address the drought because they are caught in a legal trap. Drought and other environmental problems are supposed to be addressed during the granting of new water permits. That's when scientific and legal experts examine fish populations, vegetation and aquifer levels to decide how much well water can be safely extracted.

It's not happening. There's been a moratorium on new permits since 2016 - yet, paradoxically, the Ontario government has also given companies the right to pump water on expired permits until 2019. (The permit for the Erin site expired in 2017.)

Makaśa Looking Horse, 21, a student in indigenous studies at McMaster University, has organized a community-wide march for this fall. She has also organized a boycott of Nestlé's products. "It's hard to boycott Nestlé because they own so many companies that sell so many products," she said. "It's hard to pick and choose. You don't always know what's Nestlé and what's not because they own so much."

This is not the first time Nestlé has found itself in such difficulties. In fact, numerous conflicts have surfaced related to their business model, according to Peter Gleick, co-founder and president emeritus of the Pacific Institute, a global water thinktank, and author ofBottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water.

Many of Nestlé's competitors, such as Aquafina and Dasani, don't use spring water, but filter and treat tap water, Gleick said. But Nestlé was founded in the 19th century on the idea that spring water might have incredible health benefits. Nestlé bottles its brands - including Arrowhead, Poland Spring, Deer Park, Ozarka, Zephyrhills, Acqua Panna, San Pellegrino, Perrier, Vittel and Buxton - from deep aquifers and natural springs, which can take decades or longer to replenish.

For the past century, demand for freshwater has grown twice as fast as population growth, explained Steven Solomon, author ofWater: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization. The United Nations predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will live with dire water shortages, and two-thirds of the world's population could be living under stressed water conditions. That means a race to find untapped springs.

Anticipating shortages, companies like Nestlé are trying to lock in as much of the world's water as possible, explained Solomon. Bottled water is the world's most popular drink, and its sales recently outstripped soft drinks, according to a study by Beverage Marketing Corp. The trend is expected to intensify. The higher temperatures predicted with climate change will lead to less water and more thirst. "Demand is rising," Solomon said. "The curve is rising a lot. And they are trying to tie up supply."

"The fact that Nestlé is commercializing these natural resources in a community that doesn't have access to reliable safe, affordable drinking water is a stunning example of the disparities we see around the world in access to safe water," Gleick said. "The rich can pay for water and the poor get shortchanged over and over again."

The former CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, caused an international furor when he praised the commodification of water in a 2005 documentary, saying: "One perspective held by various NGOs - which I would call extreme - is that water should be declared a human right ... The other view is that water is a grocery product. And just as every other product, it should have a market value."


While the lack of water in indigenous communities has been carefully documented, the full impact on the health and mental wellbeing of indigenous residents has not.

Eager for answers, McMaster University professor Martin-Hill is conducting a three-year interdisciplinary study examining the impact of contaminated water and lack of water on humans, as well as fish and wildlife. "We need to know what is going on. Because what is happening with our water is a systemic, institutional assault on indigenous people's lands and rights over those lands to protect and preserve them."

Martin-Hill believes that the exorbitant suicide rate among First Nations youth - five to seven times that of other Canadians, according to the federal government - is directly related to the lack of drinkable water. For a Six Nations person, water is sacred and a symbol of life. But the lack also has metaphorical significance, as it becomes representative of the myriad ways that indigenous Canadians are treated as second-class citizens.

"The young people are upset, pissed and demoralized," Martin-Hill said. "There's a strong element of depression, sadness and hopelessness because it's been going on for so long. Young people don't see a future."

At Six Nations, the water situation is improving, albeit slowly. In 2013, the community received a $41m grant to build a state-of-the-art water treatment plant. Unfortunately, the grant did not cover the cost of plumbing, so it serves only 9% of homes.

"We had to take out a loan for $12m to come up with the final dollars needed," Chief Ava Hill said. "In addition, they have not provided sufficient operation and maintenance dollars for us to run the plant. The challenges of gaining money for infrastructure on reserves is that the federal government simply does not provide enough dollars even though they have the fiduciary responsibility to do so."

With the election of Justin Trudeau, the tide seemed to shift somewhat. The prime minister promised to improve First Nations prosperity and solve the bad water issue on indigenous reserves by March 2021.

While there has been some progress, there aren't sufficient funds. The Liberal government earmarked $1.8bn over five years to solve the water issue. But the real cost is estimated at $3.2bn, leaving the government more than $1bn short.

For Thomas, the inequality between indigenous people's access to drinking water and everyone else didn't start with water, but far earlier, with land displacement and colonialism. For her, it is the latest example of an ongoing cultural genocide. When thinking about how she will survive another day without drinking water, she remembers how her family has survived in the past.

"We are taught to be resilient," she said. "It's not right, but it's just a reality. You have to tell yourself: 'This is just the way it is.' Otherwise you become angry and bitter."

Comment:


(sott.net)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1