‘Dam’aged Goods

figure-12-2

Pakistan Concerned Over Plan to Build Dams on the Kabul River

Introduction

I have been developing a theory about an issue that is currently coming back into the spotlight here in the Pacific Northwest having to do with the hydro-electric dams along the Columbia River and its many tributaries. The New York Times Editorial, “The Salmon’s Swim for Survival” By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JULY 4, 2016 provides the launching point for which to set the stage of this theory. The opening paragraphs, which lay the foundation for the rest of that article, provides the foundation for my argument; an argument which  refutes these opening statements and provides other insights to suggest that there is way more going on here. Below is an excerpt from this article of those assertions that I argue are fundamentally incorrect:

  • “There are two recent pieces of welcome news affecting the Pacific Northwest’s beleaguered salmon populations — battered by dams, habitat loss, timid government agencies and global warming.
    In one, a federal court in Seattle found that 150-year-old treaties guaranteeing Native American tribes a permanent right to fish for salmon had been gravely compromised by hundreds of roadway culverts and pipelines that blocked the fish from reaching traditional spawning grounds.
    The other hopeful sign was a stirring decision in May by Judge Michael Simon of the Federal District Court in Portland, Ore., ordering federal agencies back to the drawing board to devise an aggressive plan to stave off extinction for 13 salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia River basin that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He found the government’s latest proposal not only inadequate but illegal, in that it fell well short of the act’s mandate to ensure a species’ long-term recovery.
    The original treaties did not envision “such a cynical and disingenuous promise,” Judge William Fletcher, of the federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit, ruled last week. He upheld a lower court’s order requiring Washington State to replace hundreds of culverts with bridges that restore the natural flow of the salmon runs.”

The statement above, particularly that which is highlighted in bold, when compared to historical evidence can be thoroughly refuted and the Judge, William Fletcher, considered to be (at best!) naïve about his understanding of the treaty making process. We can come to this conclusion simply by researching the numerous examples in history that highlight the reality of such disingenuous promises.

Of course this kind of nonsensical perspective is par for the course when it comes to Judges of the Ninth Circuit (as we witnessed recently in the case of the Hammonds in Oregon). With Fletcher himself, coming from a long lineage of high profile judges; including his mother and perhaps others  in his lineage being Federal judges and Rhodes scholars   (here’s another) (himself being a Rhodes Scholar with Bill Clinton); as well as potentially coming from a very influential family in terms of international influence; (the genealogy gets very convoluted so it’s difficult to make a clear connection to the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy). Given just the limited connections here, it is virtually impossible that Fletcher doesn’t know the Hegelian dialectic process and the utility of directing a “synthesis” from dialectically opposing viewpoints or how the overall subjugation process can be made to manifest in indigenous and rural communities through the treaty making process.

heglian-dialectic

Water Control and Conflict Theory

My theory, based on the growing awareness of state-craft in the form of propaganda, false flags, subversive thought control processes and dialectic drivers, is that the entire paradigm with which the argument, for and against the Columbia dams, exists within is fundamentally compromised by the lack of overall awareness of the initial primary and contemporary drivers for the development of watersheds worldwide. This includes the large dams and hydrological infrastructures that have been built to facilitate the goals of the projects here in the United States but also those in other nations; especially those projects that cross boarders (which is also true of the Columbia drainage). I suggest this lack of awareness about the larger forces at work, through well connected and influential individuals and institutions; including those that have operated in the past and continue to perpetuate false and incomplete information today, operate in ways that continue to subjugated indigenous communities and to functionally ensure that nothing of substance threatens their vested interests. This would not just include their monetary interests but also the deep state ambitions for command and control over all human endeavors. (I recognize this is sensational to consider, but the evidence to support this observation is compelling.)

What I suggest is that the construction of the dams along the Columbia, Snake and other tributaries within the Columbia drainage, were implemented primarily in accordance with national and international processes with the primary goal of disrupting indigenous communities as well as the emerging settlements that were made to manifest in the interest of ‘nation building’. The desired result for those operating in the background would be to force everyone living along these waterways into a dependency upon government and private institutions (or their chimeric regulatory bodies such as the BPA, LSRCP, Pacific States, etc). I suggest this would have been at the behest of the same influential families (LINK) along with the various governments and private institutions that benefitted from the control paradigms this afforded them through the creation of public tax and utility use funded organizations that could dictate to the local policy makers and community leaders. Effectively, these large hydro projects disconnect every adjacent river community from the direct relationship to their rivers, along with the resources it provides, and puts it into an agency control paradigm that depends on the good faith of a government and industry ‘control board’ (which is essentially beholden to its investors) to serve the public trust.

As Usual, The Devil is in the Details

When you look at polices that too often has run counter to ‘biological opinion’ in the United States of America, how much it has mirrored developments around the world and how extensively many of these developments have had to depended on international investments and co-operation to manifest (Bank of international Settlements (BIA) we have to ask how well this paradigm is serving the public that has allowed for its implementation. Given the loss of control over the resources on which communities depend, you have to wonder just what the push really is. Like so many modern developments (now with the extremely large investments of public monies into far-reaching (LINK SURVEYLANCE) and toxic (EMF, NUCLEAR) technological developments that support the international power/ surveillance grid (LINK WASHINGTON’s BLOG), I suggest these developments are not truly representative of the will of the public; but the will of institutions and a public who has been conditioned and coerced into relinquishing control and responsibility to these outside entities. It’s too often the case that the public is incapable of making an informed decision or effectively pose a counter position, as the true cost and benefits of these implemented polices and technologies are far from being well understood by the vast majority of the people in the affected communities. Any revelation that truly exposes how the technological ‘progress’ might promote harm to health, the environment or sovereignty it becomes marginalized or co-opted into something less threatening to the power structure. (LINK) It’s become a paradigm that encourages ignorance and apathy. When you look to the numerous connections within the world of international finance, corporations and public trust agencies, along with the control paradigms that rule over all of the information sources that build people’s perceptions; it is possible to recognize numerous inconsistencies in action and rhetoric that would lead one to the same or similar hypothesis as mine. (SAD STATE OF SCIENCE)

Questions for DAMSENSE:

Having attended one of the DAMSENSE presentations concerning the breaching of the 4 lower snake river dams and meeting the knowledgeable and dedicated proponents of this cause, I was encouraged to see some awareness being put forth about the issue of public trust (or lack of) having to do with the Army Corp of Engineers, politicians, the judiciary and other agencies regarding the ineffective and unnecessary court battles being fought over this issue (LINK). Having dedicated a great deal of my personal life to challenging my thinking on many issues; much of them having to do with public trustees and public trust institutions; and putting forth information to challenge others on their perceptions, I find any effort to expose this public misperception to be a good thing. The concern I levy with this dam removal effort, along with so many other noble efforts, has to do with the limited extent to which they go into the deeper revelations about public trust concerns and those who abuse it. I also take issue with some of the promoted solutions to the problems associated with hydropower and other water control and distribution projects by Damsense and other advocacy organizations because they build upon data and research that is often times fundamentally compromised. Here are a few questions that need to be clarified

Are you properly considering the human rights case?

My first question to this effort would be to ask if they have approached the dam issue from a REAL human rights perspective and analyzed the extremely deep institutional collusion that has taken place and continues to take place to advance these large hydropower projects. (Such as has been explored through other researchers like those associated with Cultural Survival) Because the dam removal proponents bring the tribes and their perspective on the dam removal issue to the table, it would suggest they have considered the human rights aspect of these dams. Given the dynamics of tribal politics, which I would suggest are every bit as compromised as any other political entity, you have to question the deeper implications of such an approach.

The fact that the arguments levied to support dam breaching tend to be based on economic valuations (ones that advance other large scale “green” power projects that have their own set of consequences and do nothing to reduce our collective dependency on a national power grid  suggest to me that the fundamental issue of human rights aren’t being properly addressed. The limited exposure of the current situation that promotes the public-private partnerships that tend to diminish local sovereignty, suggests this as well. Petitioning public trustees to “do the right thing” in a system that was born from and exists off this dynamic that fundamentally encourages us to do ‘the wrong thing’ rather than calling on these politicians to be held accountable for their actions, is what I would see as lacking in their efforts.

Has anyone looked into the deeper connections to central banking and international investments in hydro-infrastructures?

Having researched some of the early acts and their proponents and recognizing how these acts have enabled large scale hydro-projects to move forward (LINK International Irrigation Congress) it appears to me that we have an illusion of oversight by our ambitious public trustees and the agencies they direct. I have written a great deal about this in previous blog posts (PUBLIC DISTRUST). Every agency preaches the gospel about ‘public trust’; so it’s been a disturbing revelation for me to recognize the extent to which these institutions run counter to this stated ideology. It’s been my experience, having brought issues of concern to the fore, that there isn’t a responsible mechanism for public trust issues to be considered within any institution of public trust (including the tribes). One need only look to the “Columbia River Accords” (LINK) (something I was not aware of until it was brought to my attention at the Damsense presentation) to see how all entities and their public trust can be co-opted and compromised.

Have the proponents of dam removal done enough to consider the implications for communities and families who have come to depend on the dams for their livelihoods?

I named this sight “modern indigenous perspectives” for a reason; to provide that much overlooked perspective that can only be understood from those who live in these rural areas. While I draw much of my perspectives from the tragedy that befell the American Indians, I don’t identify with only their plight. Those of us who don’t share that particular assault with our ancestry (at least not in the last 300 years) are living here amongst the previous indigenous peoples who did and I would say most of us living out here would like to do so peacefully and respectfully; including the tribes. As neighbors, the modern indigenous peoples are depending on the same resources as the original inhabitants. Unfortunately this dependency has developed in ways that run a gambit of enabling paradigms that serve outside interests; interests that allow these internationally connected and well-financed institutions to dictate the relationships within these communities. It’s resulted in a dynamic that is ungrounded and unhealthy; be it government institution inspired (BIA & resource management agencies) or international industry inspired (energy industry, forest industry, agriculture industry, mining industry, technocracy, etc…). Absent these prevailing interests, which includes the hydropower complex, I suspect everyone would learn to get along reasonably well and a local economy in an area so rich in resources, would thrive. This doesn’t seem to be the push, nor is their enough concern being levied toward the effected families.

I’ve seen the economic argument for and against removal of the dams but I haven’t seen anything speaking directly to the families and communities who will be directly affected. Yes, there certainly is a huge and costly infrastructure and wasteful bureaucracy around these dams. However, there are many good people and communities dependent on those dams. Those many dedicated people and their families, in the event of a dam removal, will have their lives uprooted and I don’t see all these employees and their families being absorbed into the recreation industry that is being anticipated.

When I consider the dynamic institutions and infrastructures that make up the modern power grid, including the Dams, I am reminded of what it must have been like for the American Indian when the crown colonies established communities around the trapping industry, including the tribes that had become subjugated to those original crown companies. (LINK) When the wholesale slaughter of those animals to provide for an international market in these resources went away (or shifted it’s product line rather), tribes were impoverished . This lead to a 200+ years of dealing with “the Indian problem”; a problem that manifested into some very dark efforts at eradication built around the ideology of wanting to “save the man and kill the savage”. (LINK)

“This continent had to be won. We need not waste our time in dealing with any sentimentalist who believes that, on account of any abstract principle, it would have been right to leave this continent to the domain, the hunting ground of squalid savages. It had to be taken by the white race.” – Teddy Roosevelt “Friend of the Indian” (With friends like Teddy, who needs enemies?)

I’ve written extensively on this sight about the process of subjugation I call the “Roosevelt Switcheroo” (LINK). If what I’ve presented above in this post has any merit, I would say this hydro-infrastructure that exists along the Columbia River drainage is another manifestation of this same bait and switch on the path of subjugation. If deemed such (as would be the case when we look to the relationships between governments and industry that have driven this paradigm) it would have huge implications for how reparations are administered. To this end, I would encourage a dam removal solution strategy to analyze how the costs of dam removal and the affected families be provided for through the very well positioned banking families (LINK) as they have prospered immensely while having passed the responsibility for dealing with these devolving situations on to the citizenry. Why not defer the costs of dam removal to Teddy Roosevelt the IV and V (LINK)? If anyone has received ill-gotten gains from the treatment of the Indians and the settlers as pawns in the process, it is that sadistic lineage. (Perhaps sticking them with the bill will reduce their capacity to co-opt legitimate grass roots efforts to deal with local issues by way of the vast NGO industrial complex (LINK) or contribute to the numerous and costly wars of conquest being developed through “think tanks” organizations such as the CFR (LINK)).

Another Way

4- Decentralize the Grid: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/its-not-just-alternative-energy-versus-fossil-fuels-or-nuclear-energy-has-to-become-decentralized.html
This blog post from “Washington’s Blog” challenges the notion that a centralized power grid is more efficient, reliable and safer and suggests that decentralizing the grid is the best way to achieve better security and reduce environmental concerns.

This leaves me to wonder if the remaining infrastructure after a dam breach is capable of being utilized to generate power on a small scale for the communities near the structure. Perhaps they can be modified as penstocks or retrofitted with some kind of run of the river system? This might provide opportunity for the employees at these dams to maintain their livelihoods under a smaller, community connected utility.
Small-hydro Projects: http://www.small-hydro.com/Programs/Potential-Sites.aspx
In River Turbines: http://www.cleancurrent.com/river-turbines

Useful Links and Other Similar Case Studies

Here are some links and commentary that brings to light some of the history and contemporary issues that the proponents and opponents of dam breaching might find interesting and useful. Perhaps this deeper perspective might encourage us all to consider other avenues of approach; approaches that might lead to empowering resolutions as well as restitutions for the clear human rights violations. Perhaps, with this well supported alternative understanding of the situation, the restitutions might be levied on the appropriate offenders; which would be those who, by way of subversion, continue to thrive under this current paradigm. Perhaps, through greater awareness, we might find ways to disallow these offenders the opportunity to continue placing restitutions on the descendants of the initially affected citizens, indigenous and settler alike, who continue to be those that suffer from this collective Stockholm’s syndrome. (STOCKHOLM SYNDROME)

1- National and International Irrigation Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Irrigation_Congress
Wolfenbarger, Anderw G. http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/publicat/timeline/wolfenbarger_andrew_g.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organisation_of_Good_Templars
http://www.iogt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/08.-Constitution.pdf

2- Cultural Survival: https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/none/hidden-costs-hydroelectric-dams
This article from Cultural Survival, speaks to the collaborations and investments in hydro-electric projects around the world from International NGO and United Nations organizations and International banking institutions. This would suggest that there is an on-going and well-funded agenda behind large hydro projects that extends beyond borders. As Mark Dowie’s book “Conservation Refugees” https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/conservation-refugees details (perhaps inadvertently), there may well have been such an agenda taking place for a very long time. Perhaps it’s a process of subjugation in the interest of globalization that goes all the way back to the Roman Empire and the Crusades… (would not the Papal Bulls issued under the Doctrines of Discover, Manifest Destiny, and more modern examples such as the Anti-Communist Manifesto be evidence of such an agenda?)

3- Shasta Dam Raise: Winnimum Wintu: http://www.winnememwintu.us/
This is a contemporary example from California that demonstrates how institutional collusion, in their efforts to deal with the California droughts, is leading to human rights violations. These ‘fixes’ to what I would consider a largely manufacture crisis (due to prior and contemporary technological “advancements” (LINK HYDRO PROJECTS IN CA) (GEOENGINEERING) are leading to the further marginalization of a group of people who essentially have no platform to assert their human rights from, because they are not “recognized” by the federal government (they haven’t been “incorporated” under the institutional authority of the BIA).
https://intercontinentalcry.org/federal-fish-agency-opposes-shasta-dam-raise/

4- Decentralize the Grid: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/its-not-just-alternative-energy-versus-fossil-fuels-or-nuclear-energy-has-to-become-decentralized.html
This blog post from “Washington’s Blog” challenges the notion that a centralized power grid is more efficient, reliable and safer and suggests that decentralizing the grid is the best way to achieve better security and reduce environmental concerns.
This leaves me to wonder if the remaining infrastructure that remains after a dam breach is capable of being utilized to generate power on a small scale for the communities near the structure. Perhaps they can be modified as penstocks or retrofitted with some kind of run of the river system? This might provide opportunity for the employees at these dams to maintain their livelihoods under a smaller, community connected utility that wouldn’t have the capacity to force policy and infrastructure changes through collusion or political pressures.
Small-hydro Projects: http://www.small-hydro.com/Programs/Potential-Sites.aspx
In River Turbines: http://www.cleancurrent.com/river-turbines

5- Afghan Valley Authority:

“If you look beyond the soldiers, and into the distance, what you are really seeing are the ruins of one of the biggest technological projects the United States has ever undertaken. Its aim was to use science to try and change the course of history and produce a modern utopia in Afghanistan. The city of Lashkar Gah was built by the Americans as a model planned city, and the hundreds of miles of canals that the Taliban now hide in were constructed by the same company that built the San Francisco Bay Bridge and Cape Canaveral.”

This is a very interesting article by Adam Curtis detailing the lost history of Helmand Province and the Morrison Knutson hydropower projects that were financed by the US following the TVA and Columbia river projects.

This example demonstrates well the ambitions of a well-connected intelligence community with an ideology that goes well beyond what most people have been taught in school or what they are willing to consider. It’s extremely interesting and telling how intelligence community policies have been used as the fundamental basis for high level decision making in national and international endeavors. This lost history challenges our ideas of “democracy” and ties into the narrative of the modern Afghan war, into the history of international finance and currency manipulation (with the birth of the Petra-dollar*) and even into the astronomically expensive War on Drugs*. If you can understand the underlying push for such a project that followed “Modernization Theories” that would bring about such long lasting and devastating consequences it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to think there were similar ambitions with FDR and others here in the US at the time of the “New Deal” and the TVA. (LINK)

“Faced with this the engineers’ doubts about the project were buried and forgotten. Massive loans poured in from America and two giant dams were built plus 300 miles of big canals.
But more problems emerged. Everything became waterlogged which led to weeds. Salt kept on suddenly appearing. And the reservoirs and the canals made the water cooler which meant that there couldn’t be any vineyards and orchards any longer. In future they could only grow grain.
But again all the doubts and worries were overwhelmed because the American technocrats and politicians had become fascinated by a new idea. It was called “Modernization Theory”. It said that there was a way of using science and technology not just to stop countries like Afghanistan going communist, but to actually transform them into democratic capitalist societies like America.
Modernization Theory had been invented by an ambitious academic at Harvard called Walt Whitman Rostow. He said that if you put the right technologies in place and educated key elites then the countries would inevitably develop into advanced capitalist societies. They would go through a series of logical stages (there were five) until you got what he modestly called “Rostovian Lift-off”.
Some of the individuals who were key players in this development were Truman, Walt Whitman Rostow and Saudi Prince, ……….,
• Walt Whitman Rostow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman_Rostow
Walt Whitman Rostow (also known as Walt Rostow or W.W. Rostow) OBE (October 7, 1916 – February 13, 2003) was a United States economist and political theorist who served as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966–69.
Prominent for his role in the shaping of US foreign policy in Southeast Asia during the 1960s, he was a staunch anti-communist, noted for a belief in the efficacy of capitalism and free enterprise, strongly supporting US involvement in the Vietnam War. Rostow is known for his book The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960), which was used in several fields of social science.”
6- Tragedy & Hope: http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/quigley_carroll.tragedy_hope_banking_money_history

http://therightsofnature.org/

7- Executive Orders:

I question the wisdom of pleading a case for dam removal through various politicians and by executive order. I see this as further establishing credibility for a system that legitimizes the practice of subjecting human rights to the whims of politicians and other personalities. If you are truly paying attention you will see human rights being superseded worldwide in this way almost on a daily basis by public trust officials (LINK). I suggest this is not being recognized because of the well-established social programming mechanisms (in schools and media) that are diminishing people’s understanding of this very fundamental issue.
Another blogger at “Seeking Redress” has some interesting perspectives that are similar to my own on this issue as it relates to the national call for ‘protection’ of the Owyhee Canyonlands by Executive order. https://seekingredress.com/2016/06/04/the-owyhee-canyonlands-debate/
I would have a concern, too, that removal of these dams might not achieve favorable results; or the results that were achieved may well be so convoluted and politicized that the only result would be to further solidify dialectic opinions on both sides. (Parr for the course when it comes to the Hegelian Dialectic process (LINK) that drives every significant issue). I’ve pointed out in previous posts how much science has been politicized and compromised through its adherence to various special interest funding sources. (SAD STATE OF SCIENCE)
Science is bullshit (Drakes Bay Oyster Company) (Baker’s Green Acre Farms) (Malheur)(
The only way around this may be to approach this from a human rights perspective under common law jurisdiction. (Like ITCCS).

Pacific States and the New Age “Rustovian Lift-off”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology#id-13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Smith
http://www.psmfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/psmfc_ar15-v3-proof.pdf
http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/stop-5g-spectrum-frontiers.html
Water History:

2000 article on dam breaching: http://news.fwee.org/?p=2148
1994 Settlement over Colville Dam: http://www.ccrh.org/comm/moses/primary/Colville.html
http://hellscanyon.org/the-dawn-of-dam-removal/
http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.21/the-great-salmon-compromise
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP19/20130321/100498/HHRG-113-AP19-Wstate-BrighamN-20130321.pdf
http://www.salmonforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/A-Salmon-For-All-Mitchell-Act-Statement.pdf
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/fgNews/2013jan.pdf
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/industry/utilities/publications/assets/in_pursuit_of_government_grants.pdf

https://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/tag/scott-helvenston/
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID): http://www.icid.org/conf_congress.html
National Irrigation Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Irrigation_Congress

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s