*Work in progress*….
It has long been my contention that public trust agencies, in some alarming ways, are operating outside their responsibility to the public. I have detailed, in a previous blog “Public Distrust“, how internal perceptions are developed through investments in ‘public relations’ programs that imprint certain perspectives that align more with corporate management models than models of responsible natural resource stewardship.
With the expected approval of the Midas Gold operation, I don’t think public trustees and public trust managers are serving the public trust. Rather, they are helping to obfuscating the truth and serving to condition the public into accepting huge risks based on a number fundamentally compromised justifications.
The justifications for the re-opening of the Stibnite Mines are stated in the Midas Gold proposal as this:
“America’s need for strategic and critical minerals continues to increase”
- Integral to national defense, aerospace and energy industries
- Threatened by disruptions and no strategic stockpile
- Used in alternative wind and solar energy application
- Fire resistant transmission lines
- Military equipment and munitions
- Fire suppressants and flame retardants
The carrot being dangled to the environmental minded and the resource management agencies and all of those that might otherwise pose a united opposition to this project, are the investments in stream restoration and cleanup of the Stibnite Mine “brown site”. This blog post aims to challenge these primary justifications and to argue against the conflicts of interest that would influence the review process and minimize local concerns.
(There are very intelligent individuals, who are critical of the Midas Gold project, that are infinitely more qualified than I to speak to specific flaws in the project in terms of safeguards and toxic potential. I encourage investigation into this area, perhaps by perusing through the numerous comments on the Forest Service website and reading blog posts from Idaho Rivers United. This “Modern Indigenous” blog will focus on the social engineering aspects of this project and provide references to other similar project proposals that I have become aware of.)
Before delving into this blog I encourage readers to review this 2015, 60 minute program “Modern Life Devices Under China’s Grip“. This news story sheds some light on some of the history and contemporary political pressures driving the push to mine “strategic minerals” in the US. It also speaks to the international markets that work synergistically with political paradigms to drive industry. Having spent a great deal of time analyzing modern media, I recognize news stories like this to be a pre-conception building tool that works on the mass mind and the mind of public officials to influence opinions and perceptions on policy issues. Recognize too that this 60 minute news story was cited in a legislative hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources concerning policy on strategic minerals.
(Just this morning, 2/26/2018, I watched a “New World Next Week” podcast that speaks to the concerns that I have detailed below in this blog post.)
“America’s need for strategic and critical minerals continues to increase”
While this is a claim I would not argue against, I think it is critical to consider why and how some of these strategic minerals have become “needed” in the first place. I suggest the need for these minerals is not based on actual need but on various forms of conditioning and public/ private funding in tech industry that drives dependency. I suggest there is a great deal of manipulating of public (customers) perceptions to sell products that ‘require’ these minerals. Along with this are policies that force manufacturers to employ mineral dependent technologies in their products (such as toxic flame retardant materials, “green” energy components in wind and solar and in household appliances); high-tech safety features in cars; and heavily subsidized power grid development … to name a few.) Beyond this are the numerous incentives given to manufacturing industries to mass produce for government agencies in all sectors; including the natural resource and wildlife management sectors who have become more than a little dependent on mineral resource depleting technologies! The public tax dollar plays a huge part in driving this demand for mineral resources in many ways; often synergistically with modern cold war posturing between “frenemies” and various covert inspired political and social upheavals around the globe.
Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, details the way in which this conditioning is achieved in his writings on the “Engineering of Consent“:
“Leaders may be the spokesmen for many different points of view. They may direct the activities of major organized groups such as industry, labor, or units of government. They may compete with one another in battles for public good will; or they may, representing divisions within the larger units, compete among themselves. Such leaders, with the aid of technicians in the field who have specialized in utilizing the channels of communication, have been able to accomplish purposefully and scientifically what we have termed “the engineering of consent.”
In many ways the engineering of consent is being employed on the public; by private companies, who you would expect to engage in such practices to market a product, and by public institutions, who you would not expect to engage in such practices due to their obligation to serve the public trust. I concentrate a great deal on the latter case on this website. It is my view that public trust agencies are influenced from the top, through their various forms of relationship with industry, and are complicit in employing inappropriate methods of consent manufacturing internally and on the ill-informed citizenry. I do not believe this is true in all cases and I do not believe these methods of “consent building” are employed with the conscious intention to deceive. Rather it is the seamless and ubiquitous messages that pervade over sound reasoning and unbiased scientific review that condition public trustees and public trust managers into subjectively minimizing certain contrary concerns. I suggest this is what is contributing to the advancement of numerous projects, like the Midas Gold project, which move forward without resource management agencies performing an unbiased and thorough review. (Not to mention the industry-biased pre-conditioning that is inhering in the review process; which is made up of mountains of policy review procedures and documents that are written in ways that are near impossible to understand. This leaves the average citizen in effected regions at a huge disadvantage, legally and otherwise; as well as leaving them dependent on technicians to choose the best coarse of action. Technicians, while very intelligent, are not necessarily the best arbiters of policy and can be very much blind to the natural laws of action and consequence).
1- Military Industrial Complex and the value of “frenemy-ship” – (Sorry, this topic is a bit “windy”).
“Integral to national defense, aerospace and energy industries, military equipment and munitions”
When I see justification for putting the Salmon River drainage at risk by the redevelopment of the Stibnite mine attached to “national defense” I am automatically skeptical. Having served with Special Forces soldiers who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, I tend not to accept that justification. (Read my blog post “Transcending the Cult of Personality” for my views on this).
There are mountains of evidence to suggest that our military ambitions abroad, that are destroying so many lives and leaving so many toxic legacies; certainly here at home and massively in other nations, (“Ain’t Nothing Green About the Green Zone“); are primarily driven by international banking and military equipment and munitions industry. This is taking place in ways that can be traced to resource exploitation and extortion under the guise of “spreading democracy” to mineral rich regions and through direct military action. A distillation of the US Department of Defense spending for the month of November, 2017- $21,226,750,000+ on 215 individual contracts ; this puts into perspective the extent of this condition. This is a reality that was warned about by Eisenhower in his January, 1961 farewell speech.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”
I strongly believe the “tail is wagging the dog” in so many modern war and exploitation efforts and we are realizing, well beyond what Eisenhower imagined, the extent of our misleaders’ ambitions. Almost seamlessly from administration to administration; from Tricky Bill’s campaign in Yugoslavia to Baby Bush’s kick off of the never-ending war on terror and the selling of the Iraq war lie, to Obomber and Killery’s “regime change” operations in Libya, Syria and covertly in the Ukraine and now Trump (the fall guy in my opinion) and his support and ambitions for numerous military campaigns in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, in the nations of Africa… on and on and on! Do we really “need” to mine antimony to serve this never-ending display of absolute madness?
None of what we subscribe to, that is attached to “national defense”, holds validity to anyone who has become aware of the massive issue of war profiteering and propaganda. Foreign companies out of the nation of Canada, through US proxies (our Idaho representatives), are capitalizing on the inappropriate amount of blind patriotism that proliferates in this state. They mean to exploit a resource and turn a profit and they will say and do whatever sounds good to the locals to get their necessary approval. For a significant portion of the state, the attachment to “national defense” is justification enough.
Most, if not all of our current representatives in Idaho have bought into the war propaganda… hook, line and sinker; as have resource managers, among agencies like the US Forest Service, who review resource extraction projects and weigh in, uncritically, on the costs and benefits.
What is wrong with this picture? What if we, as individuals, don’t subscribe to the cost and benefit analysis and their justifications put forth by our local representatives? Our only recourse is to go to these same authorities (legislatures) and/ or the imposed statutory institutions (multi-levels of judiciaries), who’ve been conditioned to apply laws that have been imposed on “free peoples” and plea to them to have our “inalienable rights” considered. In this case it is our right to NOT be subjected to unacceptable risks to our way of life as well as our right to maintain our environmental and human health.
“Inalienable- not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable :
inalienable rights, freedoms, and liberties; an inalienable territory; inalienable principles and values.”
(I don’t completely understand how it is implemented but I think there are common law procedures that could be applied in many of these cases. I think a lesson in this can be gleaned from those amongst the liberty movement and applied to these instances of environmental assaults and abuses; like what has been attempted in Grant Township, Pennsylvania with the help of the Environmental Legal Defense Fund.)
(It is interesting that Canada, a nation the progressives here in the US look to as an example of responsible stewardship and progressive values, ironically, seems to be ripe with resource exploitation companies engaged in extremely destructive and regionally contentious ventures around the world. No better in scope and practice than the infamous Canadian Hudson Bay Company of the colonial era.)
The Legacy of World War II
In the House Joint Memorial, Idaho representatives point to the legacy of the Stibnite Mine as being instrumental in the World War II effort as a justification for re-opening the Stibnite mine. Without getting into the details of the history of the World War II industrial machine, that is presented as some kind of wonderful legacy we need to honor by re-commissioning this mining operation in the “Gem State”, we might consider the extent of this legacy that was left; not just from mining exploitation but also the Manhattan project and the “Green” revolution. Not only should we consider the toxic legacy left but also the subjugation of the commonwealth through globalization and alignment with international industry and the numerous instances with which the American citizenry have been purposefully exposed to known deadly toxins for experimental purposes.
Apparently, as reported in this study (LINK) the globalization of the mining industry was initially a part of the effort to foster a world economy that would bring about international “cooperation” and prevent isolationist thinking that might compromise the global effort to end all conflicts. Given the legacy of conflict during the cold war and the never-ending wars of the 21st century under this “globalization” paradigm, I don’t think there is much justification for global trade in mineral resources contributing, in any way, to world peace. I would suggest the opposite is true.
Given the numerous war theaters and regime change operations currently at play, one could strongly argue that we are well beyond the illusion of National Defense and on the offensive; very much in line with the 7 Wars Plan revealed by General Wesley Clark. It is as much irresponsible now as it was in World War II and all throughout the cold war to bend over backwards and let the war profiteers (like the granddaddy of 2 former presidents, Prescott Bush (LINK)) set the course of destiny that has brought us so many toxic realities. (Like being Hanford “down-winders” and Guiney pigs for toxicity studies in the “Green Run”).
Fraud Waste and Abuse
We might also consider the amount of fraud waste and abuse that is attached to the war machine which lends to the argument against mining for war profiteering under this extremely wasteful paradigm. The toxic legacy that the use of depleted uranium by the US military in Iraq and other war theaters (well outside the Geneva conventions we signed on to and, theoretically, could be held responsible for ignoring) is another important thing to consider, before we resign ourselves to this argument… especially given the revelations about the Uranium One dealings and the Clintons along with the Aurora Uranium Mining proposals on BLM land just south of the infamous Malheur Wildlife Refuge. (This is my open source investigation on the Malheur stand-off which considers some of these connections).
Why does it seem as though, in this case and many others, that the public trust institutions are arguing both ways? Are we being guided into a catch 22? On the one hand, should we resign ourselves to global trade in raw materials to keep this nation a part of the “global community” and buy into the peace through common prosperity narrative, or, on the other, do we exploit our own resources to maintain our national defenses against other state actors… many of whose raw materials we are heavily invested in? Are these nations among those that we have become most concerned about (primarily China) acting as our enemies to compete with or allies to trade with under NAFTA? Or are they just very useful “frenemies” who can be propped up as ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ to serve as justification for what narrative is being sold to us. (I encourage readers to watch Corbett Report episode #297 for more on the US/ China “frenemieship”. I think, at this point, if you are buying anything that our politicians and mainstream pundits are selling, you are not far off from falling for the Nigerian e-mail scams).
I have yet to find out if anyone has done the research on the antimony industry to see what other nations China sells its Antimony to. I wonder if the US and its allies purchase the lion’s share of this diminishing resource from them. (This is a resource whose exploitation is apparently leaving quite a toxic legacy of its own in China (LINK)). In thinking about a national defense strategy, it seems it would be strategically advantages to help our “frenemies” to first deplete their resource and subject their populations to costly environmental and human health mitigation by continuing to import from them while we “sit on” our stockpiles for now. (Ultimately sitting on them indefinitely and finding less dangerous alternatives (LINK); perhaps allowing antimony and gold to stay in the ground and serve whatever specific function it is serving in the earth, in ways that may yet to be well understood, if not ever fully understood.(LINK) https://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Antimony_Ingot.html
(Considering this “frenemy” paradigm with China I am reminded of Butch Otters’ Project 60 plan https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/9375-idaho-governor-selling-his-state-to-the-chinese. Apparently this was his plan for Idaho to go by the way of British Columbia (LINK) and sell out our state to Chinese businessmen).
Military Industrial Complex and the National Security State-
How much of this raw material will end up in the domestic spying equipment and technological apparatus that is becoming a concerning part of our daily lives? Why have we not heeded the warnings from Idaho Senator Frank Church, who had this to say:
“The National Security Agency’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.”
Is part of the reasoning for antimony being recommended as a “strategic metal” (a debatable issue even in the National Defense circles (LINK)) due to the need for the Federal Government to build more costly, resource and sovereignty depleting “fusion centers” (LINK) and military grade domestic policing apparatus? (LINK)
Specific Questions for Midas Gold and our Representatives:
- What assurances do we have that this foreign company, with no track record (operating out of a country rife with numerous mining companies that have a horrendous track record around the world (LINK)), will sell only to domestic markets in the US? What assurances do we have that the industries that purchase these raw materials won’t turn around and sell them to foreign markets? Who, specifically, does Midas Gold intend to sell its raw materials to?
- What assurances do we have that our own National Defense contractors (LINK) and the Pentagon won’t disperse antimony enriched materials to other nations on the open market (LINK), allow them to get into the hands of international drug cartels across the border (ATF GUN WALK SCANDAL), or to terrorist organizations in the Middle East (TULSI GABBARD)?
2- Power Company Monopolies and Power Grid Inefficiencies
“Used in alternative wind and solar energy application, fire resistant transmission lines, batteries, semi-conductors ”-
Is securing this potentially “strategic” mineral, Antimony, for power companies really necessary? Some researchers suggest a more secure, efficient and reliable method to meet the nation’s energy “needs” (I think “wants” and “needs” might have become synonymous here) would be better realized by decentralizing the grid.
“As CNET noted in 2007:
Sixty-two percent of the energy consumed in America today is lost through transmission and general inefficiency. In other words, it doesn’t go toward running your car or keeping your lights on.
Put another way:
We waste 650% more energy than all of our nuclear power plants produce
We waste 280% more energy than we produce by coal
We waste 235% more energy than we produce by natural gas (using deadly fracking)
We waste 150% more energy than we generate with other petroleum products
According to the DOE, California lost 6.8% of the total amount of electricity used in the state in 2008 through transmission line inefficiencies and losses.”
It seems the National Security state would like nothing more than to grow and centralize the power grid infrastructure and bring with it a host of toxic and intrusive intelligence gathering technologies.
Power companies currently have a tremendous amount of influence over policy in this nation and very much so in the state of Idaho. It’s not difficult, under the current degree to which resource management agencies rely on mitigation and other monies from resource exploitation industry (potential even more reliant if the ambitions of the IDFG director are realized (LINK), to garner support among public trust agencies for various programs and projects. (LINK) It’s not difficult to garner support from NGO organizations (LINK) if you use the right buzz words (like “sustainable”, “low carbon”, etc…) and if you find ways to invest a little in the causes they promote (LINK); ideally the ones that provide the least amount of obstacles to your project.
Wind Power, Solar power, hydro power (and manipulating the weather to build snow packs in the Payette National Forest (LINK) by seeding clouds with toxic metals (LINK)); these are all, in varying degrees, toxic, intrusive and none are truly sustainable when you consider the inputs required to sustain them (LINK) and investment required to mitigate and keep them secure. What they all do, however, is maintain a high degree of dependency on the corporate state. (Significant to the power company in Idaho and all along the Columbia River drainage is hydropower. Hydropower development around the world is a very interesting study that brings up a host of conflict of interest, destabilization and dependency issues… such as with the Johnston Plan (LINK) in the Jordan River drainage and the Afghan Valley Authority in Helmond Province).
How much does this power company infrastructure, that relies on a steady supply of strategic metals from toxic mining around the globe, play into the dependency paradigms that have created conflict and displaced indigenous people all over the world? How much has the global war on Climate Change contributed to maintaining this toxic paradigm and subjected regions to the exploitation of “strategic minerals” to serve alternative energy development? (CONSERVATION REFUGEES).
Tech Industry madness-
People from all walks of life have signed on to all things technological. Farmers (FARB), teachers (SCHOOL), housewives (LINK), police officers (LINK), even environmentalists (LINK). The everyday conveniences that are being realized in first world nations (and to an increasing degree in third world nations) from the various SMART grid technologies are astounding. The level to which tech dependency has become a ‘human right’ and used to justify power grid service and wireless technologies (LINK), exposing numerous populations to concerning levels of unnatural Electrosmog radiation, is criminal (LINK).
Battery powered vehicles and green technology-
According to the document http://usantimony.com/images-3/las_vegas_09-27-13.pdf batteries are a major manufacturing product for antimony, as is solar and wind turbines. We might recognize the huge profits being realized through the perception of “going green” and being “sustainable” when we prop up all these ‘green’ technologies. But how ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ are they? How has utilizing diminishing resources and converting them into toxic, disposable materials (LINK) that overburden landfills (LINK) and pose human health and environmental risks (LINK), persisted in the environmentalist circles? This is a question that has very much perplexed me. Consistently I have seen environmental advocates, from all sectors, buy into this nonsense. Just as long as it doesn’t put out a carbon footprint (at least not an immediately obvious one (LINK)) to many this is all that is required. (Carbon free nuclear energy is a very strong case in point! (LINK))
It seems the most conscientious environmental advocates and stewards of the earth and its natural resources are failing to make these important connections. All the tech equipment that is being assembled to make their lives and jobs easier is made up of raw materials, most of which comes directly from environmentally degrading mining exploitation. Then, when this equipment is at the end of their usefulness, it goes on to contribute to toxic waste build up in landfills (LINK). If we want these non-petroleum “strategic minerals” and the mining industry that supports them to not persist, I think it is important to make the conscious choice to find other ways to do business and maintain our quality of life. (Heaven forbid little Timmy gets a pair of nice warm locally produced alpaca socks (at an alarmingly low price) rather than a battery operated Special Forces replica toy machine gun and Sister Suzie gets a handmade alpaca scarf (SUPER warm and cozy!) rather than a SMART (DUMB!) phone upgrade and booster for Christmas!)
Putting your money where your mouth is seems to be of little concern when you start to get into the details. I have little room to talk because I am quite reliant on my creature comforts (right now typing from a low end laptop with very modern technology). Certainly getting off the tech train is much easier said than done. Not helpful is the degree to which public monies, mutual funds, NGO sponsorships and all the rest are invested in pushing these draconian and destructive technologies. The World Economic Forum at Davos, which promotes the ubiquitous investment of the people into “public-private cooperation”, is very influential to the development of society and is all in with this global initiative to promote all things technological with their “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. (Beware the ‘red herring’ of social and environmental justice and climate change propaganda as it is promoted by the moneyed interests of the world; public, private, “BINGO” (Big International NGO)’s or otherwise.)
“The World Economic Forum, committed to improving the state of the world, is the international organization for public-private cooperation.”
Given the extent to which the products we purchase, and the market industries that compete for our fiat currencies, rely on this form of technological progression to maintain market share, I am not so optimistic that individuals can exist without depending on this technological progression. (At this point, beyond what technology is forced on me by State and Federal mandate, I am not convinced I wouldn’t have a great deal of difficulty parting with much of my technology… but I can certainly move in the direction of minimizing and localizing.) The extent to which these technologies are being subsidized (LINK) and foisted upon us, I don’t think there will be much room to resist. Unless people become much more aware of the processes they are being subjugated under I don’t hold out much hope that the Midas Gold project will be successfully resisted or that any local population will be effective at stopping the assaults on their rights to not be harmed by the fourth generation industrial revolution.
I contend that the resource exploitation paradigms, which are reflected in the Midas Gold project, have been and are currently subjecting far too many communities around the world to undue risk and harm to their regional environments and contributing to the degradation of human health. I suggest that the recognition of these exploitations as being an inappropriate collaboration of corporate and state exploitation interests, rather than assigning the responsibility to one or the other, is an appropriate way to analyze what is going on. There are individuals and institutions with specific names, which can be held accountable for their activities that result in harm to the public. The mountains of ill-gotten wealth and resources, that have been realized and consolidated by these individuals and institutions; those who are the true benefactors of these crimes; should be the target of these resistance efforts and be required to provide the mitigation monies for clean-up. It should be the politicians from among the banking and financial elite and their corporate benefactors, that first sanctioned these resource exploitation projects, who bear the costs of mitigation. Mitigation funding should not come from the overly taxed public; who, through their institutions of public distrust are forced to pay for mitigation directly or are forced to take on undue risks to their health and the health of their families through these resource exploitation projects that leverage the perception of “good will” to help exploit a resource and turn a profit. (If a responsible effort were made to hold accountable the benefactors among the banking elite who’ve sold us on the justifications for getting involved in the 2nd World War, I think we might be able to tap into a vast amount of wealth that would more than pay for the mitigation of the old Stibnite Mines (LINIK). Not likely to happen given the extent to which the average citizen is attached to the “official” story of “the Last Great War”.)
At any rate, don’t expect much sensible resistance from public trust agencies or major NGO organizations to the toxic and dangerous mining and other resource development operations being considered (AURORA). I suspect this Midas Gold project is just a fraction of what is being consider for development in Idaho and elsewhere to support the massive and toxic rare earth mineral (LINK) dependent tech industry that is driving fourth generation warfare and the fourth generation economic revolution (promoted yearly at the World Economic Forum). In my observation I have witnessed very little resistance to the progression of the booming tech and war industries -> that is driving the mining industry -> which is contributing to the multi-billion dollar health industry and the environmental mitigation industry -> and providing the growing bureaucratic infrastructure (that thrives on dependency) -> and the psychological breakdown of society that leads so many other follow-on consequences. Few people if anyone, who is mindful of the consequences of these mining operations, or are tasked with managing these resources for the “greater good” are putting their “money where their mouth is” in their purchases or their investment portfolios. I really haven’t seen anyone look up from their SMART phones long enough to really even thing much about this shit.
(A major development on my radar that I think people should be mindful of is the thorium deposits being recognized by state and federal agencies in the Lemhi region of Idaho. Thorium is being considered for use in the heavily government subsidized (LINK) development of small nuclear reactors. When you look at lands being “protected” under the Antiquities Act and other collaborative “protection” schemes, such as the White Clouds National Monument, I think it would be wise to get beyond the “left vs. right” thinking and consider the potential for a “Roosevelt Switcharoo”; the term I use to describe the form of Hegelian Dialectic conditioning as it applies to the dynamic “protection vs. exploitation” of public lands. Like what we witnessed during the Teddy Roosevelt years and recently all over the west under the Antiquities Act at “Bears Ears” and all around the world, including places like the Soulas Game Reserve (LINK) where they’ve modified the boundaries of the park to make room for Uranium mining by the Canadian and Russian mining companies).
Other Related Stories and Links:
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Yale Article on Rare Earth Mineral Mining: http://e360.yale.edu/features/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks
Rare Earth Geological Survey 2011 www.idahogeology.org/PDF/GeoNotes_(G)/GN44_Rare_Earth_Elements.pdf
Uranium Deposits in Bears Ears National Monument https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/uranium-development-potential-in-bears-ears-national-monument_2017-12-4.pdf
CAN ALL MEDIA REPORTS IN THE WORLD BE WRONG ABOUT BARRICK GOLD & ACACIA MINING? https://tanzaniabusinessethics.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/can-all-media-reports-in-the-world/
WTO Paper on Trade in Mineral Resources: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201001_e.pdf
World Heritage Comittee Decision on Selous Game Reserve Boundary Changes http://www.uranium-network.org/index.php/africalink/tanzania/253-press-release-re-world-heritage-comittee-decision-on-selous-game-reserve-boundary-changes
A foreign uranium mining conglomerate will be allowed to exploit the precious Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania after the World Heritage Committee (WHC) decided, at its July 2012 session in Russia, to accept what was described as a “minor boundary change” of the site. The change had been requested by the Government of Tanzania, in order to make way for the development of a major uranium mine, Mkuju River Uranium Project, owned by Russian ARMZ and Canadian Uranium One.