Connect with us

Editorials

Nuremberg Trial Prosecutor’s Warning: Make Law, not War

Published

on

"The hope and love of our those who came before is resides in our hearts. The love of all future generations resides in our actions." --Steven Jay, Co-Founder, Mobilized.news

NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER,  STEVEN JAY: The author of this article is over 100 years old. He is the last living American prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials where Nazi perpetrators were brought to justice for their atrocities against humanity.

On March 11th, 2020,  Ben Ferencz was celebrating his 100th Birthday.  While I attempted to see him earlier in the day to wish him a Happy 100th (!!!) he was unavailable at that time, and I was on the way to visit my dad in the Hospital.  Upon returning home from the Hospital, Ben invited me into his home where we recorded a video message (below) to encourage and enlighten my Dad with the hope that he would recover from Aspirating Pneumonia.

While I am grateful to have been able to share this message with my Dad,  my Father would not recover from his ailment and would pass away at 6:59 a.m. three days later.

Before we get into Ben’s message about Law and War, I am reminded of the moment that Dad gave me the idea for a good news network.  His words and his love for humanity would transform into this project, and my Dad’s love resides in all we do here.

This project is dedicated to my Dad, and everyone who made and makes a difference with their eternal love. Thank you.  —Steven Jay

 

 

The sole surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials warns that an executive order from President Trump regarding the International Criminal Court is cause for concern.

The post first appeared in The Daily Beast.


 

Given the death toll from COVID-19 and the continuing public outcry over police brutality in the United States, it may have gone largely unnoticed that on June 11, President Trump issued an executive order targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Hague-based war crimes tribunal that the United States has refused to join.

The order, which has prompted harsh condemnation from the international justice community and other concerned stakeholders, comes on the heels of a recent ruling by the ICC authorizing an impartial investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity alleged to have been committed by the various parties to the conflict in Afghanistan.

The order seeks to impose economic and US travel sanctions on any foreign person “directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute” personnel of the US or our allies without prior consent of their respective governments.

In announcing the sanctions, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo accused the ICC of being “highly politicized” and a “kangaroo court.” He said that the ICC would have done well to “do the right thing and kill the investigation.” Given that Pompeo was a director of the CIA when that agency is reported to have been complicit in the commission of war crimes committed by Afghan operatives, his views may perhaps come as no surprise.

As the sole surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials, I believe a few words are in order about what the ICC is and what it is not. Contrary to the current administration’s anti-ICC rhetoric, the court is neither unaccountable nor anti-American. It is a treaty-based organization whose statute has been ratified by 123 countries, including 27 of our 28 NATO allies.

Significant safeguards and limitations have been built into the ICC’s operating structure to assure that it does not become some sort of supra-national court run amok. Its judges and its prosecutor are elected for fixed terms by a governing assembly representing each of the court’s 123 member states, and they, along with the deputy prosecutor, the registrar and the deputy registrar, may all be removed from office for improper conduct.

It may hear cases related only to four specific crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Its jurisdiction is generally limited to crimes committed by the nationals or on the territory of the states that have signed up to the court or that have voluntarily agreed to its jurisdiction. It has no enforcement arm of its own and must, therefore, rely on the cooperation of policing personnel from countries around the world to enforce its arrest warrants. Without such support, the ICC is relatively powerless.

The ICC recognizes the primacy of the national courts of all nations, including the United States. Its operating statute provides that countries which are willing and able to prosecute their own citizens may do so in their own domestic courts and that such rights supersede the jurisdiction of the ICC.

It is only where national courts fail in their obligation to genuinely and impartially investigate their own nationals that the ICC may move forward in exercising its jurisdiction. It is a court of last resort designed to assure that otherwise voiceless victims of atrocity crimes may ultimately have their day in court, whether it be before national courts or before the ICC itself if necessary.

Nations that uphold the law in their own courts need have no fear of ICC investigations. Having said this, countries with a record of pardoning war criminals who have been duly convicted by their own military courts of crimes as serious as the murder of unarmed detainees should be aware that such a pattern of conduct does little to enhance a country’s reputation for genuinely upholding the rule of law.

At Nuremberg, the United States and its allies tried Nazi leaders who dragged their nation into war to the tune of Deutschland Uber Alles. They considered themselves a law unto themselves, and it was their undoing. The Nuremberg Trials were intended not as victor’s justice, but to help establish a rule of law to deter future international crimes, regardless of who the perpetrators might be.

This point was clearly articulated by the American chief of counsel at the International Military Tribunal, Robert Jackson who, standing at the podium in Courtroom 600 in Nuremberg, emphasized that “while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”

It is true that the ICC has had its share of start-up woes, as did our own Supreme Court during its earliest decades. It is a relatively young institution that relies on the cooperation of countries around the world to bring perpetrators to justice. It is a challenging task, as not all countries make the cooperative effort that they should. But it is much too early to suggest that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater by condemning or by threatening the ICC. To do so is to repudiate Nuremberg and the rule of law for which so many around the world have sacrificed.

There was a time when the United States was looked upon as a bastion of leadership and of hope. As a nation, we produced statesmen such as Elihu Root, who served as a US attorney, Secretary of War, Secretary of State, US senator, and the founding president of the American Society of International Law. In 1913 he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to establish an international court. Though he studied elsewhere, there has long been a special room at Harvard honoring him. It was established in 1939, shortly before I arrived there as a law student. Above the doorway are words that inspired me then and inspire me still: “Make us effective and useful for the advancement of the cause of Peace and Justice and Liberty in the World.” Attacking the International Criminal Court for simply doing its job is most assuredly not the way to do that.

Friday was International Criminal Justice Day, a day on which the world recognizes both the passage on July 17, 1998 of the Rome Statute treaty that established the ICC as well as the hard-fought achievements and ongoing efforts at the ICC and elsewhere to secure justice for victims of the world’s gravest crimes. Having reflected on the importance of international criminal justice, we Americans today have some serious soul-searching to do and questions to answer. The rule of law is at peril, and so is our credibility and standing in the world.

On behalf of the countless victims of atrocity crimes around the world who look to the United States for moral leadership and to the ICC for help in the fight against impunity, I respectfully urge President Trump to reconsider the matter and to rescind his recent executive order and its sanctions.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

Screen addiction, there’s still hope

Published

on

Screen consumption by girls, boys and young people is rising in the scale of concern among mothers, fathers and education professionals about the risks that it entails in the mental health of this age group. Attention is the starting point and therefore there is still hope.

By Marco Trivelli, Seed Foundation, Santiago, Chile

The business objective of the applications is to generate addiction in such a way that people are interacting with the platforms for as long as possible. With more hours in front of the screen, the greater the audience to whom to expose to the publicity.

Like the gambling, tobacco, sugar, alcohol or trans fat industries, social networks have no incentive to limit consumption and face the dilemma of privileging the common good and protecting their consumers or being carried away by greed by appealing to the freedom to develop economic activities whose only limitation is not to transgress morals or good customs.

In an investigation of the prestigious Wall Street Journal newspaper carried out on the basis of studies carried out within Facebook, the largest and most powerful social network in the world, they found that there was a list of powerful characters to whom the rules of conduct were not applied and therefore the posts were not lowered or their accounts were suspended. Facebook thus avoided the bad publicity of censoring a powerful and generated traffic or views.

Famous is the case of soccer player Neymar who responded to an accusation of rape by publishing intimate images and texts on his WhatsApp without consent and which were later replicated on Facebook and Instagram. They had 56 million views before being downloaded from the web.

Internal Facebook documents also revealed the damage Instagram is doing to the mental health of millions of young people around the world. Instagram is toxic for one in three young people with an effect on eating disorders, anxiety, depression and suicides. Even when these results were generated by the company itself, Instagram defended itself by pointing out that the network did more good than bad.

The United States Congress has requested to know the internal studies carried out by Facebook as have academics and independent study centers, but the company has refused to do so, noting that the results are not conclusive. The answer turns out to be the same as other industries gave in the past.

Becoming aware that the risks of screen addiction in children and young people is decisive for their future is an excellent opportunity for the problem to be addressed in the political processes that we are experiencing in Chile. The screen requires regulation.

At Fundación Semilla we believe that self-regulation or regulation by the State is essential, but not enough. Formal and family education needs to be redesigned by offering constructive and entertaining alternatives. As a personal testimony, I can point out that the spring wind that blew on the national holiday weekend allowed us to fly a large kite together with my grandchildren. We all enjoyed ourselves and were away from the screen for an entire afternoon. Regulation and creativity gives us hope in the task of preventing screen addiction.

Marcelo Trivelli, Seed Foundation, Santiago, Chile

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

Saying Yes to Food Sovereignty, No to Corporate Food Systems

Published

on

No to corporate food systems! Yes to Food Sovereignty!

Read or download the Political Declaration of the People’s Autonomous Response to the UN Food Systems Summit

Confronting the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, climate chaos, increasing hunger and all forms of malnutrition, ecological destruction and multiple humanitarian crises, we, social movements, indigenous peoples’ articulations, non-governmental organizations, and academics assert our commitment to food sovereignty, and reject the ongoing corporate colonization of food systems and food governance under the façade of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS).

Industrial food systems, global supply chains and increasing corporate control of food governance are responsible for the inextricably interconnected and existential threats faced by our populations and planet, including the climate crisis, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, land and ocean degradation, air and water pollution, hunger, marginalization, and countless human rights violations. An extractivist development model centered on corporate control of resources, policy debates, and regulatory processes has produced a global food system that has most recently left over two billion people under-nourished and economically destitute. Furthermore, ultra-processed industrial products cause malnutrition, excess weight, and obesity. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to unveil both the structural frailties and global inequities of this corporate market-based approach – a failed model that continues due to deep power asymmetries and a lack of political accountability to ensure that public institutions and policies serve the public good and demands and needs of the most vulnerable. Urgent political actions, from local to international levels based on democratic negotiation and political consensus-building, are needed to address growing inequality across and within countries, structural injustice, gender-based violence, and displacement. The status quo is simply untenable for the majority of the world’s population, and unviable for our youth and future generations. We cannot continue to divert the majority of public resources and institutional authority towards propping up false solutions that serve corporate interests and will fail to tackle these systemic global challenges.

The necessity of rights-based approaches to combating crisis
The only just and sustainable way forward is to immediately halt and transform corporate, globalized food systems. The first step on this path is fully recognizing, implementing, and enforcing the human right to adequate food, which is a human rights obligation of States and UN agencies. While foundational, the right to adequate food is indivisible from other basic human rights, such as the right to health, housing, safe working conditions, living wages, social protection, women and LGBTQIA+ rights, clean environments, and civil-political rights including collective bargaining and political participation, which collectively should be central to any transformational process. With this critical rights-based orientation, public food policy and governance must put peasants, indigenous peoples, fishers, pastoralists, workers, landless, forest-dwellers, consumers, urban and rural poor, and among these women and youth, at the center of governance and policy-making tables. Governments, and regional and international institutions, must support these constituencies’ pathways for transforming corporate food systems through agroecology and food sovereignty. We reject any empty dialogue process which ignores human rights and fails to explicitly and meaningfully elevate the agency of these food systems actors.

UNFSS: illegitimate multistakeholderism enabling corporate power

The UNFSS 2021, initiated by the UN Secretary General shortly after signing a comprehensive agreement with the World Economic Forum (WEF), fails to meet these fundamental requirements. Established by 1000 of the largest corporations in the world, the WEF and its affiliates have been controlling the Summit’s design, structure, processes, governance and content. Large multinational corporations are increasingly infiltrating the multilateral spaces of the United Nations to co-opt the narrative of sustainability, and divert it back into the channels of further industrialization with digital and biotechnologies, extraction of wealth and labor from rural communities, and concentration of corporate power in national-global governance. The capital and technology focused agenda proposed by the UNFSS reflects these corporate interests and is politically, socially, economically and ecologically destabilizing. We denounce the UNFSS 2021 for disregarding the urgent need to address the gross power imbalances that corporations hold over food systems and this UN event, and we reject false solutions which will continue to oppress and exploit people, communities and territories.

Instead of being grounded in human rights, the UNFSS is a multistakeholder forum in which all actors, whether governments, individuals, regional/international agencies, or business/corporation representatives are portrayed as equal participants. But stakeholders are not necessarily rights-holders: people’s and communities’ rights and sovereignty should not be confused with private-sector business interests. While majority of the world’s food is produced by small-scale producers and workers, this individuated multistakeholder process gives outsized power to a few powerful corporations that control food, agricultural and capital markets. The so-called Scientific Group of the UNFSS impoverishes the scientific basis for responsible policy making: it advances narrow, corporate backed narratives and excludes diverse forms of knowledge and areas of expertise such as agroecology, indigenous knowledge and human rights. The lack of adequate Conflict of Interest safeguards in the Summit processes has allowed corporate-driven coalitions to position themselves as agents for implementing public policies with public resources, but without the accountability mechanisms, mandates and transparency standards of public institutions.

We will not accept this top-down, non-transparent and unequal process of deliberations that has resulted in corporate friendly “Coalitions of Action.” The capital-intensive, proprietary technologies and products proposed as “game changing solutions” will be ecologically destructive, deepen extractivism, colonialism, patriarchy and inequality, and open up more areas for corporate expansion and control.

The failure of the UNFSS governance structure has been laid bare, as many ‘stakeholders’ are walking away from the process and no political consensus has been reached among UN member states for truly transformative pathways forward to achieve the goals of the 2030 Agenda. In this context we find it unacceptable that the UNFSS, as a non-normative process with an illegitimate governance structure, is attempting to infringe on and undermine the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which is an intergovernmental system, and the foremost and most inclusive UN multilateral body for food governance, with the authority and legitimacy to lead food system dialogues and policy-making. The UNFSS does not have this authority and violates the CFS’s mandate and reform statutes. We demand that the inclusive vision and processes of the CFS be recognized and strengthened. We also remind UN leadership that the UNFSS has no mandate or legitimacy beyond September 23rd, 2021, and we urge our governments to defend multilateralism, and rights-based and participatory policy-making, as established by CFS member states regarding the rules of participation of civil society organizations and social movements.

Food sovereignty for food system transformation

The struggle for sustainable, just and healthy food systems cannot be unhooked from the realities of the peoples whose rights, knowledge and livelihoods have gone unrecognized and disrespected. We have the viable solutions to address the systemic problems in our food systems. As we have demanded in our People’s Autonomous Response to the UN Food Systems Summit, the transformation of food systems must be ecological and socially transformative, putting forward a feminist vision of equality and justice. Since 1996, social movements and civil society have been building a global movement and community-based processes of governance around the vision of food sovereignty, based on agroecology, and the rights and aspirations of small-scale food producers, workers, indigenous peoples, women, youth and rural-urban communities.

In this 25th year anniversary of food sovereignty, we reaffirm our unity and commitment to push for radically transformative strategies which recognize peoples’ needs, accord dignity, respect nature, put people above profits, resist corporate capture, and work collectively towards a fair and decent food system for all.

Source: CSM: Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

La Via Campesina: The UN Food Systems Summit is hogwash. It is a threat to peoples’ food sovereignty

Published

on

La Via Campesina’s Press Statement | September 22nd 2021, Harare:

La Via Campesina is among scores of other social movements of organized small-scale food producers, workers and indigenous people boycotting the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), slated to take place in New York – September 23rd, 2021. Peoples’ movements are united in condemning the illegitimacy of this ‘summit’ and in denouncing the attempt by transnational corporations to usurp the institutional spaces within the United Nations.

Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) that comprise social movements including La Via Campesina has pointed out that the pre-summit events held in July are now erecting parallel governance structures. UNFSS is undermining the existing institutions and multilateral bodies responsible for developing global policy frameworks for food and agriculture. Several member states are left wondering what this Summit intends to achieve and whether its outcomes would be binding upon developing national policy frameworks. It will override the existing institutions such as the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and forebodes a corporate takeover of the global food governance.

For sure, the global food systems must undergo a radical overhaul. Rising hunger, ecological harm from food production, including deforestation, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, decimated fisheries, polluted waters, growing rural poverty, the continued repression of peasant and indigenous movements worldwide, displacement and climate crises – all point to the need for urgent transformation. The demand to transform the global food system and skew it in favour of small-scale food producers has been a long-standing one, stated first during the Civil Society Forum in Rome in 1996.

Yet when the Secretary-General of the United Nations announced two years ago that a Food Systems Summit (FSS) would be held in late 2021, the news was puzzling. Why did the Secretary-General initiate this food summit in partnership with the World Economic Forum – a private sector body – when the FAO hosted all the previous editions after specific mandates from the Members States? To leave no further doubt about the corporate interests driving the Food System Summit, the Special Envoy appointed for the Summit, Agnes Kalibata, is the president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). This Gates/Rockefeller funded agency is pushing high input, high tech agriculture and GMO seeds. Founded in 2006, this Alliance has worked in 13 African countries to increase productivity for 30 million smallholder farming households by encouraging industrial farming adoption. Despite AGRA’s promises of doubling crop productivity and incomes while halving food insecurity by 2020, backed by billions of donor dollars, it has been unable to provide documentation of delivering on these goals. AGRA’s failures on the continent and Ms Kalibata’s apparent conflicts of interest in her role as UNFSS Special Envoy resulted in broad resistance from social movements and civil society.

The farce of ‘inclusiveness.’

The Summit organizers follow a multi-stakeholder approach as against a multilateral arrangement. Multilateral Summits, based on human rights, with transparent decision-making processes and accountability mechanisms, are meant to prioritize the voices of rights-holders and hold governments responsible for upholding those rights. But this “UN Food Systems Summit” is based on the idea of “multi-stakeholder” – treating all stakeholders as equal, without considering power imbalances or their position in the system. This fiction of equality leaves the powerful both unchallenged and unaccountable, hiding or ignoring any conflicts of interest. By conflating private corporate interests with the public interest, it overrides and erases the latter. To advertise “inclusiveness”, it has proliferated a dizzying array of platforms, dialogues, consultations, committees, documents and forums for participation. Private citizens and governments are being drawn into these processes. Some of these are open, but many are for invited participants, bypassing and undermining autonomous, democratic organizations while favouring hand-picked individuals. The entire process lacks transparency and legitimacy. Who is making decisions? On what grounds? Who is accountable? To whom?

The guise of progressive language

In July this year, La Via Campesina was among the members of the CSM that co-organized counter mobilizations – to call out the unacceptability that has come to define this year’s food systems summit. A wide variety of attendees came together and catalyzed and amplified a counter-narrative to the official proceedings. With critical articles and pieces published in major media outlets, and several thousands of #FoodSystems4People posts on social media seen by potentially 10 million users, the counter-mobilization succeeded in reaching a broad public with its vision for genuine transformation of unsustainable food systems.

This organized resistance rattled the organizers of the official Summit. In response, they have now ramped up the use of progressive language (“sustainability”, “nature-positive-solutions”, “planetary boundaries”, “women’s empowerment”, etc.) and references to human rights in their documents. But the primary orientation of the FSS remains firmly rooted in the corporate interests that initiated it rather than the demands and rights of people producing food and those most impacted by current food systems. It continues to confirm a narrow range of scientific partisans data while ignoring the traditional and experiential knowledge of small-scale farmers, indigenous, peasant, and rural peoples. Digitalization, genetic modification, precision agriculture, and other chemical-, capital-, and fossil fuel-heavy approaches are taking centre stage because these so-called solutions are the most profitable to corporations (at the expense of the environment and farmers’ livelihoods).

As the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food notes, “Intensive industrial agriculture relies on high-input, high-output agricultural systems, dominated by large-scale specialized farms. Ever since Governments started adopting the Green Revolution in the 1950s, the world’s food systems have been increasingly designed along industrial models, the idea being that if people can purchase industrial inputs – synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and carbon-reliant machines – then they can produce a large amount of food. Productivity was not measured in terms of human and environmental health, but exclusively in terms of commodity output and economic growth.”

Unfortunately, the UN Food Systems Summit ignores all these warnings and continues to bat for an intensive corporate-led agricultural model that masquerades as “solutions”.

Forebodings of a new global governance structure?

This Summit attacks from the front and will undermine existing global policymaking spaces and institutions like FAO and the CFS. Instead, it erects a parallel architecture to suit agribusiness interests. The Summit organizers are now encouraging stakeholders to form “coalitions of action” to implement “solutions”. Governments are encouraged to develop “national pathways” with stakeholder coalitions, many of which will inevitably be dominated by those who can afford to fund them. Middle and Low-income countries are vulnerable to entering “coalitions” with investors and philanthrocapitalists, such as the Gates Foundation, to carve out “national pathways” profitable for their coalition partners.

The resistance to this parallel structure is coming from within the official Summit too. In her resignation letter (dated August 25/21), Dr Kristy Buckley, Chair of the UNFSS Governance Action Area, derided the attempts to view the global food governance “through the lens of innovation, finance, technology and data, with no regard to human rights, gender, and Indigenous Peoples”. Her statement is a vindication of what social movements have been warning for a long time.

The real solution to climate crises, hunger, distress migration and extreme poverty lies with the people. It must emerge from the principles of food sovereignty and social justice. It must recognize food as a fundamental human right and not as a commodity for speculative trade. It must respect the diverse agroecological small-scale food systems that exist in our territories.

The “UN Food Systems Summit” of 2021 is an anti-thesis to these principles and threatens peoples’ food sovereignty. La Via Campesina will not remain silent. The UNFSS has no mandate, legitimacy, or authority to extend beyond September 23rd, 2021. We must prevent the Summit’s corporate affiliates from further embedding the multi-stakeholder structure into the UN food and agriculture agencies. Throughout this week, La Via Campesina’s member organization will hold counter mobilizations in Asia, Africa and Europe. Our North American members and allies will be holding a virtual counter-summit on September 23rd to expose the real agenda behind this Summit while also presenting the elements of the radical transformation we seek in the global food systems.

Source: La Via Campesina

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Translate:

Editorials2 days ago

Screen addiction, there’s still hope

Editorials2 days ago

Saying Yes to Food Sovereignty, No to Corporate Food Systems

Editorials2 days ago

La Via Campesina: The UN Food Systems Summit is hogwash. It is a threat to peoples’ food sovereignty

Editorials3 days ago

The Foreign Policy We Need

Editorials4 days ago

Why Our Pay to Play System is Destroying Democracy and What We Can Do About It

Featured4 days ago

The Spy Who Phoned In

Featured4 days ago

Scientists: Make it Easier for the Public to Understand Your Reports!

Economics5 days ago

Our Population Challenge Beyond Climate Change

Asia6 days ago

Sustainable Development: Strategies for the long road ahead in Indian cities

Editorials6 days ago

Current education systems inhibit identity development

Energy and Transportation7 days ago

Greens leader slams Green infighting

International7 days ago

Costa Rica’s Energy Independence: Renewable Energy

Europe7 days ago

A Leftwing victory in Norway election puts oil exit at the heart of coalition talks

Energy and Transportation7 days ago

The Clean Facts about Renewable Energy

Editorials7 days ago

By Jeremy Corbyn: Climate Crisis Is a Class Issue

Agriculture7 days ago

Dairy Free Milk for Disadvantaged Families

Agriculture7 days ago

Meat without the Moo

Africa7 days ago

South African Energy plant considering spending billions on wind and solar

Chuck W.1 week ago

The Interconnected structure of reality

An Empowered World1 week ago

Your front-row seat to the change you wish to create in the world

An Empowered World1 week ago

The Mobilized Exchange: Community Power: Are We finally ready?

An Empowered World1 week ago

Environmentalists, Scientists and Policymakers Converge at Environmental Media Summit Sept. 30

An Empowered World2 weeks ago

A GPS for Humanity’s Next Adventure

An Empowered World2 weeks ago

Manifesto and Principles

An Empowered World2 weeks ago

The World Unites for World Ecologic Forum on December 10

An Empowered World2 weeks ago

Action Plan for Re-Thinking Humanity

Editorials2 weeks ago

Mea Culpa

An Empowered World2 weeks ago

Communities unite for World Ecologic December 10th

Editorials2 weeks ago

Idjitz Stoopidshitz and-Dumfux

An Empowered World3 weeks ago

Decentralized Production Hub for Humanity’s Next adventure

Editorials3 weeks ago

Rethinking Climate Change Solutions

An Empowered World3 weeks ago

Dive in to the Ecosystem of Opportunity

An Empowered World3 weeks ago

It’s what you want, the way You want It

An Empowered World3 weeks ago

The Mobilized Exchange

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

Communities Take a Stand for The Rights of Nature

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

Excuse Me, But What is in that “Food” I’m Eating?

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

Healthy Soil for Healthy, Nutritious Food and Healthy Climate

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

A Paradigm Change Starting with Your Lawns

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

Communities Fight Against Polluters and Miners

The Web of Life3 weeks ago

Cooperatives as a Better Community Service

Chuck W.4 weeks ago

Truth or Consequences

A web of Life for ALL Life4 weeks ago

Environmental Summit

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

Systemic Change Driven by Moral Awakening Is Our Only Hope

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

Fossil Fuel Exit Strategy finds that existing coal, oil and gas production puts the world on course to overshoot Paris climate targets.

Featured1 month ago

Sign Up

Featured1 month ago

Environment

Featured1 month ago

COMMUNITY MEDIA EVENTS

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

About Mobilized

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

See the opportunity to return to the sacred

A web of Life for ALL Life2 months ago

Climate Change and Earth Overshoot: Is there a better “Green New Deal?”

Groups

Trending

Translate »
Skip to toolbar