There is a LONG but EXCELLENT article below...(From Earth Rainbow
Newsletter
or ERN)....It puts a lot of stuff into perspective that sounds very
reasonable....
Answers a lot of the Who and Why questions....and it give
us a glimpse of what we have to look forward to...(as if we don't
already
know)
Annie
8.
LONG BUT VERY INFORMATIVE
Date: 21 Sep 2005
From: David Creighton <dcr8on@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
This long, well-informed and reasoned analysis accurately reflects,
imho, the sociological (entropic) level of our present situation. But
do not forget, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction,
in this case the evolutionary thrust, about which a bit more is
attached at the end. Enjoy! dc
_______
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
Date: 21 Sep 2005
From: richard@cyberjournal.org
This article is archived at:
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=589&lists=newslog
Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
richard@cyberjournal.org
The Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse:
* Collapse * Genocide * War * Fascism
We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical episodes of
all time - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are about to ride.
Peak oil is the primary underlying condition forcing change, and
Apocalypse is the action plan ruling elites have chosen as their
response to that condition. Not only does this response make a great
deal of sense, from their Machiavellian perspective, but by their
recent actions they have clearly signaled the scope and direction of
their intentions. Furthermore, their planned response is in complete
alignment with earlier responses to similar situations in the past -
by these same people or by their direct predecessors.
* Historical background
"History teaches by analogy, not identity. The historical
experience
is not one of staying in the present and looking back; rather, it
is
one of going back into the past and returning to the present with
a
wider and more intense consciousness." -Daniel Estulin,
investigative journalist
Peak oil is real. That is to say, we have reached the point where our
annual consumption of oil is considerably greater than our annual
ability to develop new sources. While global consumption continues to
increase, potential sources can only decrease. No matter what anyone
does, our oil-based global economy cannot continue for much longer in
its current form - at current population levels. At the same time, we
must remember that the remaining reserves are vast - perhaps the same
amount remains as has ever been pumped, although it will become
increasingly expensive to extract.
The fact of peak oil, in itself, does not necessarily imply that
apocalypse is inevitable. If humanity were to face this problem in a
sensible way, there is much that could be done to alleviate the
crisis, re-organize our societies and economies, localize our
production and consumption, reduce our wasteful practices, move to
appropriate technologies, develop alternative energy sources and
transport methods, etc. But it is not 'humanity' that is in the
driver's seat.
As we have watched the arrogant and radical behavior of the Bush
administration over the past five years, it has become apparent to
all that the neocon clique that dominates the White House is pursuing
an agenda of their own, an agenda that is partially described in
their PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which they
proudly display on their website - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
- under the button, "Defense and National Security". This is not an
agenda that 'humanity' has chosen, nor have the American people
chosen it. In fact, people and nations all over the world are
resisting and protesting this agenda, Bush's popularity is at an
all-time low in America, and none of this makes any difference to the
pursuit of the agenda.
For the moment at least, we can all see that a clique is setting the
world's course, a clique that acts in its own self-interest,
following an agenda that in no way has any kind of democratic
legitimacy. Many people assume, however, that this situation is an
aberration from our normal political process, something unique to
Bush and his crowd. Some see the sinister hand of a Zionist plot, and
some point to the Bush family history of collaboration with the Nazi
regime. If only we can get Bush out of office, such people think, we
can return to some kind of sanity. If only it were so simple.
If we want to understand what we are facing, we need to be a bit more
careful in identifying who are the ultimate movers and shakers behind
world events. In fact, we are not looking at a Zionist plot, and we
are not looking at a recent aberration. A careful examination of
history over the past century reveals that a very specific elite
clique has come to totally dominate and control world affairs. The
neocons are not that clique; they are its agents, eagerly pursuing
their assignment because of the looting opportunities thereby made
available to themselves and their corporate cronies.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not
who
writes the laws." - Amshall Rothschild
The elite clique I refer to are the top financial circles in New York
and London - the people who control financial institutions like Chase
Manhattan, Citibank, HSBC, Rothschilds, and Lloyds TSB. We're talking
about a handful of people, blessed with inherited wealth, and
operating mostly behind the scenes. The Rockefeller brothers are the
most obvious members of this clique, due to their
uncharacteristically high profile in public affairs. As with the
Rockefellers, whose wealth came from the 19th Century exploits of
oil-baron J.D. Rockefeller, this clique exhibits considerable
continuity through the decades, both in terms of its approach to
maintaining its power, and in terms of the family trees and
connections that characterize its membership.
I won't repeat here the story of how this particular elite gained its
power. Suffice it to say that the financing of wars, when governments
are desperate for funding, has been one of the primary vehicles by
which this clique has gained its wealth and power. It would be a
gross understatement to say that this clique "influences
governments". It would closer to the truth to say that the U.S. and
British governments are owned, lock stock and barrel, by this clique,
a fact which is symbolized by this thing we call 'national debt'. The
Federal Reserve Bank, the Bank of England, the IMF, and the World
Bank are all directly controlled by this clique and its agents and
banks. Presidents and Prime Ministers are groomed in their careers,
and selected for their turn in office, based on which particular
agendas are being pursued at any given time.
The Bilderberger meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a
network of think tanks and foundations serve to rationalize and
promulgate the agendas of this clique among lower-level echelons and
officials. Through ownership, investment, and other means of
influence, this clique controls the mainstream global media and the
spin that is applied to the important stories. With their ability to
set interest rates and credit availability, and their domination of
exchange markets, they exercise decisive control over global finance
generally. Their power is extended still further by their close
fraternal relationships with key players in the Anglo-American oil
cartel and in American and British Intelligence circles.
It is important to make a distinction between ordinary corporations
and banks, between corporate power and the power of finance. Ordinary
corporations are in the business of making money, and they favour
policies which generate economic growth and development. Apart from
weapons manufacturers, corporations tend to favor peace and stability
in world affairs, as that's when they can grow and develop their
markets. When recession hits, corporations suffer, or even go under.
The situation for the big banks is quite different. Banks gain in
both good times and bad. In all conditions banks make loans of money
they don't really have, and then collect both the principal and
interest. In good times, they also make money on their investments in
productive enterprises. In bad times, even though the paper value of
their assets may temporarily decline, they are able to foreclose on
failing enterprises, pick up bargains by buying faltering
enterprises, and they can make money by selling assets short before a
crash, based on their insider knowledge and ability to manipulate
markets. Economic cycles are like a two-phase pump, and both phases
benefit the banks. The banks understand that money is simply an
accounting system. For them money is not so much an end in itself, as
it is for ordinary corporations, but is more a vehicle of ownership
and power. Wars and economic collapses have been intentionally
engineered by this elite Anglo-American banking clique throughout the
past century, as this elite has systematically sought to maintain and
consolidate its power.
The reason why the Anglo-American bankers in particular are running
things, as opposed to other financial elites elsewhere, has to do
with the immense wealth and influence that was accumulated during the
heyday of the British Empire, the close fraternal relationships
between London and New York banking circles, and a particular
strategy of financial dominance. That strategy has very much do with
oil, but oil profits are not the main issue. The main issue is that
every nation, since the early 20th Century, must have oil to operate.
The strategy is very simple and very effective. If you can control
the sources of oil, and if you also control the currency in which oil
is traded, and the price of oil, then you have your hand on
Archimedes lever: "Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum, then I
can move the world". Yes the profits from oil are considerable, but
control over oil is much more important - it gives you control over
every nation's economy, their ability to wage war, etc. This strategy
was adopted by British elites prior to World War 1, was also adopted
by American elites, and has been the core geopolitical strategy of
the dominant Anglo-American alliance to this day.
We are not talking here about a gross mechanism, where elites say,
"Do what I want or I'll withhold oil from you." The game is more
subtle, having to do with the price of oil, and the kind of loans a
nation can get to deal with its development needs, etc. Ultimate
power is financial power, and oil-dominance, in today's world, is the
key to financial power. Through intrigue and pressure from this
clique, OPEC nations accept payments for oil only in dollars. Every
nation must therefore accumulate dollars, making dollars artificially
valuable, and thereby financing U.S. deficits. This influx of capital
is called "petrodollar recycling". This petrodollar wealth then finds
its way to London and enters the 'Eurodollar market', where funds can
be recycled into unregulated global investments. Thus both New York
and London banks are able to grab their share of the profits from the
the oil-dominance strategy. Oil company profits are simply one more
source of funds that end up being invested in banker-controlled
investment portfolios. Ordinary corporations are powerful, but they
play within the game whose rules are set by the banking elite.
This is the context in which we need to examine current events. It is
this historical context which leads me to interpret current events in
terms of the Four Horses.
* Collapse
Let us consider the first Horseman: Collapse. In this regard there
are two primary things to consider. The first is peak oil, and the
second is the oil shock of 1973.
Up until 1973, oil was treated as an inexhaustible commodity - the
game was to pump as much as possible, sell it a relatively low price,
get everyone addicted to oil and automobiles, and make money on
volume - lots of money. This strategy fit in perfectly with the
post-World War 2 economic regime, which was based on economic growth
and development. This was the era in which suburbia was invented, and
rail systems were dismantled in the USA and Britain. This was a major
growth phase of the economic pump, enriching banks and corporations
alike. But in the early 70s the bloom was off the growth cycle, Japan
and Germany were gaining economic power, and our Anglo-American
banking elites decided the time had come for an adjustment.
Using the diplomatic talents of Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger,
our banking elites were able to stir up a war between Israel and the
Arab states, engineer an oil boycott, and raise the price of oil
nearly overnight by 400%. Here we can see demonstrated the power of
finance, and the efficacy of the oil-dominance strategy. As intended,
economic growth in Europe and Japan was sharply curtailed, and as
intended, third world nations were forced to dedicate their budgets
to oil imports and debt repayments, rather than to developing their
own economies. We know these things were intended, because the
program was discussed in some detail at a Bilderberger meeting
several months before the Yom Kippur war broke out.
The price increase made exploitation of the North Sea oil sources
economically viable, much to the benefit of the London banks that had
invested in that project. In addition, the price increase created the
petrodollar phenomenon. All in all, the oil shock of 1973 was a very
successful, and well masked, coup. It ushered in an era where growth
was no longer the dominant paradigm. There has been relatively little
real growth in the global economy since that time, as regards
industrial production and trade in goods. The banks began focusing
more on debt collections, and developing the speculative global
markets.
>From another perspective, we can view the 1973 oil shock as being
an
early-warning sign of peak oil. That is to say, oil has always been a
finite resource, and the oil companies have been aware of that more
than anyone else. By the early 70s everyone was adequately addicted
to oil, and it was about time to hike up the price of the remaining
reserves. In this regard the dynamics are a bit like with drug
pushers: the first hit's free and after that you pay. Cheap oil got
you hooked, and now you can dig a bit deeper for your next fix.
We are told that 'market forces' are responsible for all price
increases, but that is a gross oversimplification. The Anglo-American
oil cartel, in covert collaboration with the Saudis and other
'friendly' OPEC states, decides how much oil will be pumped, and at
what price it will be made available. 'Market forces', so called, are
themselves manipulated by the banks - that's what financial power is
all about. 'Market forces' are simply the current rules of the game,
sometimes protectionist, and sometimes free-trade oriented, depending
on current elite agendas. More relevant than 'market forces', to the
price of oil, is the principle of 'all the traffic will bear'.
A major economic adjustment must occur at some point, due to peak
oil, and there are clear signs that now is the time that has been
chosen. We have seen sharp increases, even before Hurricane Katrina.
And now, with the well-publicized damage to oil rigs and refineries
in the Louisiana region, further increases are fully expected and
being 'predicted' in the mainstream media. Already trucking companies
are complaining that they will be forced out of business by the rises
that have already occurred. In addition, we read that interest rates
are 'expected' to go up.
We are now much further along on the oil-peak curve than we were in
1973, oil addiction is as strong as ever, China is threatening to
become the world's largest economy, and the global economy is greatly
over-extended with speculative investments - including over-leveraged
home mortgages. An oil shock at this time, combined with an interest
rate hike, would once again transform the global economy, much to the
advantage of the Anglo-American alliance.
This oil shock will be much more dramatic in its consequences than
the shock of '73. That's why this Horseman is called Collapse. The
global economy is much more volatile now than it was in the '70s,
indeed it is a speculative house of cards, reminiscent of 1929. It
cannot stand a major oil shock, combined with an interest rate hike.
Stock markets will tumble, recessions will hit the West, and the
third world will dive even deeper into poverty - if that can be
imagined. China will be hit hard by the oil rises, but more important
its export markets will be sharply curtailed by recessions in the
West, particularly in the U.S. Unemployment will rise globally, many
mortgage holders won't be able to pay their increased variable-rate
payments, and the housing bubble will burst. One thing will lead to
another, bringing global economic collapse, reminiscent of the Great
Depression. This will bring a feeding frenzy for the big banks, like
the one they enjoyed during the 1930s, and bad news for the rest of
us.
If we consider these consequences along with the implications of the
PNAC agenda, we are beginning to see the outline of the elite
clique's 'Final Solution' to the problem of peak oil. Peak oil
implies, sooner or later, a desperate global struggle for the
remaining reserves: the PNAC agenda is largely about grabbing control
of as many reserves as possible - now rather than later. Peak oil, in
the absence of what the rest of us would call a sensible strategy,
implies a general collapse of the global economy, sooner or later:
this Shock of 2005 will begin that process now, while vast oil
reserves still remain, so that the banking clique can manage the
collapse to its own advantage. Our oil-based economy can be compared
to a condemned building, and a controlled demolition makes more sense
than simply letting the building rot of its own accord: this enables
the owner to develop something else on the site. Similarly, if the
economic collapse is brought about early, then the vast remaining oil
reserves will be available for the construction of some kind of
post-Apocalyptic, elite-friendly, world order.
* Genocide
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy
towards the third world, because the US economy will require large
and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from
less
developed countries." - attributed to Henry Kissinger, "National
Security Study Memorandum 200 : Implications of Worldwide
Population
Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests", April 24, 1974
A search on google reveals hundreds of hits citing the above
quotation. However, on downloading and reading the memo, NSSM 200, I
was unable to find that particular passage. Perhaps the quote is a
hoax, or perhaps it was deleted before the memo was declassified and
made public. I've nonetheless featured the alleged quote, because
genuine or not it serves as a very good summary of what NSSM 200 is
actually about, if you read between the lines. Here, for example, is
a passage that does appear in the full NSSM 200 document:
"All readers are urged to read the detailed main body of the
report
which is presented in full in Appendix Two . This will give the
reader a better appreciation of the gravity of this
new threat to U.S. and global security and the actions the many
departments of our government felt were necessary in order to
address this grave new threat - a threat greater than nuclear
war."
Let's review some of the developments 'on the ground', that show how
this foreign policy priority is being implemented. In his book, "The
Globalization of Poverty", economics insider Michel Chossudovsky
describes how IMF policies intentionally devastate third world
economies, leading in Africa to massive famine and genocidal civil
wars. The recently announced plans for "third-world debt forgiveness"
are a sham: what they are really about is reimbursing the banks for
their uncollectible loans to the third world. These reimbursements
will then be subtracted from foreign aid budgets, so that the third
world will actually be worse off than before the "forgiveness"
program. And in order to 'benefit' from this 'forgiveness' program,
the third-world nations must agree to still further, extremely
harmful, IMF privatization programs. The genocidal civil wars we read
about in Africa are partly a result of this intentional
impoverishment program, partly a result of arms sales to African
warlords, and partly the result of covert CIA operations. The West's
counter-productive responses to the AIDS epidemic, and the massive
use of depleted uranium munitions by U.S. and British forces in
former Yugoslavia and Iraq also contribute to depopulation, both
among the local populations and among the Western cannon-fodder
troops.
Within the context of peak oil, and from the perspective of our
callous banking elite, it is easy to understand why a sharp decrease
in world population would be highly desirable. I've seen several
reports that a target of "80% reduction by 2020" has been adopted in
elite circles, but I haven't been able to track down that particular
claim to any reliable source. Nonetheless, such a program would
certainly change the parameters of the peak oil phenomenon, and pave
the way for constructing some kind of new, post-Apocalyptic system.
In any case, based on what they say and what they do, I think it is
impossible to escape the conclusion that population reduction, a
euphemism for genocide, is indeed a primary elite priority
If systematic genocidal depopulation is an elite agenda, as it seems
to be, then we must recognize the obvious fact that nuclear war would
be one of the most efficient ways to pursue that agenda. This brings
us to the next Horseman.
* War
By their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons have made it
clear that they are totally serious about their PNAC agenda - but
Afghanistan and Iraq represent only the beginning of that agenda. The
agenda is about global, 'full-spectrum' dominance. The agenda
explicitly declares that the U.S. must prevent the rise of any power
that could challenge U.S. hegemony, even if only regionally. China
and Europe are specifically mentioned as powers that must be kept
down. The PNAC document does not refer to the time-honoured
Anglo-American strategy of oil-based dominance, but we need to take
that strategy into account here as well.
China is clearly the power most threatening to the PNAC agenda at
this time. China is moving effectively to establish itself as 'the'
regional power in Asia with a wide range of alliances, and Russia is
selling its most advanced weapons systems to China. The two nations
have conducted joint military exercises and they are making
arrangements to trade Russian oil and gas for Chinese cash and
investments. Although China is making use of the free-trade global
economy for its own economic benefit, it does this within the context
of its own nationalist goals, and keeps tight control over its
internal economy and currency. China is rapidly upgrading its
military forces, and has adopted an 'asymmetric strategy', whereby it
aims to deter U.S. power without the expense of competing in every
category of weaponry. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is spending billions
on missile defense systems and space-based weaponry, and these costly
initiatives only make sense in the context of an eventual military
confrontation between the U.S. and China. All of this is in addition
to the fact that China is rapidly gaining on the U.S. economically,
and at current rates will soon become the world's largest economy.
If China is not confronted, one way or another, the PNAC agenda will
be thwarted. The longer China is allowed to increase its military,
economic, and geopolitical power, the more difficult such a
confrontation will become. This scenario is highly reminiscent of the
pre-World War 1 scenario, where a rapidly growing Germany was
threatening British financial and military hegemony. Britain dealt
with this crisis by surrounding Germany with secret alliances,
ensuring the outbreak of war, and to its own advantage. Washington,
with its overwhelming military power, can act unilaterally without
such alliances, but its strategic outlook toward China cannot be much
different than Britain's was toward Germany in that earlier scenario.
Both China and America are clearly preparing for a war between them,
although China would presumably prefer that mutual deterrence be the
result of these military build-ups rather than actual warfare. The
neocons, on the other hand, must take China down, one way or another,
or else give up their plans for total global dominance. When we
consider the elite's 'population reduction' agenda, we must suspect
that an actual nuclear war with China may be their preferred
'takeout' option. Before that option can be viable however, the
Pentagon must be able to ensure that such a war could be managed so
as not to annihilate the world's entire population from radiation
fallout. The esoteric space-based weapon systems currently being
developed - and to some extent already deployed - by the Pentagon are
intended to provide the kind of 'full spectrum theater dominance'
that would be needed for that kind of 'war management'. In addition,
neutron bombs offer the advantage of killing populations without
causing property damage or undue fallout.
We cannot be sure whether or not the Pentagon considers itself
adequately prepared as yet for this possible war, but we can imagine
the preferred Pentagon scenario when the preparations are complete: a
surprise first strike, begun with a high-altitude burst that disables
all electronic devices in China, followed up by a massive nuclear
strike with neutron bombs, and accompanied by the use of space-based
and other esoteric systems to minimize China's strategic response
from any submarines or long-range missiles that might survive the
first strike. A depopulated China, with intact infrastructure, would
dramatically advance elite Anglo-American objectives, as regards both
hegemony and population reduction. And clearly the U.S. would take
possession of China, and its resources, in the aftermath.
The situation becomes more complex when we take into account as well
the currently-developing oil shock, and the likely collapse that will
follow. These measures go a long ways toward stopping China's advance
without the need for outright warfare. China is of course well aware
of all of these scenarios, and is endeavouring to defend itself as
best it can on all fronts. It is in this broad context that we need
to consider the situation vis a vis Iran. Iran is of central
strategic importance in all of these considerations.
China's defense against the oil shock - and against the
Anglo-American oil-dominance strategy generally - takes the form of
an aggressive campaign to secure sources of oil that are independent
of the Anglo-American Seven Sisters cartel. In this regard we might
recall China's recent bid to acquire Unocal, which Washington quickly
quashed. The oil and gas arrangements with Russia are an important
part of China's oil-acquisition campaign, and so are the deals China
has developed with Iran and Venezuela. There's not much Washington
can do about the arrangements with Russia, short of a large-scale
military confrontation. On the other hand Washington could easily
prevent oil shipments from Venezuela, by either blockade or
intervention, whenever it chooses to do so. Iran, with its immense
reserves, is the 'hot spot' in this struggle over oil sources. That
is where the neocons can do something to thwart China's
oil-acquisition campaign, and where doing something will be a
non-trivial operation.
Iran today is like the Balkans prior to World War 1 - it is the place
where the designs of the two protagonists 'meet on the ground', where
armed confrontation is most likely to begin, and where the potential
for escalation is very high. China, in cooperation with its newly
reconciled Russian ally, has been supplying Iran with advanced
missile systems, in an attempt to deter an American invasion. America
meanwhile is beating the war drums, announcing a policy of 'first
use' of nuclear weapons, and attempting to stir up support for its
fantasy that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite the egg
Washington still has on its face from its fictitious Iraqi WMDs.
Iran may indeed already have nuclear weapons - in the warheads
supplied by China and Russia with their advanced missiles. But this
possibility, and the Chinese-Iranian alliance generally, are never
mentioned in Washington's anti-Iranian propaganda campaign - because
Washington does not want to draw attention to the actual geopolitical
situation. Similarly Washington never discusses the obvious fact that
the PNAC agenda and oil were primary in its decision to invade Iraq.
WMD fantasies provide both an excuse and a cover story for invasion,
as regards both Iraq and Iran.
There can be little doubt that an American invasion of Iran is
imminent. Such an invasion is the obvious next step in the
PNAC-oil-dominance agenda, and if that agenda is abandoned Washington
would be giving up on its drive for total global domination. I think
it is safe to assume that the neocons, and their elite backers, are
not prepared to throw in the towel. The question as regards an
invasion of Iran is not if, but rather when and by what scenario.
As regards when, the evidence indicates very soon. Israel has already
been supplied with 'bunker buster' bombs, which would presumably be
used in a first-wave assault. Covert terrorist operatives are already
conducting sabotage in Iran, and an arrangement has been worked out
with the Turks and the Kurds by which Kurdish separatist fighters
will be concentrating their operations in Iran, with American
financial support. America's new forward bases in Iraq provide a very
convenient launching platform for an aerial assault. The various
necessary preparations for invasion seem to be well advanced. With
Washington's announcement of a 'first use' policy for nukes, the U.S.
is in some sense 'telegraphing its punches' as regards an invasion,
and this is something we would expect them to have delayed until near
the intended time of invasion, so as to minimize the political
fallout in the interim. There have been numerous reports that U.S.
military leaves have been cancelled, which if true would also
indicate that the time is nigh. Bush's declining popularity, and the
quagmire situation in Iraq, would also be reasons to undertake the
invasion now rather than later, thus shifting all attention to other
matters.
The planned scenario for the invasion seems to be very clear: a phony
terrorist event will be staged in the U.S., Iran will be blamed, and
the invasion will follow immediately, with no nonsense about the UN,
sanctions, or diplomatic channels. Homeland Security has announced
repeatedly that it 'knows from intelligence sources' that a major
terrorist event in the U.S. is 'expected soon', most likely involving
some American nuclear facility. Credible reports have circulated
indicating that Cheney has put in place specific battle plans for an
invasion of Iran in the event of such an incident, regardless of
whether Iranian complicity can be established. 'Establishing
complicity' will in any case not be a problem, as Washington will
simply blame Iran based on 'intelligence information that we cannot
disclose due to security considerations', or else they will produce
an Iranian passport 'discovered' in the vicinity of the incident.
Just as with 911, all attention will be on the 'terrible attack on
America' and there will be negligible political or diplomatic
resistance to whatever 'retaliatory' action Washington might 'deem
necessary' to 'fight terrorism'. I think it is clear that Washington
has signaled this scenario, and it is a scenario that makes a great
deal of sense.
The scenario becomes less clear once the invasion begins. We can be
sure the invasion will be nuclear (neutron bombs to preserve the oil
fields), partly because of the new U.S. first-use policy
announcement, and partly because of the quagmire in Iraq: there is no
way the U.S. could manage any kind of extended campaign in Iran. What
is unclear is how widely the conflict will escalate. Iran has made it
very clear that in the event of any attack, it would retaliate with
all means available. We can assume that Iran has scattered and
hid[den] its advanced missiles around its territory so that they
would be unlikely to all be disabled before they could be launched.
The obvious targets would be Israeli cities, U.S. carriers, and U.S.
forces in Iraq - all of which would be easy targets for Iran's
advanced missiles. In addition, Iran would be able to sink shipping
in the Gulf and create a global oil crisis by making tanker
operations impossible until after the mess had been cleared away.
This much escalation is clear. But would it stop there? Would the
U.S. want it to stop there? Would Israel want it to stop there? Would
Russia and China allow it to stop there? We cannot be sure how any of
these questions are likely to be answered. If the Pentagon feels it
is adequately prepared for a confrontation with China (and by
necessity Russia), then Washington might choose to go the whole hog
at once, blame China and Russia as well as Iran for the staged
terrorist incident, and launch its first-strike plan against China
and Russia at the same time as the attack on Iran.
Israel, although it usually is kept on an American leash, might
nonetheless follow its own lead and escalate at least to Syria. Once
one of its cities has been struck by Iranian missiles, it is
difficult to predict how Israel might respond, perhaps intentionally
forcing Washington into a larger war than the neocons had in mind at
this time.
>From Russia and China's point of view, the question would be about
appeasement. Just as with Nazi expansionism, where Britain and France
had to draw the line somewhere, Russia and China know they will need
to resist the PNAC agenda of aggression sooner or later. Could Iran,
as was Poland in 1939, be the line they have drawn in the sand? By
supplying Iran with advanced missiles, they at least suggest the
possibility that this might be so. I have seen one report, not
confirmed, that Putin has told Washington that any attack on Syria or
Iran would lead to the total destruction of Israel by Russian nuclear
missiles. We do know that China has said it would initiate nuclear
action against the U.S. if Washington interferes in any conflict
between China and Taiwan. This proves that China has the balls to
draw a nuclear line somewhere, making it difficult [to] put limits on
how China might respond to an attack on Iran. Iran is, after all,
'vital to China's strategic interests' - to cite a phrase that
Washington uses routinely to justify its own interventionist
policies. None of us know what secret warnings and counter-warnings
might already have been exchanged between Washington, Moscow, and
Beijing.
If the neocons do 'get by' with their attack on Iran, without
immediate large-scale nuclear conflict, tensions between Washington,
Moscow, and Beijing will certainly not be reduced. The neocons will
be even more confident in pursuing their PNAC agenda, and Russia and
China will be under even more pressure to take a hard line, the
alternative being eventual capitulation to total American hegemony.
If for any of these reasons the conflict escalates, perhaps with a
delay, into a full nuclear confrontation, then we are clearly in a
truly Apocalyptic scenario. For now, let's consider the 'lesser'
scenario, where the conflict is confined to the Middle East. With
shipping in the Gulf blocked - and with Iranian oil production
brought to a halt - the oil shock already in progress would be
greatly accentuated. Indeed, the invasion of Iran, besides moving the
PNAC agenda one giant step forward, would also, in retrospect, be
seen as the cause of Collapse. The attack would contribute as well to
the depopulation agenda, with the people of Iran being sacrificed at
the altar of the elite clique's designs.
* Fascism
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be
autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power,
especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before
has
a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the
pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion,
except
in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's
sense
of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is,
defense
spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among
professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to
democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial
mobilization." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard",
p.35
In the event of a major domestic 'terrorist' incident, and
particularly with a nuclear war underway in Iran, and a major oil
crisis in the works, there can be little doubt that martial law would
be declared in the U.S., with normal political processes suspended,
and the nation put under the control of some combination of the
Pentagon and Homeland Security. Such a takeover is explicitly called
out as the mission of Homeland Security in the event of a 'Red
Alert', which would clearly be in effect under the circumstances we
are considering. And such a takeover would be very easy to justify,
and would by most Americans probably be welcomed (at first), under
these very frightening circumstances. Under such a takeover, Homeland
Security is explicitly empowered to take control of all food,
transport, fuel, and communications, to forcibly relocate and detain
citizens, and to basically do whatever it might want to do with no
kind of legal restrictions or due process.
The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security apparatus amount to a very
clear recipe for a fascist takeover. Only in the shadow of the
dramatic events of 911 was it possible for such measures to be
justified under the smoke screen of 'fighting terrorism'. What do
these measures in fact have to do with terrorism? Britain, which
suffered under a very real terrorist campaign during the Northern
Ireland 'troubles', saw no need for such extreme measures, despite
outrageous bombings of innocent civilians in London - and the
assassinations of public figures - by a secretive terrorist
organization (the IRA).
Britain then, and the U.S. without the Patriot Act, already had
sufficient police power to undertake whatever surveillance or
detainment that might be helpful in curbing terrorist plots. No judge
would refuse, even on the flimsiest evidence, to order the
incarceration of anyone who seemed to pose a real terrorist threat.
The problem with terrorist organizations is that they are highly
secretive and compartmentalized. Infiltration and covert surveillance
are helpful tools in fighting such groups, much more so than the
power to indefinitely detain citizens against whom no evidence can be
found. These Patriot Act powers have in fact produced no
breakthroughs in terms of stopping terrorism, but they have served
excellently to create precedents for fascist police powers.
Such a 'fascist solution' is nothing new to our ruling elite clique.
When Mussolini took over in Italy, and assured the banks in London
and New York that he would make sure that war reparations would be
paid in full, J.P. Morgan & Co. promptly solidified his regime by
loaning him $100 million. Similarly, the Nazi regime was maneuvered
into power in Germany by funding from the Anglo-American banking
clique, and by financial manipulations that ensured the collapse of
the Weimar Republic. Not only did Hitler pay up on Germany's
reparations obligations, and not only did Nazi remilitarization
provide very profitable investment opportunities for the banks and
American corporations, but the European World War 2 theater - which
was primarily a conflict between Germany and the USSR, despite what
we might assume from U.S. and British war films - served
Anglo-American interests very well indeed.
It is from this perspective that we need to view the recent events
surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the fate of New Orleans and its
poorer residents. The threat posed to New Orleans by a major
hurricane was very well known, indeed this was the specific subject
of a major FEMA exercise carried out several months before the actual
Katrina event. Nonetheless, when the category-5 hurricane began to
approach New Orleans, FEMA made no attempt to assist residents to
evacuate, nor did it bring in supplies and personnel to help with the
predictable aftermath. Instead, after Katrina struck, FEMA turned
away help that was offered by the Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the
Navy, and many volunteer organizations and individuals - just when it
was most needed - leaving unknown numbers to die unnecessarily. In
addition, many local residents claim that they heard explosions just
before the 17th Street levee collapsed, and that it was intentionally
breached - long after the storm had passed - ensuring that the
poorest neighborhoods would be flooded while assistance was being
withheld.
When Federal 'assistance' finally did arrive, it arrived in the form
of heavily armed troops, who brought no supplies with them to assist
the victims, and who treated the survivors more like criminals than
victims. While the wealthier residents had been able to evacuate on
their own, most of those left behind were loaded onto busses and
shipped off to heavily guarded detainment centers. This has not been
reported in the mainstream media; instead we are treated to the
success stories of the relatively few who were allowed to relocate
into civil society. Weeks after all of these events, a more humane
policy was adopted, and we now read about how those who managed to
remain in New Orleans are being helped to rebuild their lives.
While media reports invite us to interpret these events as resulting
from 'incompetence', such an interpretation is not credible. One
might suppose that the lack of timely Federal assistance could be
chalked up to incompetence, although this seems unlikely given the
preceding FEMA exercise. But incompetence can hardly be an excuse for
the intentional spurning of assistance from other organizations, when
thousands of lives obviously hung in the balance. Nor is incompetence
involved in the forced detainment of the survivors, and the cover-up
of this program in the elite-controlled mainstream media. Far more
likely, what we have seen in New Orleans is a test exercise of
Homeland Security's protocols for dealing with the War and Collapse
scenarios.
A little-publicized fact is that prior to the hurricane, FEMA had
been moved under Homeland Security, and stripped of its primary role:
disaster response. FEMA was told that disaster response would become
the responsibility of some other agency, yet to be established.
Recently, after Katrina, President Bush announced that military
troops would in future have primary responsibility for disaster
response. In fact, that shift of responsibility had occurred prior to
Katrina, as was evident in the actual response events. What seems
clear is that the main priority of this militarized disaster-response
regime will be to manage the survivors, rather than minimizing the
casualties in the first place. While such a policy was not actually
necessary with Katrina, it will become necessary in the larger scale
disasters that can be expected as a result of War and Collapse, where
preventing casualties will be either impossible or impractical. By
intentionally creating large numbers of casualties in New Orleans,
Homeland Security, with military forces under its command, was
enabled to practice its new response protocols in a 'live exercise'.
Another little-publicized item is the role of foreign troops in the
aftermath of Katrina. I've seen reports of German troops, Mexican
troops, and others, positioned at various places in the U.S., ready
to be called up by Homeland Security when needed. I found these
reports hard to believe myself until I read an article in an Irish
newspaper about an Irish relief organization, where it was mentioned
as an aside that 500 Irish troops were being dispatched to New
Orleans. The idea of America, the most powerful military nation in
the world, inviting in foreign troops to help with domestic disasters
seems bizarre, to say the least. These words of Henry Kissinger shed
some light on this development:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los
Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is
especially true if they were told there was an outside threat
from
beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very
existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead
with
world leaders to deliver them from
this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When
presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly
relinquished for the guarantee of their well being
granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger
speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderbergers meeting.
Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss
delegate
to the meeting.
For years, right-wing conspiracy buffs have been claiming that UN
troops were going to be the agents of a military takeover in America,
and that this represents a conspiracy by the "liberal establishment"
to create a "socialist world government". I always dismissed these
theories, partly because of the actual nature of the UN, and partly
because of the actual nature of the ruling elite clique, which is
anything but liberal or socialist in its outlook. But behind the
fantasies and disinformation in these right-wing conspiracy theories,
there seems after all to be an element of truth.
One development we should note in this regard is the changing role of
the UN, a development being actively pushed by Washington. As
recently as the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the role of UN
troops had always been a passive one, with relatively light
armaments, whereby their mere presence was intended to calm tempers
and minimize conflict. But since the events in Yugoslavia, and
particularly recently, UN troops have been taking an increasingly
aggressive role, so that today their actions can no longer be
distinguished from those traditionally carried out by Western troops
in their role of imperialist domination. As the nature of the UN has
dramatically changed in this way, as the result of U.S. initiatives,
the right-wing conspiracy theories, or at least parts of them, begin
to make a little more sense.
Whenever tyrants have violently suppressed populations with troops,
one of the problems that has arisen has been the tendency of troops
to refuse to fire on their fellow citizens. When the Soviet Union was
suppressing the Hungarian uprising in the 1950s, for example, the
Soviets found that even their own Russian troops were responding in
this way as regards the Hungarian people. So the Soviets brought in
troops from remote Siberia, and these troops didn't give the Soviets
any trouble. The less related the troops are to the population, the
easier it is to deploy those troops against the population. In
suppressing the Iraqi people, American troops serve very well. In
suppressing the American people, non-American troops can be expected
to perform more reliably.
In addition to foreign troops, we need also to consider the role of
hardened mercenaries. Among the security forces now deployed in New
Orleans, for example, can be found mercenaries from Blackwater USA,
many of whom were flown in from Iraq. These forces were selected for
this first-response duty rather than elements of Louisiana's own
National Guard who are stationed in Iraq, many of whom had been
demanding to be returned home to help out, as is the traditional role
of the National Guard. Blackwater mercenaries are some of the most
feared professional killers in the world and they are accustomed to
operating without worry of legal consequences. Elements of the
Louisiana Guard have subsequently been called home, now that the live
test has been completed.
U.S troop levels are being stressed in Iraq, and to fill the gap
unprecedented numbers of National Guard troops have been deployed in
combat operations, greatly depleting domestic National Guard
resources. With the quagmire in Iraq continuing without sign of let
up, and with the neocons intent on pursuing their PNAC agenda, there
is no reason to expect this domestic force depletion situation to
improve, indeed it can only get worse. And as we enter into the War
and Collapse scenarios, the need for domestic security forces will
increase dramatically. As we see foreign and mercenary troops being
used domestically in preference to bringing home the National Guard,
we can see that Kissinger's predictions, or perhaps we should call
them advanced policy announcements, are beginning to be realized.
Fascism doesn't necessarily imply cult-nationalism or appeals to
racial superiority - those themes just happened to harmonize with the
fears and sentiments of downtrodden Germans in the terrible 1930s.
What fascism is really about is an acceptance, on the part of the
population, that the state is all powerful and can do anything it
wants. Hitler accomplished that in one way, but we can see it being
accomplished in our own time by different means. With the Patriot Act
firmly in place, with Homeland Security and the military in charge of
disaster response, with what we have seen of Homeland Security's
response protocols - with the forced detention of disaster survivors
from Katrina, and with the deployment of foreign and mercenary troops
domestically - there seems to be little doubt that a neo-fascist
regime - in all but name and rhetoric - will be established in
America as the Collapse and War scenarios unfold.
CONTINUED IN PART 4...
----- End forwarded message -----
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
CONTINUED FROM PART 2...
Please contribute your support and/or
express your appreciation through
8.
LONG BUT VERY INFORMATIVE
Date: 21 Sep 2005
From: David Creighton
<dcr8on@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New
World
This long, well-informed and reasoned analysis accurately reflects,
imho, the sociological (entropic) level of our present situation. But
do not forget, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction,
in this case the evolutionary thrust, about which a bit more is
attached at the end. Enjoy! dc
_______
Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
Date: 21 Sep 2005
From: richard@cyberjournal.org
This article is archived at:
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=589&lists=newslog
Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World
richard@cyberjournal.org
The Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse:
* Collapse * Genocide * War * Fascism
We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical episodes of all
time - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are about to ride. Peak oil
is the primary underlying condition forcing change, and Apocalypse is
the action plan ruling elites have chosen as their response to that
condition. Not only does this response make a great deal of sense,
from their Machiavellian perspective, but by their recent actions they
have clearly signaled the scope and direction of their intentions.
Furthermore, their planned response is in complete alignment with
earlier responses to similar situations in the past - by these same
people or by their direct predecessors.
* Historical background
"History teaches by analogy, not identity. The historical
experience is not one of staying in the present and looking
back; rather, it is one of going back into the past and
returning to the present with a wider and more intense
consciousness." -Daniel Estulin, investigative
journalist
Peak oil is real. That is to say, we have reached the point where our
annual consumption of oil is considerably greater than our annual
ability to develop new sources. While global consumption continues to
increase, potential sources can only decrease. No matter what anyone
does, our oil-based global economy cannot continue for much longer in
its current form - at current population levels. At the same time, we
must remember that the remaining reserves are vast - perhaps the same
amount remains as has ever been pumped, although it will become
increasingly expensive to extract.
The fact of peak oil, in itself, does not necessarily imply that
apocalypse is inevitable. If humanity were to face this problem in a
sensible way, there is much that could be done to alleviate the
crisis, re-organize our societies and economies, localize our
production and consumption, reduce our wasteful practices, move to
appropriate technologies, develop alternative energy sources and
transport methods, etc. But it is not 'humanity' that is in the
driver's seat.
As we have watched the arrogant and radical
behavior of the Bush administration over the past five years, it has
become apparent to all that the neocon clique that dominates the White
House is pursuing an agenda of their own, an agenda that is partially
described in their PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's
Defenses", which they proudly display on their website -
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ - under the button, "Defense
and National Security". This is not an agenda that 'humanity' has
chosen, nor have the American people chosen it. In fact, people and
nations all over the world are resisting and protesting this agenda,
Bush's popularity is at an all-time low in America, and none of this
makes any difference to the pursuit of the agenda.
For the moment at least, we can all see that a clique is setting the
world's course, a clique that acts in its own self-interest, following
an agenda that in no way has any kind of democratic legitimacy. Many
people assume, however, that this situation is an aberration from our
normal political process, something unique to Bush and his crowd. Some
see the sinister hand of a Zionist plot, and some point to the Bush
family history of collaboration with the Nazi regime. If only we can
get Bush out of office, such people think, we can return to some kind
of sanity. If only it were so simple.
If we want to understand what we are facing, we need to be a bit more
careful in identifying who are the ultimate movers and shakers behind
world events. In fact, we are not looking at a Zionist plot, and we
are not looking at a recent aberration. A careful examination of
history over the past century reveals that a very specific elite
clique has come to totally dominate and control world affairs. The
neocons are not that clique; they are its agents, eagerly pursuing
their assignment because of the looting opportunities thereby made
available to themselves and their corporate cronies.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care
not who writes the laws." - Amshall Rothschild
The elite clique I refer to are the top financial circles in New York
and London - the people who control financial institutions like Chase
Manhattan, Citibank, HSBC, Rothschilds, and Lloyds TSB. We're talking
about a handful of people, blessed with inherited wealth, and
operating mostly behind the scenes. The Rockefeller brothers are the
most obvious members of this clique, due to their uncharacteristically
high profile in public affairs. As with the Rockefellers, whose wealth
came from the 19th Century exploits of oil-baron J.D. Rockefeller,
this clique exhibits considerable continuity through the decades, both
in terms of its approach to maintaining its power, and in terms of the
family trees and connections that characterize its
membership.
I won't repeat here the story of how this particular elite gained its
power. Suffice it to say that the financing of wars, when governments
are desperate for funding, has been one of the primary vehicles by
which this clique has gained its wealth and power. It would be a gross
understatement to say that this clique "influences
governments". It would closer to the truth to say that the U.S.
and British governments are owned, lock stock and barrel, by this
clique, a fact which is symbolized by this thing we call 'national
debt'. The Federal Reserve Bank, the Bank of England, the IMF, and the
World Bank are all directly controlled by this clique and its agents
and banks. Presidents and Prime Ministers are groomed in their
careers, and selected for their turn in office, based on which
particular agendas are being pursued at any given time.
The Bilderberger meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a
network of think tanks and foundations serve to rationalize and
promulgate the agendas of this clique among lower-level echelons and
officials. Through ownership, investment, and other means of
influence, this clique controls the mainstream global media and the
spin that is applied to the important stories. With their ability to
set interest rates and credit availability, and their domination of
exchange markets, they exercise decisive control over global finance
generally. Their power is extended still further by their close
fraternal relationships with key players in the Anglo-American oil
cartel and in American and British Intelligence circles.
It is important to make a distinction between ordinary corporations
and banks, between corporate power and the power of finance. Ordinary
corporations are in the business of making money, and they favour
policies which generate economic growth and development. Apart from
weapons manufacturers, corporations tend to favor peace and stability
in world affairs, as that's when they can grow and develop their
markets. When recession hits, corporations suffer, or even go
under.
The situation for the big banks is quite different. Banks gain in both
good times and bad. In all conditions banks make loans of money they
don't really have, and then collect both the principal and interest.
In good times, they also make money on their investments in productive
enterprises. In bad times, even though the paper value of their assets
may temporarily decline, they are able to foreclose on failing
enterprises, pick up bargains by buying faltering enterprises, and
they can make money by selling assets short before a crash, based on
their insider knowledge and ability to manipulate markets. Economic
cycles are like a two-phase pump, and both phases benefit the banks.
The banks understand that money is simply an accounting system. For
them money is not so much an end in itself, as it is for ordinary
corporations, but is more a vehicle of ownership and power. Wars and
economic collapses have been intentionally engineered by this elite
Anglo-American banking clique throughout the past century, as this
elite has systematically sought to maintain and consolidate its
power.
The reason why the Anglo-American bankers in particular are running
things, as opposed to other financial elites elsewhere, has to do with
the immense wealth and influence that was accumulated during the
heyday of the British Empire, the close fraternal relationships
between London and New York banking circles, and a particular strategy
of financial dominance. That strategy has very much do with oil, but
oil profits are not the main issue. The main issue is that every
nation, since the early 20th Century, must have oil to operate.
The strategy is very simple and very effective. If you can control the
sources of oil, and if you also control the currency in which oil is
traded, and the price of oil, then you have your hand on Archimedes
lever: "Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum, then I can
move the world". Yes the profits from oil are considerable, but
control over oil is much more important - it gives you control over
every nation's economy, their ability to wage war, etc. This strategy
was adopted by British elites prior to World War 1, was also adopted
by American elites, and has been the core geopolitical strategy of the
dominant Anglo-American alliance to this day.
We are not talking here about a gross mechanism, where elites say,
"Do what I want or I'll withhold oil from you." The game is
more subtle, having to do with the price of oil, and the kind of loans
a nation can get to deal with its development needs, etc. Ultimate
power is financial power, and oil-dominance, in today's world, is the
key to financial power. Through intrigue and pressure from this
clique, OPEC nations accept payments for oil only in dollars. Every
nation must therefore accumulate dollars, making dollars artificially
valuable, and thereby financing U.S. deficits. This influx of capital
is called "petrodollar recycling". This petrodollar wealth
then finds its way to London and enters the 'Eurodollar market', where
funds can be recycled into unregulated global investments. Thus both
New York and London banks are able to grab their share of the profits
from the the oil-dominance strategy. Oil company profits are simply
one more source of funds that end up being invested in
banker-controlled investment portfolios. Ordinary corporations are
powerful, but they play within the game whose rules are set by the
banking elite.
This is the context in which we need to examine current events. It is
this historical context which leads me to interpret current events in
terms of the Four Horses.
* Collapse
Let us consider the first Horseman: Collapse. In this regard there are
two primary things to consider. The first is peak oil, and the second
is the oil shock of 1973.
Up until 1973, oil was treated as an inexhaustible commodity - the
game was to pump as much as possible, sell it a relatively low price,
get everyone addicted to oil and automobiles, and make money on volume
- lots of money. This strategy fit in perfectly with the post-World
War 2 economic regime, which was based on economic growth and
development. This was the era in which suburbia was invented, and rail
systems were dismantled in the USA and Britain. This was a major
growth phase of the economic pump, enriching banks and corporations
alike. But in the early 70s the bloom was off the growth cycle, Japan
and Germany were gaining economic power, and our Anglo-American
banking elites decided the time had come for an
adjustment.
Using the diplomatic talents of Rockefeller protégé Henry
Kissinger, our banking elites were able to stir up a war between
Israel and the Arab states, engineer an oil boycott, and raise the
price of oil nearly overnight by 400%. Here we can see demonstrated
the power of finance, and the efficacy of the oil-dominance strategy.
As intended, economic growth in Europe and Japan was sharply
curtailed, and as intended, third world nations were forced to
dedicate their budgets to oil imports and debt repayments, rather than
to developing their own economies. We know these things were intended,
because the program was discussed in some detail at a Bilderberger
meeting several months before the Yom Kippur war broke out.
The price increase made exploitation of the North Sea oil sources
economically viable, much to the benefit of the London banks that had
invested in that project. In addition, the price increase created the
petrodollar phenomenon. All in all, the oil shock of 1973 was a very
successful, and well masked, coup. It ushered in an era where growth
was no longer the dominant paradigm. There has been relatively little
real growth in the global economy since that time, as regards
industrial production and trade in goods. The banks began focusing
more on debt collections, and developing the speculative global
markets.
>From another perspective, we can view the 1973 oil shock as being
an
early-warning sign of peak oil. That is to say, oil has always been a
finite resource, and the oil companies have been aware of that more
than anyone else. By the early 70s everyone was adequately addicted to
oil, and it was about time to hike up the price of the remaining
reserves. In this regard the dynamics are a bit like with drug
pushers: the first hit's free and after that you pay. Cheap oil got
you hooked, and now you can dig a bit deeper for your next
fix.
We are told that 'market forces' are responsible for all price
increases, but that is a gross oversimplification. The Anglo-American
oil cartel, in covert collaboration with the Saudis and other
'friendly' OPEC states, decides how much oil will be pumped, and at
what price it will be made available. 'Market forces', so called, are
themselves manipulated by the banks - that's what financial power is
all about. 'Market forces' are simply the current rules of the game,
sometimes protectionist, and sometimes free-trade oriented, depending
on current elite agendas. More relevant than 'market forces', to the
price of oil, is the principle of 'all the traffic will bear'.
A major economic adjustment must occur at some point, due to peak oil,
and there are clear signs that now is the time that has been chosen.
We have seen sharp increases, even before Hurricane Katrina. And now,
with the well-publicized damage to oil rigs and refineries in the
Louisiana region, further increases are fully expected and being
'predicted' in the mainstream media. Already trucking companies are
complaining that they will be forced out of business by the rises that
have already occurred. In addition, we read that interest rates are
'expected' to go up.
We are now much further along on the oil-peak curve than we were in
1973, oil addiction is as strong as ever, China is threatening to
become the world's largest economy, and the global economy is greatly
over-extended with speculative investments - including over-leveraged
home mortgages. An oil shock at this time, combined with an interest
rate hike, would once again transform the global economy, much to the
advantage of the Anglo-American alliance.
This oil shock will be much more dramatic in its consequences than the
shock of '73. That's why this Horseman is called Collapse. The global
economy is much more volatile now than it was in the '70s, indeed it
is a speculative house of cards, reminiscent of 1929. It cannot stand
a major oil shock, combined with an interest rate hike. Stock markets
will tumble, recessions will hit the West, and the third world will
dive even deeper into poverty - if that can be imagined. China will be
hit hard by the oil rises, but more important its export markets will
be sharply curtailed by recessions in the West, particularly in the
U.S. Unemployment will rise globally, many mortgage holders won't be
able to pay their increased variable-rate payments, and the housing
bubble will burst. One thing will lead to another, bringing global
economic collapse, reminiscent of the Great Depression. This will
bring a feeding frenzy for the big banks, like the one they enjoyed
during the 1930s, and bad news for the rest of us.
If we consider these consequences along with the implications of the
PNAC agenda, we are beginning to see the outline of the elite clique's
'Final Solution' to the problem of peak oil. Peak oil implies, sooner
or later, a desperate global struggle for the remaining reserves: the
PNAC agenda is largely about grabbing control of as many reserves as
possible - now rather than later. Peak oil, in the absence of what the
rest of us would call a sensible strategy, implies a general collapse
of the global economy, sooner or later: this Shock of 2005 will begin
that process now, while vast oil reserves still remain, so that the
banking clique can manage the collapse to its own advantage. Our
oil-based economy can be compared to a condemned building, and a
controlled demolition makes more sense than simply letting the
building rot of its own accord: this enables the owner to develop
something else on the site. Similarly, if the economic collapse is
brought about early, then the vast remaining oil reserves will be
available for the construction of some kind of post-Apocalyptic,
elite-friendly, world order.
* Genocide
"Depopulation should be the highest
priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US
economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from
abroad, especially from less developed countries." -
attributed to Henry Kissinger, "National Security Study
Memorandum 200 : Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests", April 24, 1974
A search on google reveals hundreds of hits citing the above
quotation. However, on downloading and reading the memo, NSSM 200, I
was unable to find that particular passage. Perhaps the quote is a
hoax, or perhaps it was deleted before the memo was declassified and
made public. I've nonetheless featured the alleged quote, because
genuine or not it serves as a very good summary of what NSSM 200 is
actually about, if you read between the lines. Here, for example, is a
passage that does appear in the full NSSM 200 document:
"All readers are urged to read the detailed main body of the
report which is presented in full in Appendix Two . This will
give the reader a better appreciation of the gravity of this
new threat to U.S. and global security and the actions the many
departments of our government felt were necessary in order to
address this grave new threat - a threat greater than nuclear
war."
Let's review some of the developments 'on the ground', that show how
this foreign policy priority is being implemented. In his book,
"The Globalization of Poverty", economics insider Michel
Chossudovsky describes how IMF policies intentionally devastate third
world economies, leading in Africa to massive famine and genocidal
civil wars. The recently announced plans for "third-world debt
forgiveness" are a sham: what they are really about is
reimbursing the banks for their uncollectible loans to the third
world. These reimbursements will then be subtracted from foreign aid
budgets, so that the third world will actually be worse off than
before the "forgiveness" program. And in order to 'benefit'
from this 'forgiveness' program, the third-world nations must agree to
still further, extremely harmful, IMF privatization programs. The
genocidal civil wars we read about in Africa are partly a result of
this intentional impoverishment program, partly a result of arms sales
to African warlords, and partly the result of covert CIA operations.
The West's counter-productive responses to the AIDS epidemic, and the
massive use of depleted uranium munitions by U.S. and British forces
in former Yugoslavia and Iraq also contribute to depopulation, both
among the local populations and among the Western cannon-fodder
troops.
Within the context of peak oil, and from the perspective of our
callous banking elite, it is easy to understand why a sharp decrease
in world population would be highly desirable. I've seen several
reports that a target of "80% reduction by 2020" has been
adopted in elite circles, but I haven't been able to track down that
particular claim to any reliable source. Nonetheless, such a program
would certainly change the parameters of the peak oil phenomenon, and
pave the way for constructing some kind of new, post-Apocalyptic
system. In any case, based on what they say and what they do, I think
it is impossible to escape the conclusion that population reduction, a
euphemism for genocide, is indeed a primary elite
priority
If systematic genocidal depopulation is an elite agenda, as it seems
to be, then we must recognize the obvious fact that nuclear war would
be one of the most efficient ways to pursue that agenda. This brings
us to the next Horseman.
* War
By their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons have made it
clear that they are totally serious about their PNAC agenda - but
Afghanistan and Iraq represent only the beginning of that agenda. The
agenda is about global, 'full-spectrum' dominance. The agenda
explicitly declares that the U.S. must prevent the rise of any power
that could challenge U.S. hegemony, even if only regionally. China and
Europe are specifically mentioned as powers that must be kept down.
The PNAC document does not refer to the time-honoured Anglo-American
strategy of oil-based dominance, but we need to take that strategy
into account here as well.
China is clearly the power most threatening to the PNAC agenda at this
time. China is moving effectively to establish itself as 'the'
regional power in Asia with a wide range of alliances, and Russia is
selling its most advanced weapons systems to China. The two nations
have conducted joint military exercises and they are making
arrangements to trade Russian oil and gas for Chinese cash and
investments. Although China is making use of the free-trade global
economy for its own economic benefit, it does this within the context
of its own nationalist goals, and keeps tight control over its
internal economy and currency. China is rapidly upgrading its military
forces, and has adopted an 'asymmetric strategy', whereby it aims to
deter U.S. power without the expense of competing in every category of
weaponry. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is spending billions on missile
defense systems and space-based weaponry, and these costly initiatives
only make sense in the context of an eventual military confrontation
between the U.S. and China. All of this is in addition to the fact
that China is rapidly gaining on the U.S. economically, and at current
rates will soon become the world's largest economy.
If China is not confronted, one way or another, the PNAC agenda will
be thwarted. The longer China is allowed to increase its military,
economic, and geopolitical power, the more difficult such a
confrontation will become. This scenario is highly reminiscent of the
pre-World War 1 scenario, where a rapidly growing Germany was
threatening British financial and military hegemony. Britain dealt
with this crisis by surrounding Germany with secret alliances,
ensuring the outbreak of war, and to its own advantage. Washington,
with its overwhelming military power, can act unilaterally without
such alliances, but its strategic outlook toward China cannot be much
different than Britain's was toward Germany in that earlier
scenario.
Both China and America are clearly preparing for a war between them,
although China would presumably prefer that mutual deterrence be the
result of these military build-ups rather than actual warfare. The
neocons, on the other hand, must take China down, one way or another,
or else give up their plans for total global dominance. When we
consider the elite's 'population reduction' agenda, we must suspect
that an actual nuclear war with China may be their preferred 'takeout'
option. Before that option can be viable however, the Pentagon must be
able to ensure that such a war could be managed so as not to
annihilate the world's entire population from radiation fallout. The
esoteric space-based weapon systems currently being developed - and to
some extent already deployed - by the Pentagon are intended to provide
the kind of 'full spectrum theater dominance' that would be needed for
that kind of 'war management'. In addition, neutron bombs offer the
advantage of killing populations without causing property damage or
undue fallout.
We cannot be sure whether or not the Pentagon considers itself
adequately prepared as yet for this possible war, but we can imagine
the preferred Pentagon scenario when the preparations are complete: a
surprise first strike, begun with a high-altitude burst that disables
all electronic devices in China, followed up by a massive nuclear
strike with neutron bombs, and accompanied by the use of space-based
and other esoteric systems to minimize China's strategic response from
any submarines or long-range missiles that might survive the first
strike. A depopulated China, with intact infrastructure, would
dramatically advance elite Anglo-American objectives, as regards both
hegemony and population reduction. And clearly the U.S. would take
possession of China, and its resources, in the aftermath.
The situation becomes more complex when we take into account as well
the currently-developing oil shock, and the likely collapse that will
follow. These measures go a long ways toward stopping China's advance
without the need for outright warfare. China is of course well aware
of all of these scenarios, and is endeavouring to defend itself as
best it can on all fronts. It is in this broad context that we need to
consider the situation vis a vis Iran. Iran is of central strategic
importance in all of these considerations.
China's defense against the oil shock - and against the Anglo-American
oil-dominance strategy generally - takes the form of an aggressive
campaign to secure sources of oil that are independent of the
Anglo-American Seven Sisters cartel. In this regard we might recall
China's recent bid to acquire Unocal, which Washington quickly
quashed. The oil and gas arrangements with Russia are an important
part of China's oil-acquisition campaign, and so are the deals China
has developed with Iran and Venezuela. There's not much Washington can
do about the arrangements with Russia, short of a large-scale military
confrontation. On the other hand Washington could easily prevent oil
shipments from Venezuela, by either blockade or intervention, whenever
it chooses to do so. Iran, with its immense reserves, is the 'hot
spot' in this struggle over oil sources. That is where the neocons can
do something to thwart China's oil-acquisition campaign, and where
doing something will be a non-trivial operation.
Iran today is like the Balkans prior to World War 1 - it is the place
where the designs of the two protagonists 'meet on the ground', where
armed confrontation is most likely to begin, and where the potential
for escalation is very high. China, in cooperation with its newly
reconciled Russian ally, has been supplying Iran with advanced missile
systems, in an attempt to deter an American invasion. America
meanwhile is beating the war drums, announcing a policy of 'first use'
of nuclear weapons, and attempting to stir up support for its fantasy
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite the egg Washington
still has on its face from its fictitious Iraqi WMDs.
Iran may indeed already have nuclear weapons - in the warheads
supplied by China and Russia with their advanced missiles. But this
possibility, and the Chinese-Iranian alliance generally, are never
mentioned in Washington's anti-Iranian propaganda campaign - because
Washington does not want to draw attention to the actual geopolitical
situation. Similarly Washington never discusses the obvious fact that
the PNAC agenda and oil were primary in its decision to invade Iraq.
WMD fantasies provide both an excuse and a cover story for invasion,
as regards both Iraq and Iran.
There can be little doubt that an American invasion of Iran is
imminent. Such an invasion is the obvious next step in the
PNAC-oil-dominance agenda, and if that agenda is abandoned Washington
would be giving up on its drive for total global domination. I think
it is safe to assume that the neocons, and their elite backers, are
not prepared to throw in the towel. The question as regards an
invasion of Iran is not if, but rather when and by what scenario.
As regards when, the evidence indicates very soon. Israel has already
been supplied with 'bunker buster' bombs, which would presumably be
used in a first-wave assault. Covert terrorist operatives are already
conducting sabotage in Iran, and an arrangement has been worked out
with the Turks and the Kurds by which Kurdish separatist fighters will
be concentrating their operations in Iran, with American financial
support. America's new forward bases in Iraq provide a very convenient
launching platform for an aerial assault. The various necessary
preparations for invasion seem to be well advanced. With Washington's
announcement of a 'first use' policy for nukes, the U.S. is in some
sense 'telegraphing its punches' as regards an invasion, and this is
something we would expect them to have delayed until near the intended
time of invasion, so as to minimize the political fallout in the
interim. There have been numerous reports that U.S. military leaves
have been cancelled, which if true would also indicate that the time
is nigh. Bush's declining popularity, and the quagmire situation in
Iraq, would also be reasons to undertake the invasion now rather than
later, thus shifting all attention to other matters.
The planned scenario for the invasion seems to be very clear: a phony
terrorist event will be staged in the U.S., Iran will be blamed, and
the invasion will follow immediately, with no nonsense about the UN,
sanctions, or diplomatic channels. Homeland Security has announced
repeatedly that it 'knows from intelligence sources' that a major
terrorist event in the U.S. is 'expected soon', most likely involving
some American nuclear facility. Credible reports have circulated
indicating that Cheney has put in place specific battle plans for an
invasion of Iran in the event of such an incident, regardless of
whether Iranian complicity can be established. 'Establishing
complicity' will in any case not be a problem, as Washington will
simply blame Iran based on 'intelligence information that we cannot
disclose due to security considerations', or else they will produce an
Iranian passport 'discovered' in the vicinity of the incident. Just as
with 911, all attention will be on the 'terrible attack on America'
and there will be negligible political or diplomatic resistance to
whatever 'retaliatory' action Washington might 'deem necessary' to
'fight terrorism'. I think it is clear that Washington has signaled
this scenario, and it is a scenario that makes a great deal of
sense.
The scenario becomes less clear once the invasion begins. We can be
sure the invasion will be nuclear (neutron bombs to preserve the oil
fields), partly because of the new U.S. first-use policy announcement,
and partly because of the quagmire in Iraq: there is no way the U.S.
could manage any kind of extended campaign in Iran. What is unclear is
how widely the conflict will escalate. Iran has made it very clear
that in the event of any attack, it would retaliate with all means
available. We can assume that Iran has scattered and hid[den] its
advanced missiles around its territory so that they would be unlikely
to all be disabled before they could be launched. The obvious targets
would be Israeli cities, U.S. carriers, and U.S. forces in Iraq - all
of which would be easy targets for Iran's advanced missiles. In
addition, Iran would be able to sink shipping in the Gulf and create a
global oil crisis by making tanker operations impossible until after
the mess had been cleared away.
This much escalation is clear. But would it stop there? Would the U.S.
want it to stop there? Would Israel want it to stop there? Would
Russia and China allow it to stop there? We cannot be sure how any of
these questions are likely to be answered. If the Pentagon feels it is
adequately prepared for a confrontation with China (and by necessity
Russia), then Washington might choose to go the whole hog at once,
blame China and Russia as well as Iran for the staged terrorist
incident, and launch its first-strike plan against China and Russia at
the same time as the attack on Iran.
Israel, although it usually is kept on an
American leash, might nonetheless follow its own lead and escalate at
least to Syria. Once one of its cities has been struck by Iranian
missiles, it is difficult to predict how Israel might respond, perhaps
intentionally forcing Washington into a larger war than the neocons
had in mind at this time.
>From Russia and China's point of view, the question would be about
appeasement. Just as with Nazi expansionism, where Britain and France
had to draw the line somewhere, Russia and China know they will need
to resist the PNAC agenda of aggression sooner or later. Could Iran,
as was Poland in 1939, be the line they have drawn in the sand? By
supplying Iran with advanced missiles, they at least suggest the
possibility that this might be so. I have seen one report, not
confirmed, that Putin has told Washington that any attack on Syria or
Iran would lead to the total destruction of Israel by Russian nuclear
missiles. We do know that China has said it would initiate nuclear
action against the U.S. if Washington interferes in any conflict
between China and Taiwan. This proves that China has the balls to draw
a nuclear line somewhere, making it difficult [to] put limits on how
China might respond to an attack on Iran. Iran is, after all, 'vital
to China's strategic interests' - to cite a phrase that Washington
uses routinely to justify its own interventionist policies. None of us
know what secret warnings and counter-warnings might already have been
exchanged between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.
If the neocons do 'get by' with their attack on Iran, without
immediate large-scale nuclear conflict, tensions between Washington,
Moscow, and Beijing will certainly not be reduced. The neocons will be
even more confident in pursuing their PNAC agenda, and Russia and
China will be under even more pressure to take a hard line, the
alternative being eventual capitulation to total American
hegemony.
If for any of these reasons the conflict escalates, perhaps with a
delay, into a full nuclear confrontation, then we are clearly in a
truly Apocalyptic scenario. For now, let's consider the 'lesser'
scenario, where the conflict is confined to the Middle East. With
shipping in the Gulf blocked - and with Iranian oil production brought
to a halt - the oil shock already in progress would be greatly
accentuated. Indeed, the invasion of Iran, besides moving the PNAC
agenda one giant step forward, would also, in retrospect, be seen as
the cause of Collapse. The attack would contribute as well to the
depopulation agenda, with the people of Iran being sacrificed at the
altar of the elite clique's designs.
* Fascism
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to
be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power,
especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before
has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But
the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular
passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to
the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic
self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice
(casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the
effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is
inimical to imperial mobilization." - Zbigniew
Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard", p.35
In the event of a major domestic 'terrorist' incident, and
particularly with a nuclear war underway in Iran, and a major oil
crisis in the works, there can be little doubt that martial law would
be declared in the U.S., with normal political processes suspended,
and the nation put under the control of some combination of the
Pentagon and Homeland Security. Such a takeover is explicitly called
out as the mission of Homeland Security in the event of a 'Red Alert',
which would clearly be in effect under the circumstances we are
considering. And such a takeover would be very easy to justify, and
would by most Americans probably be welcomed (at first), under these
very frightening circumstances. Under such a takeover, Homeland
Security is explicitly empowered to take control of all food,
transport, fuel, and communications, to forcibly relocate and detain
citizens, and to basically do whatever it might want to do with no
kind of legal restrictions or due process.
The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security apparatus amount to a very
clear recipe for a fascist takeover. Only in the shadow of the
dramatic events of 911 was it possible for such measures to be
justified under the smoke screen of 'fighting terrorism'. What do
these measures in fact have to do with terrorism? Britain, which
suffered under a very real terrorist campaign during the Northern
Ireland 'troubles', saw no need for such extreme measures, despite
outrageous bombings of innocent civilians in London - and the
assassinations of public figures - by a secretive terrorist
organization (the IRA).
Britain then, and the U.S. without the Patriot Act, already had
sufficient police power to undertake whatever surveillance or
detainment that might be helpful in curbing terrorist plots. No judge
would refuse, even on the flimsiest evidence, to order the
incarceration of anyone who seemed to pose a real terrorist threat.
The problem with terrorist organizations is that they are highly
secretive and compartmentalized. Infiltration and covert surveillance
are helpful tools in fighting such groups, much more so than the power
to indefinitely detain citizens against whom no evidence can be found.
These Patriot Act powers have in fact produced no breakthroughs in
terms of stopping terrorism, but they have served excellently to
create precedents for fascist police powers.
Such a 'fascist solution' is nothing new to our ruling elite clique.
When Mussolini took over in Italy, and assured the banks in London and
New York that he would make sure that war reparations would be paid in
full, J.P. Morgan & Co. promptly solidified his regime by loaning
him $100 million. Similarly, the Nazi regime was maneuvered into power
in Germany by funding from the Anglo-American banking clique, and by
financial manipulations that ensured the collapse of the Weimar
Republic. Not only did Hitler pay up on Germany's reparations
obligations, and not only did Nazi remilitarization provide very
profitable investment opportunities for the banks and American
corporations, but the European World War 2 theater - which was
primarily a conflict between Germany and the USSR, despite what we
might assume from U.S. and British war films - served Anglo-American
interests very well indeed.
It is from this perspective that we need to view the recent events
surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the fate of New Orleans and its
poorer residents. The threat posed to New Orleans by a major hurricane
was very well known, indeed this was the specific subject of a major
FEMA exercise carried out several months before the actual Katrina
event. Nonetheless, when the category-5 hurricane began to approach
New Orleans, FEMA made no attempt to assist residents to evacuate, nor
did it bring in supplies and personnel to help with the predictable
aftermath. Instead, after Katrina struck, FEMA turned away help that
was offered by the Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and many
volunteer organizations and individuals - just when it was most needed
- leaving unknown numbers to die unnecessarily. In addition, many
local residents claim that they heard explosions just before the 17th
Street levee collapsed, and that it was intentionally breached - long
after the storm had passed - ensuring that the poorest neighborhoods
would be flooded while assistance was being withheld.
When Federal 'assistance' finally did arrive, it arrived in the form
of heavily armed troops, who brought no supplies with them to assist
the victims, and who treated the survivors more like criminals than
victims. While the wealthier residents had been able to evacuate on
their own, most of those left behind were loaded onto busses and
shipped off to heavily guarded detainment centers. This has not been
reported in the mainstream media; instead we are treated to the
success stories of the relatively few who were allowed to relocate
into civil society. Weeks after all of these events, a more humane
policy was adopted, and we now read about how those who managed to
remain in New Orleans are being helped to rebuild their lives.
While media reports invite us to interpret these events as resulting
from 'incompetence', such an interpretation is not credible. One might
suppose that the lack of timely Federal assistance could be chalked up
to incompetence, although this seems unlikely given the preceding FEMA
exercise. But incompetence can hardly be an excuse for the intentional
spurning of assistance from other organizations, when thousands of
lives obviously hung in the balance. Nor is incompetence involved in
the forced detainment of the survivors, and the cover-up of this
program in the elite-controlled mainstream media. Far more likely,
what we have seen in New Orleans is a test exercise of Homeland
Security's protocols for dealing with the War and Collapse
scenarios.
A little-publicized fact is that prior to the hurricane, FEMA had been
moved under Homeland Security, and stripped of its primary role:
disaster response. FEMA was told that disaster response would become
the responsibility of some other agency, yet to be established.
Recently, after Katrina, President Bush announced that military troops
would in future have primary responsibility for disaster response. In
fact, that shift of responsibility had occurred prior to Katrina, as
was evident in the actual response events. What seems clear is that
the main priority of this militarized disaster-response regime will be
to manage the survivors, rather than minimizing the casualties in the
first place. While such a policy was not actually necessary with
Katrina, it will become necessary in the larger scale disasters that
can be expected as a result of War and Collapse, where preventing
casualties will be either impossible or impractical. By intentionally
creating large numbers of casualties in New Orleans, Homeland
Security, with military forces under its command, was enabled to
practice its new response protocols in a 'live exercise'.
Another little-publicized item is the role of foreign troops in the
aftermath of Katrina. I've seen reports of German troops, Mexican
troops, and others, positioned at various places in the U.S., ready to
be called up by Homeland Security when needed. I found these reports
hard to believe myself until I read an article in an Irish newspaper
about an Irish relief organization, where it was mentioned as an aside
that 500 Irish troops were being dispatched to New Orleans. The idea
of America, the most powerful military nation in the world, inviting
in foreign troops to help with domestic disasters seems bizarre, to
say the least. These words of Henry Kissinger shed some light on this
development:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los
Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This
is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat
from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our
very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will
plead with world leaders to deliver them from
this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When
presented with this scenario, individual rights will be
willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being
granted to them by their world government." - Henry
Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderbergers
meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a
Swiss delegate to the meeting.
For years, right-wing conspiracy buffs have been claiming that UN
troops were going to be the agents of a military takeover in America,
and that this represents a conspiracy by the "liberal
establishment" to create a "socialist world
government". I always dismissed these theories, partly because of
the actual nature of the UN, and partly because of the actual nature
of the ruling elite clique, which is anything but liberal or socialist
in its outlook. But behind the fantasies and disinformation in these
right-wing conspiracy theories, there seems after all to be an element
of truth.
One development we should note in this regard is the changing role of
the UN, a development being actively pushed by Washington. As recently
as the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the role of UN troops had
always been a passive one, with relatively light armaments, whereby
their mere presence was intended to calm tempers and minimize
conflict. But since the events in Yugoslavia, and particularly
recently, UN troops have been taking an increasingly aggressive role,
so that today their actions can no longer be distinguished from those
traditionally carried out by Western troops in their role of
imperialist domination. As the nature of the UN has dramatically
changed in this way, as the result of U.S. initiatives, the right-wing
conspiracy theories, or at least parts of them, begin to make a little
more sense.
Whenever tyrants have violently suppressed populations with troops,
one of the problems that has arisen has been the tendency of troops to
refuse to fire on their fellow citizens. When the Soviet Union was
suppressing the Hungarian uprising in the 1950s, for example, the
Soviets found that even their own Russian troops were responding in
this way as regards the Hungarian people. So the Soviets brought in
troops from remote Siberia, and these troops didn't give the Soviets
any trouble. The less related the troops are to the population, the
easier it is to deploy those troops against the population. In
suppressing the Iraqi people, American troops serve very well. In
suppressing the American people, non-American troops can be expected
to perform more reliably.
In addition to foreign troops, we need also to consider the role of
hardened mercenaries. Among the security forces now deployed in New
Orleans, for example, can be found mercenaries from Blackwater USA,
many of whom were flown in from Iraq. These forces were selected for
this first-response duty rather than elements of Louisiana's own
National Guard who are stationed in Iraq, many of whom had been
demanding to be returned home to help out, as is the traditional role
of the National Guard. Blackwater mercenaries are some of the most
feared professional killers in the world and they are accustomed to
operating without worry of legal consequences. Elements of the
Louisiana Guard have subsequently been called home, now that the live
test has been completed.
U.S troop levels are being stressed in Iraq, and to fill the gap
unprecedented numbers of National Guard troops have been deployed in
combat operations, greatly depleting domestic National Guard
resources. With the quagmire in Iraq continuing without sign of let
up, and with the neocons intent on pursuing their PNAC agenda, there
is no reason to expect this domestic force depletion situation to
improve, indeed it can only get worse. And as we enter into the War
and Collapse scenarios, the need for domestic security forces will
increase dramatically. As we see foreign and mercenary troops being
used domestically in preference to bringing home the National Guard,
we can see that Kissinger's predictions, or perhaps we should call
them advanced policy announcements, are beginning to be
realized.
Fascism doesn't necessarily imply
cult-nationalism or appeals to racial superiority - those themes just
happened to harmonize with the fears and sentiments of downtrodden
Germans in the terrible 1930s. What fascism is really about is an
acceptance, on the part of the population, that the state is all
powerful and can do anything it wants. Hitler accomplished that in one
way, but we can see it being accomplished in our own time by different
means. With the Patriot Act firmly in place, with Homeland Security
and the military in charge of disaster response, with what we have
seen of Homeland Security's response protocols - with the forced
detention of disaster survivors from Katrina, and with the deployment
of foreign and mercenary troops domestically - there seems to be
little doubt that a neo-fascist regime - in all but name and rhetoric
- will be established in America as the Collapse and War scenarios
unfold.
CONTINUED IN PART 4...