On the Cusp of One of a Momentous Historical Episoderichard@cyberjournal.org
We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical episodes of all time, and the Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse —- Collapse, Genocide, War, and Fascism —- 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
We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical episodes of all time, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse —- Collapse, Genocide, War, and Fascism —- 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.
"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 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 favor 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 I, 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 Horsemen.
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 II 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.
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the U.S. 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.
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 á 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 I — 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 9/11, 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 hidden 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.
"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 9/11 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 II 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.
The Final Solution to Peak Oil
Even if the initial nuclear conflict is confined to the Middle East — with oil tanker shipping and Iranian oil production out of commission — we can assume that an oil-shock-driven global economic collapse will follow promptly. With America under Homeland Security regimentation, and with all communication systems — including telephone, media, and the Internet — either closed down or tightly controlled, the neocons, on behalf of their elite sponsors, will be in a position to proceed with their plans for the aftermath, totally unconstrained by any domestic political considerations. In America, politics will be suspended, as will any concept of freedom or civil liberties.
The situation in the third world is difficult to predict. With so many people already living in poverty, and many on the edge of starvation, the effects of collapse, and most likely a total lack of fuel, will be devastating. We can assume that any nations blessed with domestic oil supplies, such as Venezuela and West Africa, will see those supplies seized by American forces very early on. If the third world is simply left alone at that point, the elite depopulation agenda will proceed of its own accord. If the elite clique decides to help that process along, with outright genocidal actions, the rest of the world would most likely be unaware of the fact. A few neutron bombs here and there could cheaply and efficiently eliminate millions overnight, leaving infrastructures intact for future uses.
Conditions in Europe and the rest of the West are unlikely to be very different from those in the U.S. Even though these political climates are currently quite unlike the proto-fascist climate in America, an oil shock and general collapse will create crisis conditions very quickly. With massive unemployment, transport and electricity grids largely non-functional, and food distribution disrupted, some form of martial law will be necessary if only to enable survival of the populations. There is of course the additional possibility that nuclear war might have affected parts of Europe, depending on how the conflict between Washington-Tel Aviv and Moscow-Beijing proceeds.
In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that Patriot Act-like "anti-terrorism" measures have already been enacted throughout most of the West, at the urging of Washington, and enabled by various unprecedented "terrorist" incidents (e.g. Madrid and London bombings), all of which could easily have been arranged by Anglo-American intelligence operatives. In this regard we must keep in mind that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, and has been used repeatedly since by the CIA to assist in destabilization operations, including in Kosovo and Macedonia, and presumably currently in Iran.
As in America, Europe's "anti-terrorist" measures have little to do with terrorism, and everything to do with facilitating a regimented society. How this scenario develops is likely to depend more on the chain of command in NATO than it will on the sentiments of Europe's current political leaders. With American forces in command of all European oil supplies, it is unlikely that NATO or European leaders would attempt to resist any demands made on them by Washington. In this scenario, as in the post-911 scenario, America will appear to be the victim, responding to events, rather than the perpetrator of those events.
By employing a combination of famine, stirred-up civil wars, biological warfare, and nuclear annihilation, the clique will be able to reduce global population levels arbitrarily and relatively quickly. An 80% reduction, well in advance of 2020, would be very easy to arrange, particularly during the final confrontation with China and Russia. Presumably Western populations will be largely preserved, apart from cities lost to nuclear attack — and selective culling of "undesirable minorities" is very likely. In this regard Katrina serves as a kind of prototype, where it was mostly poor blacks who bore the brunt of the disaster and who were then carted off to tightly-guarded concentration camps — excuse me, detainment centers — to meet whatever fate might be in store for them there. They've been told they'll be forced to remain there for the next five months, by which time we'll be fully into the era of apocalypse.
The Brave New World
With vast oil reserves still untapped, the Anglo-American financial clique will then be in a position to establish the framework of their own design for a post-apocalyptic world order. As Kissinger and right-wing conspiracy buffs have predicted, we will most likely see a centralized world government, perhaps using the name "United Nations," but fully under the control of the clique. We can also expect a single global currency, a single global militarized police force, and some kind of regime of enforced birth control, depending on elite plans for future population distributions.
As outrageous as these scenarios may seem, even more amazing is how these developments are likely to be perceived by the survivors, and by future generations. Just as with Word Wars I and II — both of which were planned and arranged by the Anglo-America clique — the perception of Westerners, and the story told in history books, will be that of an heroic West, bravely resisting aggression by terrorists and by the Sino-Russian axis of evil. And as in those previous wars, little attention will be paid to the fates that were suffered by third world populations. With all the hundreds of films we've seen about these earlier wars, how many have examined the events from any perspective other than that of victorious populations and troops — apart from those that have been aimed at demonizing the defeated evil enemy?
The period of harsh military rule in the West will not last long, and memories of that interval will be soon replaced, as in New Orleans, by images of troops helping people rebuild their lives — under the guardianship of their new-world-order masters. Rather than perceiving a fascist takeover, people will be grateful, as Kissinger predicted, that the military "maintained order," and they will see the new-world government as a wonderful advance for civilization, finally eliminating international warfare. The ruling clique, as usual, will remain behind the scenes, and people will believe that "democracy" still prevails, as most believe it prevails today, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The political process will appear to have changed only slightly in the West, with one more level of government added, as the EU level was added earlier in Europe. All important decisions, such as those regarding finance, policing, budgets, taxation, environmental policy, corporate regulations, migration of populations, the use of genetic-engineering and nuclear technologies, etc., will be made by the remote world government. People will feel totally detached from this centralized process, just as today's Europeans feel detached from the decisions made in Brussels. People will be encouraged to focus their attention on their disempowered local governments, as in the EU today, and as in Britain, with its pseudo-devolution regime. Whatever suffering the centralized government might impose on Westerners will be blamed, as it is today in the EU and Britain, on mismanagement by these disempowered local governments.
Although the political process will seem to have proceeded with considerable continuity, we can be sure that the elite clique will take full advantage of the transition process in order to take the remaining populist bugs out of their pseudo-democratic system. Trial by jury is sure to go, as it gives ordinary people far too much power. Continuing the propaganda regime that is already exemplified by the popular CSI and courtroom television dramas, people will come to understand that "incorruptible investigators" and "impartial judges," can provide more reliable justice than that delivered by "error-prone juries" and "self-serving lawyers." Elections will of course be carried out by means of electronic-voting machines, whose software will be unavailable for independent audit, and whose results will be pre-determined centrally. Most likely, all citizens will be implanted by chips at birth, and this will be justified on the basis of protecting your children from abduction. Any objectors will obviously be "unfit parents," and their children will be taken away from them and put into "responsible," chip-friendly families.
The mass media will continue more or less as it is, carefully managed by elites. The Internet will be tamed, and will be used mostly for commerce and entertainment, with government licenses required for websites and mailing lists, as they are currently required for television and radio broadcasters. All private communications will be openly subject to surveillance — as they in fact already are. Private use of encrypted communications will be a terrorist crime, equivalent to bringing a gun on an airliner. Any attempt at popular activism will be considered a form of terrorism, as it in fact already is in the fine print of most of our "anti-terrorist" legislation. All of these political refinements will be accepted without much fuss, because they will all be carefully sold as "democratic and humanitarian reforms," aimed at making our lives safer and more convenient. With the Internet tamed, those who understand what's really going on will have no effective venue in which to voice their views, and will assume they are alone in their convictions, as most of us did prior to the Internet.
Despite this grim picture, let me emphasize once more that the general public perception is likely to be far from grim. Survivors will welcome this brave new world, free at last from warfare, particularly after the harrowing times they've recently lived through. Vast territories, depleted of population by the intervening holocaust, but with many infrastructures intact, will be available for colonization and reconstruction, leading to a glorious period of adventurous migration, development, and economic growth — making the post-World War II boom pale by comparison. As with the Victorians in the age of the British empire, and the off-worlders in "Blade Runner," there will be ample opportunities to go off to new lands and begin prosperous new lives in uncrowded surroundings.
With greatly reduced world population, peak oil will no longer be such a pressing issue. Nonetheless, since the strategy of oil-based dominance will no longer be required by the elite clique to maintain its power, it is likely that we will be permitted to enjoy an ecologically enlightened new era, where sustainability is embraced, global warming is recognized, and amazing new forms of energy — currently kept hidden — will be "discovered." It is really absolute power that the elite clique is after, and once they have that, they will have little incentive to continue destroying the world that they too must live in.
Even capitalism itself is likely to be tamed of its excesses, or eliminated, since it is inherently incompatible with sustainability in its current form. Society is likely to evolve toward a structure reminiscent of land-based aristocracies of the past, which is a more stable arrangement than capitalism. The ancient Greeks experimented with aristocracy, democracy, and dictatorship as forms of government. Their conclusion was that aristocracy is the most stable, and that democracy and dictatorship tend to oscillate between one another — with democracy being undone by coups, and dictatorships being undone by popular revolts. Our elite-sponsored brave new world is likely to have the political trappings of democracy, and the economic dynamics of a land-based, but centrally governed, aristocratic system.
After a few generations, all popular memory of previous systems will be gone, and we will have only propaganda histories to tell us about how bad everything was before the new enlightened age emerged out of the nuclear holocaust caused by our earlier primitive societies. Only among those at the top of the aristocratic pyramid, which will of course be headed by the descendants of the current elite clique, will stories be told to new generations of how the current system came to be, so that the next elite generation can appreciate the historical significance of its own privileged position, and not be tempted to get sentimental and consider making democratic changes. In that regard, nothing will have changed.
|Return to the 5th World||Return to the 4 Directions of the New Paradigm|