The Apocalypse Now and the
Brave New World,
by Richard Moore
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 signalled 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 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 Word 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 protege 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 the 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-honored
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 endeavoring 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 signalled 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 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 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
Bilderburgers
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
marital 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 scenarios 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 1
and 2 - 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 a 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 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 2 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 descendents 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.
