Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World

[Guest guest]

Great posting! Have you read John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?

 

Here is his homepage:

 

http://www.johnperkins.org/

 

Lars

[Guest guest]

S

Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:43:48 -0800 (PDT)

Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html

 

Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World

 

Richard Moore

 

21 Sep 2005

 

richard

 

http://cyberjournal.org

 

We are now on the cusp of one of the most momentous historical

episodes of all time — the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are about

to ride. Peak oil is the primary underlying condition forcing change,

and Apocalypse is the action plan ruling elites have chosen as their

response to that condition. Not only does this response make a great

deal of sense, from their Machiavellian perspective, but by their

recent actions they have clearly signaled the scope and direction of

their intentions. Furthermore, their planned response is in complete

alignment with earlier responses to similar situations in the past —

by these same people or by their direct predecessors.

 

The Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse:

 

* Collapse

* Genocide

* War

* Fascism

 

References:

 

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its

Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, New York, 1998.

 

Chossudovsky, Michel, The Globalization of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and

World Bank Re-forms, Second Edition, Global Outlook, Shanty Bay,

Ontario, 2003.

 

Engdahl, William, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and

the New World Order, Revised Edition, Pluto Press, London, 2004.

 

Higham, Charles, Trading with the Enemy, Dell Publishing Co., New

York, 1984.

 

NSSM 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.

Security and Overseas Interests,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041122015841/http://www.africa2000.com/SNDX/nssm200\

all.html.

 

Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses,

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm.

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 its own, an agenda that is partially described in their PNAC

document, " Rebuilding America's Defenses " , which they proudly display

on their website. 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 include the top financial circles in New

York and London — the people who control financial institutions like

Chase Manhattan, Citibank, HSBC, Rothschild's, 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 that 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 actually 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 short-selling assets just before they go down,

based on their insider knowledge and their 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, and 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

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 that 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 at 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 1970s 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 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, sometimes

with liberal credit availability and sometimes not — 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 oilrigs 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 radically 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 the full NSSM

200 document is actually about, if you read between the lines.

Consider this passage,which explains why U.S. planners are so

concerned with population levels:

 

" The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical

sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for

exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among

producers, consumers, and host country governments. "

 

That is to say, the U.S. wants to ensure its own access to resources,

and it wants that access to be on favorable terms. The document

explains in great detail why high population levels interfere with

such access, and is therefore a threat to U.S. " security and overseas

interests. " The actual policy proposals in the public NSSM document

are not genocidal; they emphasize voluntary measures. However those

voluntary measures have clearly not been successful, nor could they

realistically have been expected to be. The following passage suggests

that stronger measures, not fully specified, may be required:

 

" There is an alternate view which holds that a growing number of

experts believe that the population situation is already more serious

and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is

generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread

food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally

anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental,

very difficult moral issues need to be addressed. "

 

Let's review some of the developments `on the ground', that reveal the

nature of these " stronger measures. " 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 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 that crisis by

surrounding Germany with secret alliances, ensuring the outbreak of

war — and on terms that were to its own advantage. Washington, with

its overwhelming military power, can act unilaterally without such

alliances, but its strategic outlook toward China cannot be very

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. This is

something we would expect them to have delayed until near the intended

time of invasion, so as to minimize the political fallout in the

interim. There have been numerous reports that U.S. military leaves

have been cancelled, which if true would also indicate that the time

is nigh. Bush's declining popularity, and the quagmire situation in

Iraq, would also be reasons to undertake the invasion now rather than

later, thus shifting all attention to other matters.

 

The planned scenario for the invasion seems to be very clear: a phony

terrorist event will be staged in the U.S., Iran will be blamed, and

the invasion will follow immediately — with no nonsense about the UN,

sanctions, or diplomatic channels. Homeland Security has announced

repeatedly that it `knows from intelligence sources' that a major

terrorist event in the U.S. is `expected soon', most likely involving

some American nuclear facility. Credible reports have circulated

indicating that Cheney has put in place specific battle plans for an

invasion of Iran in the event of such an incident, regardless of

whether Iranian complicity can be established. `Establishing

complicity' will in any case not be a problem, as Washington will

simply blame Iran based on `intelligence information that we cannot

disclose due to security considerations', or else they will produce an

Iranian passport `discovered' in the vicinity of the incident. Just as

with 911, all attention will be on the `terrible attack on America'

and there will be negligible political or diplomatic resistance to

whatever `retaliatory' action Washington might `deem necessary' to

`fight terrorism'. I think it is clear that Washington has signaled

this scenario, and it is a scenario that makes a great deal of sense.

 

The scenario becomes less clear once the invasion begins. We can be

sure the invasion will be nuclear (neutron bombs to preserve the oil

fields), partly because of the new U.S. first-use policy announcement,

and partly because of the quagmire in Iraq: there is no way the U.S.

could manage any kind of extended campaign in Iran. What is unclear is

how widely the conflict will escalate. Iran has made it very clear

that in the event of any attack, it would retaliate with all means

available. We can assume that Iran has scattered and hid 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 a tight 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. Sharon has the right mentality to play the role of Commander

Jack. D. Ripper, in a real world Dr. Strangelove scenario.

 

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 will 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 will

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 will clearly be in effect under the circumstances we are

considering. And such a takeover will be very easy to justify, and

will 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 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 fascist 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 live-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, separate combatants,

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 in 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 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, and anything will become possible.

The Brave New World

 

With vast oil reserves still untapped, the Anglo-American financial

clique will at this point 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-American 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. 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 phony 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 un-crowded 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, the economic dynamics of a

land-based aristocratic system, all under the control of a highly

centralized government. In this way elites can enjoy the advantages of

tyranny, the stability of aristocracy, and the public-acceptance that

characterizes democracy.

 

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.

Can Apocalypse be averted?

 

I can imagine only one way, at this late juncture, that these

scenarios can be avoided. There is only one organization in the world

that has the power, and the necessary command-and-control, to alter

the course that has been set. That organization is the Pentagon.

 

There have been reliable reports, and considerable evidence, that some

career professionals in the CIA and the Pentagon are `in revolt'

against the neocons, taking the form mostly of leaks to trusted

journalists. It is most certainly true that the neocons have been

conducting a systematic purge of key people who can't stomach the

neocon agenda. There have been less-reliable reports, and some actual

evidence, that at least one military commander tried to promote a

coup, was thwarted, and was relieved of duty on a trivial charge.

 

By and large, career military people are not by nature rapacious

imperialists. Some are, but most are people who actually believe in

what America is supposed to stand for, who consider themselves to be

patriots, and who have devoted their lives to protecting our freedoms.

Officers rise in the ranks not because of their personal agreement

with the White House, but because of their willingness to take orders,

and their skill in carrying out assignments.

 

If ever there was a time for true patriots to come to the defense

their country, and of the world, that time is now. If a few brave

Generals and Admirals were to seize control, put the neocons under

arrest, shut down the corporate media, and articulate their cause to

the American people and the people of the world, they would find

themselves greeted by overwhelming support and gratitude — from

American citizens, from the people of the world, and from within the

ranks of their own troops.

 

They would have nothing to lose but their neocon chains of command.