It was a well oiled machine, refined by
centuries of experience.
we know today as "free trade" actually derives its origins from economic
concessions the British frequently extorted from nations under its "gunboat
diplomacy" strategy - that is, anchoring gunboats off the coast of a foreign
capital, and threatening bombardment and military conquest if certain
demands were not met.
Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850's.
was never colonized but made many concessions.
In the mid-1800's, Thailand, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations and in turn was made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty.
See how many of these "gunboat policy" imposed concessions sound like today's "economic liberalization:"
A more contemporary example would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken state.
The Economist enumerates the neo-colonial "economic liberalization" of Iraq in a piece titled "Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:"
Nomenclatures aside, nothing has changed since 1855 as far as imperialist "wish-lists" go.
The Economist argued, as would any 18-19th century imperialist, that Iraq needed foreign expertise to catch up, justifying the evisceration of their national sovereignty and the foreign stewardship (theft) of their resources.
Unlike Siam, Iraq refused to concede to the
"gunboats" of modern-day Wall Street & London, and often as the British did
during the "glory days" of the empire, they made good on their threats.
The Anglo-Zulu War.
Causus belli - diamonds & imperial expansion.
And just as the British did when they found diamonds beneath Zululand during
the late-1800's, spurring them to invent a causus belli to justify the
destruction of the Zulu Kingdom, the schemers of modern-day global
imperialism likewise invented a dubious pretext to invade Iraq before
commencing its plundering.
Anglo-Zulu War. Mission accomplished.
The city of Ulandi burns and the British go about
dividing Zululand into 14 chiefdoms led by compliant, obedient proxies.
The British took great care to cultivate rivalries between the 14 chiefdoms
to ensure they would never again unite and
challenge British hegemonic ambitions throughout the region.
At the conclusion of the Anglo-Zulu War, the British despoiled Zululand, divided it into 14 separate cheifdoms, each led by a proxy obedient to the British Empire.
The British ensured that these 14 cheifdoms harbored animosities toward one another and fostered petty infighting between them to ensure British interests would never again be challenged by a unified Zulu threat.
Today we see what seems to be the "accidental" consequences of military interventions leading to vicious, protracted fighting and in some cases civil wars, in Iraq, now in Libya (which also had a direct proxy installed as PM), Pakistan where plans exist to literally carve up the nation Zululand-style, and Syria. These are not accidental but intentional.
Divide and conquer is a classic military stratagem that has not escaped the
interests and attention of Wall Street & London.
Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on January 17, 1961,
warning us of the military industrial complex.
Iraq For Sale.
Remember that military industrial complex
President Dwight Eisenhower warned America about?
The ultimate bottom line with the Iraq War was that
it should never have been fought in the first place.
If people can study history and see today's events are simply the relabeled repeating of what empire has been doing for centuries, the public as a whole will be less likely to go along with what is in reality an exploitative, murderous crime spree of global proportions - merely sold to us as justified intervention.
One need only look at how Iraq has been despoiled and the
profits that have been garnered by Fortune 500 corporations, while soldiers
and Iraqis alike pay the price with their minds, bodies, blood, futile
destinies, and lives.
Beginning as the "Associates of Dr. Bray" and later
becoming the "Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in
America," or simply the Georgia Trustees, it encapsulates perfectly the use
of noble-intentioned networkers to exploit human tragedy for the benefit of
One face of the Georgia Trustee's seal.
It featured the Latin motto, "Non Sibi Sed Aliis" which means, "Not for self,
but for others." Truly a proto-NGO, a "system administrator."
The significance of the mulberry leaf, the silkworm, and the cocoon?
The silk that Britain's new colony of Georgia was going to export to London
to enrich the empire. "For others" indeed.
While many may argue that prisoners in London were better off being shipped to Georgia, the underlying point is the dictation of one's destiny for the benefit of another, regardless of whether or not such exploitation results in a thriving new life in Georgia, or death defending British expansion in the New World.
The same cost/benefit analysis could also be made for
slavery, but done so in spite of its essential immorality.
Again, noble-intentions were, and to this day are, in the forefront of many devoted to these political functionaries, and much good has been done in their names, but ultimately the purpose of each empire's church was to establish a bottom-up network of people who believed they were fulfilling noble, higher intentions, when in reality they were simply serving the elite of their respective empires.
Unfortunately, despite the noble intentions and great works of many of these
people, when the time came for the Crown to use these networks for less than
noble causes, organizational indoctrination was used to marshal men to it.
And just like modern NGOs today, Protestant organizations interfaced with
and supported directly the primary regional administrators, in Georgia's
case, the Georgia Trustees.
Similarly today, NGOs have truly dedicated
people "inspired" as the "Trustees" were, but ultimately they are carrying
water for their sponsors, who almost always end up being
George Soros, the OCED, the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and other
purveyors of global corporate-fascist imperialism.
Another key characteristic to imperialism is keeping subjects dependent.
Reese offers on page 27,
This, within the contest of mercantilism - essentially the exportation of raw materials from the colonies, which would be refined in Europe, and then imported back into the colonies as manufactured goods - meant servile dependency, both politically and economically - despite the fact that even then, many features of "democracy" could be found throughout the colonies.
Today's concept of "free-trade" agreements ensure that resources,
manufacturing, refinement, and consumption are equally interdependent on a
global scale despite the fact that technology now exists to make any state
or province, let alone nation, fully independent economically.
Despite the good intentions, the religious causes,
and loyalty to the crown,
the ultimate destination of all these good intentions wrought
was the "Board of Trade" which managed the unending
flow of wealth out of Britain's colonies and into London.
Like NGOs of today, the administrative networks that made up the British Empire were in many cases entirely dependent on grants from London, as local contributions were almost never adequate.
Reese notes on page 39,
The British Empire maintained a careful balancing act to ensure that its networks received enough resources to fulfill their purpose, but never enough to become independent.
Financial policy conformed to imperial standards and while
local policy was set by local administrators, it interlocked with the Board
of Trade back in London - just as local NGOs now interlock with
international organizations in accordance to rule and norms defined by
We also saw how imperialism was implemented by the British,
The term "system administrators" was used by US military strategist Thomas Barnett before a cackling audience at a 2008 TED Talk titled, "The Pentagon's New Map for War & Peace" (above video.)
At about 18 minutes into his talk he
begins explaining a concept of reforming the military into two separate
forces, the "US enabled Leviathan force" and the "system administrators."
administrators consist of everything from NGOs, international organizations,
and contractors, to civil affairs officers (psychological warfare), and when
necessary, soldiers and Marines.
This perhaps like British garrisons did to tamp down
dissatisfaction amongst their colonies.
The Boston Massacre.
Resistors to the "system administrators" beware,
try to stop them and "the Marines are going to come over and kill you."
The talk was given in 2008, and already we see solid steps being taking to expand and utilize just such a force.
Barnett said of the special operations "trigger pullers" that he wanted the rules to be "as loose as possible." Just recently, the Corbett Report and Media Monarchy reported the expanded role proposed for "elite" military forces.
Admiral William McRaven of Special Operations Command was said to be seeking.
Additionally, between 2008 and 2011 before the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the US State Department and its network of global facilitators embarked on a campaign to raise a literal army of NGOs and opposition groups to begin overthrowing governments and building the very global administration network Barnett presented at TED.
It was just recently reported in, "Soros Big-Business Accountability Project Funded by Big-Business" that a similar army of NGOs is being mobilized to erect system administrators focused on managing the resources of targeted nations.
Called Revenue Watch, and
focused primarily on Africa and Southeast Asia it represents the "system
administration" approach complimenting aggressive moves made by AFRICOM in
Africa, and the declaration of America's "Pacific Century" in Asia.
Fomenting unrest, up to and including armed
insurrection falls short of overt military intervention and utilizes assets Barrent
described in the Leviathan force such as "trigger pulling" special
operations, as well as civil affairs units, NGOs, and contractors from the
system administration side.
Once the bombing began, it was only a matter of incrementally increasing the torrent of special operations forces, arms, and other facilitators to fill in the void left by NATO's relentless air campaign.
Thus the forces of Leviathan and the system administrators worked
in tandem, one clearing a path through the old, the other building new
networks to facilitate the installment of long-time US resident and
Petroleum Institute chairman, Abdurrahim el-Keib, as PM.
During Thaksin's term in office
from 2001 until a coup ousted him in 2006, upon the eve of which he was
literally reporting to the
Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he had
committed Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq and
allowed the CIA to use
Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.
They are billed the "red shirts" or United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and have met with,
...in an April 2011 Washington D.C. visit.
It is clear that NGOs and opposition movements many believe
are spontaneous, indigenous, and independent are in fact part of a larger network
for the sole purpose of imposing and maintaining global system administration.
This is not a web of elaborate, vague associations.
In each case there is direct path of funding leading back to Western foundations
and the think-tanks that devise policy for them, all funded and chaired
by the Fortune 500 of Wall Street and London.
There are also circles of academia being produced to support efforts to
undermine and overthrow Thailand's sovereign indigenous networks, most
notably "Nitirat" or the "Enlightened Jurists" whose audiences consist
almost entirely of Thaksin's red shirts, and even included Thaksin's US
registered lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam sitting in the front row.
NED also funds the Campaign Committee for Human Rights, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), and the Environmental Litigation and Advocacy for the Wants.
In addition to sharing the same foreign sponsors, each cross-posts the other's work, each signs petitions on the others behalf and each perpetuate identical agendas.
While their mission statements claim to
promote "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights," one cannot help but
wonder how they reconcile the backgrounds of their sponsors and the
"international" organizations they interlock with, with the causes they
allegedly promote, with the work they actually carry out.
Clearly there are "strings attached" to NGO Prachatai's funding
from the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House
who regularly contributes posts, support, and award nominations
to the Thai "independent journalists."
It is also clear how these same interests are involved
in the support of Thaksin Shinawatra,
the imperial proxy of choice for Thailand.
The National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiary Freedom House features boards of directors much resembling a revolving door, with current and former members of Congress, the US State Department, corporate lobbying firms, and corporate board members of some of the largest corporations on earth including Exxon, Boeing, Ford, and Goldman Sachs constantly shifting in and out of government, big-business, and NGO positions.
They are, just as
the British were, "not motivated by any such charitable intentions," as
inspire the well-intentioned people drawn into the cause of NGOs like Prachatai they fund.
Just like in the example of Georgia, ignorance and good intentions are used to swell the ranks of these networks, and just like in Georgia, they are kept purposefully dependent on the constant and substantial support provided by Wall Street & London, as local contributions are almost never enough.
And while many of these people
may believe they are committed to a "higher cause," they are simply soldiers
of another kind within an imperial system perfected over centuries of trial
Just like the army,
this system of NGOs perpetuates itself on the ignorance of the general
population - of those drawn in by their good intentions to contribute to
what they believe is a noble cause, and those throughout society who see
these networks spreading across the planet with no idea of what their true
In the same way, today many people remain in the dark about what Wall Street & London do overseas.
While military interventions grab headlines and create
a brief but confusing diversion for most, they are but mildly aware of the
concept of NGOs, let alone how they work in tandem with the creeping war
machine making its way from Tunisia to Thailand and everywhere in between.
One that does not answer to the people that inhabit it on anything
but the most superficial of levels, but rather to the people that rule over
it - the monied elite, as they always have, with the most vicious feeding
their competitors ruthlessly into their maw and gladly expanding into the
place left at the table.
Without subjects there is no empire. There is no
fleet, there are no Marines, there are no imperial administrators. There are
no laborers to gather and send resources back to be refined, no one to
refine them in the factories and send them back, and surely no one to buy
these manufactured goods when they arrive.
It is no coincidence then that nations declared their "independence"
from England in pursuit of their freedom.
By boycotting the British system,
the Founding Fathers were already free and independent men
by the time they signed the Declaration of Independence.
The coming war would be to defend that freedom.
Before the great battles of the American Revolution took place and the victory that followed, the Founding Fathers took it upon themselves to declare their independence not only by writ, but also by action.
Founding Fathers ceased the import of British goods, they created their own
monetary system, they assembled their own militias, and most importantly
they formed their own government based upon their own values, not King
The article concluded by stating:
This is confirmed in a talk given by Noam Chomsky in 1993, where he stated or the National Endowment for Democracy's work,
Quite clearly it is, along with Open Society, and the vast
network of system administrators being built up across the planet, working
in witless tandem with NATO, building in the swath of destruction it leaves
behind the homogeneous workings of a global corporate-financier-run empire.
It is clear then that vast campaigning, elections,
rallies, and protests are not necessary or even viable options in
dismantling this system - rather our daily decisions to boycott their
corporations, pull the plug on our TVs, switch off the radio, leave the
theaters empty and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of corporate-backed
institutions and organizations on both national and international levels.
Instead, find local solutions, pursue self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and leverage technology to do for ourselves tomorrow what we depend on corporations to do for us today.
We can start today, by simply "voting" local with our wallets, "voting" to read, watch, and listen to truly independent media instead of Hollywood - or better yet - creating our own content ourselves.
The same could be said with the news. Stop humoring the
professional liars on BBC who get caught in serial scams involving paid-for
documentaries, biased reporting, and flat out lying to their audience. There
is a thriving alternative media that already proves the merits of doing
more, doing better, and doing it all ourselves.