by Andrew Gavin Marshall June-July 2010 from GlobalResearch Website     Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), and is studying Political Economy and History in Canada. He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca.                 Part 1 The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order June 24, 2010     There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking place around the world; it is unprecedented in reach and volume, and it is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the 'global political awakening.'   The term was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote: For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.[1] It is, in essence, this massive 'global political awakening' which presents the gravest and greatest challenge to the organized powers of globalization and the global political economy: nation-states, multinational corporations and banks, central banks, international organizations, military, intelligence, media and academic institutions.       The Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), or 'Superclass' as David Rothkopf refers to them, are globalized like never before.   For the first time in history, we have a truly global and heavily integrated elite. As elites have globalized their power, seeking to construct a 'new world order' of global governance and ultimately global government, they have simultaneously globalized populations. The 'Technological Revolution' (or 'Technetronic' Revolution, as Brzezinski termed it in 1970) involves two major geopolitical developments. The first is that as technology advances, systems of mass communication rapidly accelerate, and the world's people are able to engage in instant communication with one another and gain access to information from around the world. In it, lies the potential - and ultimately a central source - of a massive global political awakening. Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed elites to redirect and control society in ways never before imagined, ultimately culminating in a global scientific dictatorship, as many have warned of since the early decades of the 20th century. The potential for controlling the masses has never been so great, as science unleashes the power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and new forms of modern eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite equipped with systems of psycho-social control (the use of psychology in controlling the masses).       What is the "Global Political Awakening"? To answer this question, it is best to let Zbigniew Brzezinski speak for himself, since it is his term.   In 2009, Zbigniew Brzezinski published an article based on a speech he delivered to the London-based Chatham House in their academic journal, International Affairs. Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Relations, is the British counterpart to the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, both of which were founded in 1921 as "Sister Institutes" to coordinate Anglo-American foreign policy.   His article, "Major foreign policy challenges for the next US President," aptly analyzes the major geopolitical challenges for the Obama administration in leading the global hegemonic state at this critical juncture. Brzezinski refers to the 'global political awakening' as "a truly transformative event on the global scene," since: For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.   The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination.[2] Brzezinski posits that the 'global political awakening' is one of the most dramatic and significant developments in geopolitics that has ever occurred, and it, "is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet." As the Economist explained, "Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It's about dignity." Further, argues Brzezinski, "The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening."[3] In 2005, Brzezinski wrote an essay for The American Interest entitled, "The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign," in which he explains the geopolitical landscape that America and the world find themselves in.   He wrote that, "For most states, sovereignty now verges on being a legal fiction," and he critically assessed the foreign policy objectives and rhetoric of the Bush administration. Brzezinski has been an ardent critic of the "war on terror" and the rhetoric inherent in it, namely that of the demonization of Islam and Muslim people, which constitute one of the fastest growing populations and the fastest growing religion in the world.   Brzezinski fears the compound negative affects this can have on American foreign policy and the objectives and aspirations of global power.   He writes: America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world's population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.   The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America's global role?[4] Brzezinski explains that formulating a foreign policy based off of one single event - the September 11th terror attacks - has both legitimized illegal measures (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc) and has launched and pacified citizens to accepting the "global war on terror," a war without end.   The rhetoric and emotions central to this global foreign policy created a wave of patriotism and feelings of redemption and revenge.   Thus, Brzezinski explains: There was no need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually were, where they came from, or what historical motives, religious passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on America. Terrorism thus replaced Soviet nuclear weapons as the principal threat, and terrorists (potentially omnipresent and generally identified as Muslims) replaced communists as the ubiquitous menace.[5] Brzezinski explains that this foreign policy, which has inflamed anti-Americanism around the world, specifically in the Muslim world, which was the principle target population of 'terrorist' rhetoric, has in fact further inflamed the 'global political awakening'.   Brzezinski writes that: [T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.[6] This 'global political awakening', Brzezinski writes, while unique in its global scope today, originates in the ideas and actions of the French Revolution, which was central in "transforming modern politics through the emergence of a socially powerful national consciousness."   Brzezinski explains the evolution of the 'awakening': During the subsequent 216 years, political awakening has spread gradually but inexorably like an ink blot.   Europe of 1848, and more generally the nationalist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, reflected the new politics of populist passions and growing mass commitment. In some places that combination embraced utopian Manichaeism for which the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Fascist assumption of power in Italy in 1922, and the Nazi seizure of the German state in 1933 were the launch-pads.   The political awakening also swept China, precipitating several decades of civil conflict. Anti-colonial sentiments galvanized India, where the tactic of passive resistance effectively disarmed imperial domination, and after World War II anti-colonial political stirrings elsewhere ended the remaining European empires.   In the western hemisphere, Mexico experienced the first inklings of populist activism already in the 1860s, leading eventually to the Mexican Revolution of the early 20th century.[7] Ultimately, what this implies is that - regardless of the final results of past awakenings - what is central to the concept of a 'political awakening' is the population - the people - taking on a political and social consciousness and subsequently, partaking in massive political and social action aimed at generating a major shift and change, or revolution, in the political, social and economic realms.   Thus, no social transformation presents a greater or more direct challenge to entrenched and centralized power structures - whether they are political, social or economic in nature. Brzezinski goes on to explain the evolution of the 'global political awakening' in modern times: It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.   The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.[8] Brzezinski explains that several central areas of the 'global political awakening', such as China, India, Egypt, Bolivia, the Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia and increasingly in Europe, as well as Indians in Latin America, "increasingly are defining what they desire in reaction to what they perceive to be the hostile impact on them of the outside world. In differing ways and degrees of intensity they dislike the status quo, and many of them are susceptible to being mobilized against the external power that they both envy and perceive as self-interestedly preoccupied with that status quo." Brzezinski elaborates on the specific group most affected by this awakening: The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well. With the exception of Europe, Japan and America, the rapidly expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under age bracket is creating a huge mass of impatient young people.   Their minds have been stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar and which intensify their disaffection with what is at hand. Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary level" educational institutions of developing countries.   Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million "college" students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square.   Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred.[9] Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global "challenge" to entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that cannot sufficiently address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands, what is required, is "increasingly supranational cooperation, actively promoted by the United States."   In other words, Brzezinski favors an increased and expanded 'internationalization', not surprising considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral Commission.   He explains that "Democracy per se is not an enduring solution," as it could be overtaken by "radically resentful populism."   This is truly a new global reality: Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities.   The quest for political dignity, especially through national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world's underprivileged.[10] Thus, writes Brzezinski, "An effective response can only come from a self-confident America genuinely committed to a new vision of global solidarity." The idea is that to address the grievances caused by globalization and global power structures, the world and America must expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply in the economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is a flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to this problem is to enhance and strengthen the systemic problems.   One cannot put out a fire by adding fuel. Brzezinski even wrote that, "Let it be said right away that supranationality should not be confused with world government. Even if it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government, and the American people certainly do not want it." Instead, Brzezinski argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global governance, "in shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of state sovereignty and more by the reality of expanding and politically regulated interdependence."[11] In other words, not 'global government' but 'global governance', which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as 'global governance' - no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it presents itself, is in fact a key step and necessary transition in the moves toward an actual global government. Thus, the rhetoric and reality of a "global war on terror" in actuality further inflames the 'global political awakening' as opposed to challenging and addressing the issue.   In 2007, Brzezinski told the US Senate that the "War on terror" was a "mythical historical narrative,"[12] or in other words, a complete fiction.       Of Power and People To properly understand the 'global political awakening' it is imperative to understand and analyze the power structures that it most gravely threatens. Why is Brzezinski speaking so vociferously on this subject? From what perspective does he approach this issue? Global power structures are most often represented by nation-states, of which there are over 200 in the world, and the vast majority are overlooking increasingly politically awakened populations who are more shaped by transnational communications and realities (such as poverty, inequality, war, empire, etc.) than by national issues.   Among nation-states, the most dominant are the western powers, particularly the United States, which sits atop the global hierarchy of nations as the global hegemon (empire). American foreign policy was provided with the imperial impetus by an inter-locking network of international think tanks, which bring together the top political, banking, industrial, academic, media, military and intelligence figures to formulate coordinated policies. The most notable of these institutions that socialize elites across national borders and provide the rationale and impetus for empire are an inter-locking network of international think tanks.   In 1921, British and American elite academics got together with major international banking interests to form two "sister institutes" called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, now known as Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.   Subsequent related think tanks were created in Canada, such as the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, now known as the Canadian International Council (CIC), and other affiliated think tanks in South Africa, India, Australia, and more recently in the European Union with the formation of the European Council on Foreign Relations.[13] Following World War I, these powers sought to reshape the world order in their designs, with Woodrow Wilson proclaiming a right to "national self determination" which shaped the formation of nation-states throughout the Middle East, which until the war was dominated by the Ottoman Empire.   Thus, proclaiming a right to "self-determination" for people everywhere became, in fact, a means of constructing nation-state power structures which the western nations became not only instrumental in building, but in exerting hegemony over. To control people, one must construct institutions of control. Nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, etc., did not exist prior to World War I. Elites have always sought to control populations and individuals for their own power desires. It does not matter whether the political system is that of fascism, communism, socialism or democracy: elites seek power and control and are inherent in each system of governance.   In 1928, Edward Bernays, nephew of the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, wrote one of his most influential works entitled "Propaganda."   Bernays also wrote the book on "Public Relations," and is known as the "father of public relations," and few outside of that area know of Bernays; however, his effect on elites and social control has been profound and wide-ranging. Bernays led the propaganda effort behind the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, framing it as a "liberation from Communism" when in fact it was the imposition of a decades-long dictatorship to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company, who had hired Bernays to manage the media campaign against the democratic socialist government of Guatemala.   Bernays also found a fan and student in Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, who took many of his ideas from Bernays' writings. Among one of Bernays' more infamous projects was the popularizing of smoking for American women, as he hired beautiful women to walk up and down Madison Avenue while smoking cigarettes, giving women the idea that smoking is synonymous with beauty. In his 1928 book, "Propaganda," Bernays wrote that, "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." Further: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society... Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...   In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[14] Following World War II, America became the global hegemon, whose imperial impetus was provided by the strategic concept of "containment" in containing the spread of Communism.   Thus, America's imperial adventures in Korea, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America became defined by the desire to "roll back" the influence of the Soviet Union and Communism. It was, not surprisingly, the Council on Foreign Relations that originated the idea of "containment" as a central feature of foreign policy.[15] Further, following World War II, America was handed the responsibility for overseeing and managing the international monetary system and global political economy through the creation of institutions and agreements such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO, the UN, and GATT (later to become the World Trade Organization - WTO).   One central power institution that was significant in establishing consensus among Western elites and providing a forum for expanding global western hegemony was the Bilderberg Group, founded in 1954 as an international think tank.[16] Zbigniew Brzezinski, an up-and-coming academic, joined the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1960s. In 1970, Brzezinski, who had attended a few Bilderberg meetings, wrote a book entitled, "Between Two Ages - America's Role in the Technetronic Era," in which he analyzed the impact of the 'Revolution in Technology and Electronics,' thus, the 'technetronic era.'   Brzezinski defines the 'technetronic society' as, "a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics - particularly in the arena of computers and communications. The industrial process is no longer the principal determinant of social change, altering the mores, the social structure, and the values of society."[17] Brzezinski, expanding upon notions of social control, such as those propagated by Edward Bernays, wrote that, "Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control," and he quoted an "experimenter in intelligence control" who asserted that, "I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain."[18] Brzezinski, in a telling exposé of his astute powers of observation and ability to identify major global trends, wrote that we are, "witnessing the emergence of transnational elites" who are "composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national." Further, writes Brzezinski, "it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook." However, warns Brzezinski, this increasing internationalization of elites, "could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activated masses, whose 'nativism' - exploited by more nationalist political leaders - could work against the 'cosmopolitan' elites."[19] Brzezinski also wrote about "the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society," in the "technetronic revolution;" explaining: Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.   Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.[20] Further, writes Brzezinski, "Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society." Elaborating, Brzezinski writes, "The traditionally democratic American society could, because of its fascination with technical efficiency, become an extremely controlled society, and its humane and individualistic qualities would thereby be lost."[21] In his book, Brzezinski called for a "Community of the Developed Nations," consisting of Western Europe, North America and Japan, to coordinate and integrate in order to shape a 'new world order' built upon ideas of global governance under the direction of these transnational elites.   In 1972, Brzezinski and his friend, David Rockefeller, presented the idea to the annual Bilderberg meetings. Rockefeller was, at that time, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and was CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. In 1973, Brzezinski and Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission, a sort of sister institute to the Bilderberg Group, with much cross-over membership, bringing Japan into the western sphere of economic and political integration.[22] In 1975, the Trilateral Commission published a Task Force Report entitled, "The Crisis of Democracy," of which one of the principal authors was Samuel Huntington, a political scientist and close associate and friend of Zbigniew Brzezinski.   In this report, Huntington argues that the 1960s saw a surge in democracy in America, with an upswing in citizen participation, often, "in the form of marches, demonstrations, protest movements, and 'cause' organizations."[23] Further, "the 1960s also saw a reassertion of the primacy of equality as a goal in social, economic, and political life."[24] Huntington analyzed how as part of this "democratic surge," statistics showed that throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s, there was a dramatic increase in the percentage of people who felt the United States was spending too much on defense (from 18% in 1960 to 52% in 1969, largely due to the Vietnam War).[25]   In other words, people were becoming politically aware of empire and exploitation. Huntington wrote that the, "essence of the democratic surge of the 1960s was a general challenge to existing systems of authority, public and private," and that, "People no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talents." Huntington explained that in the 1960s, "hierarchy, expertise, and wealth" had come "under heavy attack."[26] He stated that three key issues which were central to the increased political participation in the 1960s were: social issues, such as use of drugs, civil liberties, and the role of women; racial issues, involving integration, busing, government aid to minority groups, and urban riots; military issues, involving primarily, of course, the war in Vietnam but also the draft, military spending, military aid programs, and the role of the military-industrial complex more generally.[27] Huntington presented these issues, essentially, as the "crisis of democracy," in that they increased distrust with the government and authority, that they led to social and ideological polarization, and led to a, "Decline in the authority, status, influence, and effectiveness of the presidency."[28] Huntington concluded that many problems of governance in the United States stem from an, "excess of democracy," and that, "the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups." Huntington explained that society has always had "marginal groups" which do not participate in politics, and while acknowledging that the existence of "marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic," it has also "enabled democracy to function effectively."   Huntington identifies "the blacks" as one such group that had become politically active, posing a "danger of overloading the political system with demands."[29] Huntington, in his conclusion, stated that the vulnerability of democracy, essentially the 'crisis of democracy,' comes from, "a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society," and that what is needed is "a more balanced existence" in which there are "desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy."[30] Summed up, the Trilateral Commission Task Force Report essentially explained that the "Crisis of Democracy" is that there is too much of it, and so the 'solution' to the 'crisis' is to have less democracy and more 'authority.'       The New World Order Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, American ideologues - politicians and academics - began discussing the idea of the emergence of a "new world order" in which power in the world is centralized with one power - the United States, and laid the basis for an expansion of elitist ideology pertaining to the notion of 'globalization': that power and power structures should be globalized. In short, the 'new world order' was to be a global order of global governance. In the short term, it was to be led by the United States, which must be the central and primary actor in constructing a new world order, and ultimately a global government.[31] Anne-Marie Slaughter, currently the Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department, is a prominent academic within the American elite establishment, having long served in various posts at the State Department, elite universities and on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations.   In 1997, Slaughter wrote an article for the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, "Foreign Affairs," in which she discussed the theoretical foundations of the 'new world order.'   In it, she wrote that, "The state is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into its separate, functionally distinct parts. These parts - courts, regulatory agencies, executives, and even legislatures - are networking with their counterparts abroad, creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new, transgovernmental order," and that, "transgovernmentalism is rapidly becoming the most widespread and effective mode of international governance."[32] Long preceding Slaughter's analysis of the 'new world order,' Richard N. Gardner published an article in Foreign Affairs titled, "The Hard Road to World Order."   Gardner, a former American Ambassador and member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote that, "The quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides the conditions for economic progress - for what is loosely called world order - has never seemed more frustrating but at the same time strangely hopeful."[33] Gardner wrote, "If instant world government, [UN] Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations."[34] He then stated, "In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down." It will look like a great, "booming, buzzing confusion, to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." [35] In 1992, Strobe Talbott wrote an article for Time Magazine entitled, "The Birth of the Global Nation."   Talbott worked as a journalist for Time Magazine for 21 years, and has been a fellow of the Yale Corporation, a trustee of the Hotchkiss School and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the North American Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, and the American Association of Rhodes Scholars, and a member of the participating faculty of the World Economic Forum.   Talbott served as Deputy Secretary of State from 1994 to 2001 in the Clinton administration and currently sits as President of the Brookings Institution, one of the premier American think tanks.   In his 1992 article, "within the next hundred years," Talbott wrote, "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." He explained: All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and, paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has.[36] Further, he wrote that, "it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government. With the advent of electricity, radio and air travel, the planet has become smaller than ever, its commercial life freer, its nations more interdependent and its conflicts bloodier." [37] David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making."   As a member of that "superclass," his writing should provide a necessary insight into the construction of this "New World Order."   He states that, "In a world of global movements and threats that don't present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract." He wrote that, "progress will continue to be made," however, it will be challenging, because it "undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty." He further wrote that, "Mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today's environment," and that these mechanisms "are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government."[38] In December of 2008, the Financial Times published an article titled, "And Now for A World Government," in which the author, former Bilderberg attendee, Gideon Rachman, wrote that, "for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible," and that, "A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws.   The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force." [39] He stated that, "it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a 'global war on terror'." He wrote that the European model could "go global" and that a world government, "could be done," as "The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty." He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, "Global governance is just a euphemism for global government," and that the "core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law." However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government "will be a painful, slow process."   He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which, "has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for 'ever closer union' have been referred to the voters.   In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians - and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic."[40]     The Global Political Awakening and the Global Economic Crisis In the face of the global economic crisis, the process that has led to the global political awakening is rapidly expanding, as the social, political and economic inequalities and disparities that led to the awakening are all being exacerbated and expanded.   Thus, the global political awakening itself is entering into a period in which it will undergo rapid, expansionary and global transformation. This 'global political awakening', of which Brzezinski has explained as being one of the primary global geopolitical challenges of today, has largely, up until recent times, been exemplified in the 'Global South', or the 'Third World' developing nations of the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America.   Developments in recent decades and years in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Iran exemplify the nationalist-orientation of much of this awakening, taking place in a world increasingly and incrementally moving towards global governance and global institutions. In 1998, Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela, having campaigned on promises of aiding the nation's poor majority. In 2002, an American coup attempt took place in Venezuela, but Chavez retained his power and was further emboldened by the attempt, and gained a great burst of popular support among the people.   Chavez has undertaken what he refers to as a process of "Bolivarian socialism", and has taken a decidedly and vehemently anti-American posture in Latin America, long considered America's "back yard." Suddenly, there is virulent rhetoric and contempt against the United States and its influence in the region, which itself is backed by the enormous oil-wealth of Venezuela. In Bolivia, Evo Morales was elected President in 2005 of the poorest nation in South America, and he was also the first indigenous leader of that country to ever hold that position of power, after having long been dominated by the Spanish-descended landed aristocracy. Evo Morales rose to power on the wave of various social movements within Bolivia, key among them being the "water wars" which took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, in 2000.   The water wars were instigated after the World Bank forced Bolivia to privatize its water so that American and European companies could come in and purchase the rights to Bolivia's water, meaning that people in the poorest nation in South America could not even drink rain water without paying American or European companies for the 'right' to use it.   Thus, revolt arose and Evo Morales rose with it. Now, Morales and Chavez represent the "new Left" in Latin America, and with it, growing sentiments of anti-American imperialism. In Iran, itself defined more by nationalism than ethnic polarities, has become a principal target of the western hegemonic world order, as it sits atop massive gas and oil reserves, and is virulently anti-American and firmly opposed to western hegemony in the Middle East. However, with increased American rhetoric against Iran, its regime and political elites are further emboldened and politically strengthened among its people, the majority of whom are poor. Global socio-political economic conditions directly relate to the expansion and emergence of the 'global political awakening'.   As of 1998, "3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women."[41] In 2003, a World Bank report revealed that, "A minority of the world's population (17%) consume most of the world's resources (80%), leaving almost 5 billion people to live on the remaining 20%. As a result, billions of people are living without the very basic necessities of life - food, water, housing and sanitation."[42] In regards to poverty and hunger statistics, "Over 840 million people in the world are malnourished - 799 million of them are from the developing world. Sadly, more than 153 million of them are under the age of 5 (half the entire US population)." Further, "Every day, 34,000 children under five die of hunger or other hunger-related diseases. This results in 6 million deaths a year." That amounts to a "Hunger Holocaust" that takes place every single year.   As of 2003, "Of 6.2 billion living today, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 per day. Nearly 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day."[43] In 2006, a groundbreaking and comprehensive report released by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) reported that, "The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth." An incredibly startling statistic was that: [T]he richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.[44] This is worth repeating: the top 1% owns 40% of global assets the top 10% owns 85% of world assets the bottom 50% owns 1% of global assets A sobering figure, indeed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) report stated that in 2009, "an estimated 55 million to 90 million more people will be living in extreme poverty than anticipated before the crisis." Further, "the encouraging trend in the eradication of hunger since the early 1990s was reversed in 2008, largely due to higher food prices." Hunger in developing regions has risen to 17% in 2008, and "children bear the brunt of the burden."[45] In April of 2009, a major global charity, Oxfam, reported that a couple trillion dollars given to bail out banks could have been enough "to end global extreme poverty for 50 years."[46]   In September of 2009, Oxfam reported that the economic crisis "is forcing 100 people-a-minute into poverty."   Oxfam stated that, "Developing countries across the globe are struggling to respond to the global recession that continues to slash incomes, destroy jobs and has helped push the total number of hungry people in the world above 1 billion."[47] The financial crisis has hit the 'developing' world much harder than the western developed nations of the world.   The UN reported in March of 2009 that, "Reduced growth in 2009 will cost the 390 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living in extreme poverty around $18 billion, or $46 per person," and "This projected loss represents 20 per cent of the per capita income of Africa's poor - a figure that dwarfs the losses sustained in the developed world."[48] Thus, the majority of the world's people live in absolute poverty and social dislocation.   This is directly the result of the globalized world order that has been and is being constructed. Now, as that same infrastructure is being further institutionalized and built upon, people are being thrown into the 'awakening' like never before. Their very poverty pushes them into an awakening.   There is a seemingly lost notion of judging a society by how it treats it weakest members: the poor.   Poverty forces one to look at the world differently, as they see the harsh restraints that society has imposed upon the human spirit. Life simply cannot be about the struggle to make payments week-to-week; to afford water, shelter, and food; to live according to the dictates of money and power. Look to history, and you see that from some of the most oppressive societies can come the greatest of humanity. Russia, a nation which has never in its history experienced true political freedom for the individual, has managed to produce some of the greatest music, art, expression and literature as a vibrant outcry of humanity from a society so overcome with the need to control it.   It the fact that such triumphs of human spirit can come from such tyrannies over human nature is a sobering display of the great mystery of human beings. Why waste humanity by subjecting it to poverty? Think of the difference that could be made if all of humanity was allowed to flourish individually and collectively; think of all the ideas, art, expression, intellect and beauty we aren't getting from those who have no voice. Until we address this fundamental issue, any notion of humanity as being 'civilized' is but a cynical joke. If it's human civilization, we haven't quite figured it out yet.   We don't yet have a proper definition of 'civilized', and we need to make it 'humane'.       The West and the Awakening The middle classes of the western world are undergoing a dramatic transition, most especially in the wake of the global economic crisis.   In the previous decades, the middle class has become a debt-based class, whose consumption was based almost entirely on debt, and so their ability to consume and be the social bedrock of the capitalist system is but a mere fiction. Never in history has the middle class, and most especially the youth who are graduating college into the hardest job market in decades, been in such peril.[49] The global debt crisis, which is beginning in Greece, and spreading throughout the Euro-zone economies of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and ultimately the entire EU, will further consume the UK, Japan and go all the way to America.[50]   This will be a truly global debt crisis. Government measures to address the issue of debt focus on the implementation of 'fiscal austerity measures' to reduce the debt burdens and make interest payments on their debts. 'Fiscal austerity' is a vague term that in actuality refers to cutting social spending and increasing taxes.   The effect this has is that the public sector is devastated, as all assets are privatized, public workers are fired en masse, unemployment becomes rampant, health and education disappear, taxes rise dramatically, and currencies are devalued to make all assets cheaper for international corporations and banks to buy up, while internally causing inflation - dramatically increasing the costs of fuel and food.   In short, 'fiscal austerity' implies 'social destruction' as the social foundations of nations and peoples are pulled out from under them. States then become despotic and oppress the people, who naturally revolt against 'austerity': the sterilization of society. 'Fiscal austerity' swept the developing world through the 1980s and 1990s in response to the 1980s debt crisis which consumed Latin America, Africa, and areas of Asia. The result of the fiscal austerity measures imposed upon nations by the World Bank and IMF was the social dismantling of the new societies and their subsequent enslavement to the international creditors of the IMF, World Bank, and western corporations and banks.   It was an era of economic imperialism, and the IMF was a central tool of this imperial project. As the debt crisis we see unfolding today sweeps the world, the IMF is again stepping in to impose 'fiscal austerity' on nations in return for short-term loans for countries to pay off the interest on their exorbitant debts, themselves owed mostly to major European and American banks.   Western nations have agreed to impose fiscal austerity,[51] which will in fact only inflame the crisis, deepen the depression and destroy the social foundations of the west so that we are left only with the authoritarian apparatus of state power - the police, military, homeland 'security' apparatus - which is employed against people to protect the status quo powers. The IMF has also come to the global economic crisis with a new agenda, giving out loans in its own synthetic currency - Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) - an international reserve basket of currencies. The G20 in April of 2009 granted the IMF the authority to begin phasing in the applications of issuing SDRs, and for the IMF to in effect become a global central bank issuing a global currency.[52]   So through this global debt crisis, SDRs will be disbursed globally - both efficiently and in abundance - as nations will need major capital inflows and loans to pay off interest payments, or in the event of a default. This will happen at a pace so rapid that it would never be conceivable if not for a global economic crisis. The same took place in the 1980s, as the nature of "Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAPs) could not be properly assessed as detrimental to economic conditions and ultimately socially devastating, for countries needed money fast (as the debt crisis spread across the developing world) and were not in a position to negotiate.   Today, this will be the 'globalization' of the debt crisis of the 1980s, on a much larger and more devastating scale, and the reaction will be equally globalized and devastating: the continued implementation of 'global governance'. As austerity hits the west, the middle class will vanish in obscurity, as they will be absorbed into the lower, labour-oriented working class.[53] The youth of the western middle class, comprising the majority of the educated youth, will be exposed to a 'poverty of expectations' in which they grew up in a world in which they were promised everything, and from whom everything was so quickly taken. The inevitability of protests, riots and possible rebellion is as sure as the sun rises.[54] In the United States, the emergence of the Tea Party movement is representative of - in large part - a growing dissatisfaction with the government and the economy.   Naturally, like any group, it has its radical and fringe elements, which tend to draw the majority of media attention in an effort to shape public opinion, but the core and the driving force of the movement is the notion of popular dissatisfaction with government. Whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of such protestations, people are not pleased, and people are taking to the streets. And so it begins. Even intellectuals of the left have spoken publicly warning people not to simply and so easily discount the Tea Party movement as fringe or radical.   One such individual, Noam Chomsky, while speaking at a University in April of 2010, warned that he felt fascism was coming to America, and he explained that, "Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error," as their attitudes "are understandable." He explained, "For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy." This constitutes 'class resentment', as, "The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels." This same financial industry is directly linked to Obama, who is supporting their interests, and people are noticing.[55] Another notable feminist intellectual of the left, Naomi Wolf, who wrote a book during the Bush administration on the emergence of fascism in America, and much of her message is being picked up by the Tea Party movement, as those on the right who were listening and agreeing with Wolf during the Bush administration (a considerable minority), then provided the impetus for the emergence of the Tea Party movement and many of its core or original ideas.   In an interview in March 2010, Wolf explained that her ideas are even more relevant under Obama than Bush.   She explained, "Bush legalized torture, but Obama is legalizing impunity. He promised to roll stuff back, but he is institutionalizing these things forever. It is terrifying and the left doesn't seem to recognize it." She explained how the left, while active under Bush, has been tranquilized under Obama, and that there is a potential for true intellectuals and for people more generally and more importantly, to reach out to each other across the spectrum.   She explained: I was invited by the Ron Paul supporters to their rally in Washington last summer and I loved it. I met a lot of people I respected, a lot of "ordinary" people, as in not privileged. They were stepping up to the plate, when my own liberal privileged fellow demographic habituates were lying around whining.   It was a wake-up call to the libertarians that there's a progressive who cares so much about the same issues. Their views of liberals are just as distorted as ours are of conservatives.[56] In regards to the Tea Party movement, Wolf had this to say: "The Tea Party is not monolithic. There is a battle between people who care about liberty and the Constitution and the Republican Establishment who is trying to take ownership of it and redirect it for its own purposes." Further, she explained that the Tea Party is "ahead of their time" on certain issues, "I used to think "End the Fed people" were crackpots. The media paints them as deranged. But it turned out we had good reason to have more oversight."[57] In time, others will join with the Tea Party movement and new activist groups, the anti-war movement will have to revitalize itself or die away; since Obama became President their influence, their voice, and their dignity has all but vanished.   They have become a pacified voice, and their silence is complicity; thus, the anti-war movement must reignite and reinvigorate or it will decompose.   The 'Left's' distrust of corporations must merge with the 'Right's' distrust of government to create a trust in 'people'. Soon students will be joining protests, and the issues of the Tea Party movement and others like it can become more refined and informed. When the middle classes of the west are plunged into poverty, it will force an awakening, for when people have nothing, they have nothing left to lose. The only way that the entrenched powers of the world have been able to expand their power and maintain their power is with the ignorant consent of the populations of the west. Issues of war, empire, economics and terror shape public opinion and allow social planners to redirect and reconstitute society.   The people of the west have allowed themselves to be ruled as such and have allowed our rulers to be so ruthless in our names. People have been blinded by consumerism and entertainment. Images of celebrities, professional sports, Hollywood, iPods, blackberrys, and PCs consume the minds of people, and especially the youth of the west today.   It has been the illusion of being the consuming class that has allowed our societies to be run so recklessly. So long as we have our TVs and PCs we won't pay attention to anything else! When the ability to consume is removed, the people will enter into a period of a great awakening. This will give rise to major new political movements, many progressive but some regressive, some fringe and radical, some violent and tyrannical, but altogether new and ultimately global. This is when the people of the west will come to realize the plight of the rest.   This will be the era in which people begin to understand the realization that there is great truth in Dr. Martin Luther King's words, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Thus, the struggle of Africans will become the struggle of Americans: it must be freedom for all or freedom for none. This is the major geopolitical reality and the pre-eminent global threat to world power structures. No development in all of human history presents such a monumental challenge to the status quo. As global power structures have never resembled such a monumental threat to mankind, mankind has never posed such an immense threat to institutionalized power. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.   Even if elites think that they truly do run the world, human nature has a way of exposing the flaws in that assumption.   Human nature is not meant to be 'controlled,' but rather is meant to be nurtured.       A View From the Top Again, it is important to go to Brzezinski's own words in describing this new geopolitical reality, as it provides great insight into not only how the 'global political awakening' is defined; but more importantly, how it is perceived by those who hold power.   In 2004, Brzezinski gave a speech at the Carnegie Council on his 2004 book, "The Choice". The Carnegie Council is an elite think tank based in the United States, so Brzezinski is speaking to those who are potentially negatively affected by such an awakening.   Brzezinski stated that America's foreign policy in the wake of 9/11 - the "War on Terror" - is presenting a major challenge to American hegemony, as it is increasingly isolating the United States and damaging the nation's credibility, as well as hiding the issues in virulent rhetoric which only further inflames the real and true challenge: the global political awakening. He states: The misdiagnosis [of foreign policy] pertains to a relatively vague, excessively abstract, highly emotional, semi-theological definition of the chief menace that we face today in the world, and the consequent slighting of what I view as the unprecedented global challenge arising out of the unique phenomenon of a truly massive global political awakening of mankind.   We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree, and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil. But we are not focusing on that. We are focusing specifically on one word, which is being elevated into a specter, defined as an entity, presented as somehow unified but unrelated to any specific event or place - and that word is terrorism. The global challenge today on the basis of which we tend to operate politically is the definition of terrorism with a global reach as the principal challenge of our time. I don't deny that terrorism is a reality, a threat to us, an ugly menace and a vicious manifestation. But it is a symptom of something larger and more complicated, related to the global turmoil that takes place in many parts of the world and manifests itself in different ways. That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history. They have political consciousness. It may be undefined, it may point in different directions, it may be primitive, it may be intolerant, it may be hateful, but it is a form of political activism.[58] Brzezinski explains that, literacy has made for greater political awareness while TV has made for immediate awareness of global disparities and the Internet has provided instant communications Further, says Brzezinski, "Much of this is also spurred by America's impact on the world," or in other words, American economic, political, and cultural imperialism; and further, "Much of it is also fueled by globalization, which the United States propounds, favors and projects by virtue of being a globally outward-thrusting society." Brzezinski warns, "But that also contributes to instability, and is beginning to create something altogether new: namely, some new ideological or doctrinal challenge which might fill the void created by the disappearance of communism." Brzezinski explains that Communism emerged in the last century as an alternative, however, today: it is now totally discredited, and we have a pragmatic vacuum in the world today regarding doctrines. But I see the beginnings, in writings and stirrings, of the making of a doctrine which combines anti-Americanism with anti-globalization, and the two could become a powerful force in a world that is very unequal and turbulent.[59] A question following Brzezinski's speech asked him to expand upon how to address the notion of and deal with the 'global political awakening'.   Brzezinski explained that, "We deal with the world as it is and we are as we are. If we are to use our power intelligently and if we are to move in the right direction, we have no choice but do it incrementally."[60] In other words, as Brzezinski has detailed his vision of a solution to world problems in creating the conditions for global governance; they must do it "incrementally," for that is how to "use [their] power intelligently."   The solution to the 'global political awakening', in the view from the top, is to continue to create the apparatus of an oppressive global government. On April 23, 2010, Zbigniew Brzezinski went to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations to give a speech at an event jointly-hosted by the Canadian International Council (CIC), the Canadian counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations in the US and Chatham House in the U.K.   These are many of the intellectual, social, political and economic elite of Canada.   In his speech, Brzezinski gives a breakdown of the modern geopolitical realities: Let me begin by making just a thumbnail definition of the geopolitical context in which we all find ourselves, including America.   And in my perspective, that geopolitical context is very much defined by new - by two new global realities. The first is that global political leadership - by which I mean the role of certain leading powers in the world - has now become much more diversified unlike what it was until relatively recently.   Relatively recently still, the world was dominated by the Atlantic world, as it had been for many centuries. It no longer is.   Today, the rise of the Far East has created a new but much more differentiated global leadership. One which in a nutshell involves a wanton hazard, an arbitrary list of the primary players in the world scene: the United States, clearly; maybe next to it - but maybe - the European Union, I say maybe because it is not yet a political entity; certainly, increasingly so, and visibly so, China; Russia, mainly in one respect only because it is a nuclear power co-equal to the United States, but otherwise very deficient in all of the major indices of what constitutes global power.   Behind Russia, perhaps individually, but to a much lesser extent, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, certainly, although it does not have the political assertive posture; India is rising, and then in the background of that we have the new entity of the G20, a much more diversified global leadership, lacking internal unity, with many of its members in bilateral antagonisms. That makes the context much more complicated. The other major change in international affairs is that for the first time, in all of human history, mankind has been politically awakened. That is a total new reality - total new reality. It has not been so for most of human history until the last one hundred years. And in the course of the last one hundred years, the whole world has become politically awakened.   And no matter where you go, politics is a matter of social engagement, and most people know what is generally going on - generally going on - in the world, and are consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation. Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring.   The combination of the two: the diversified global leadership, politically awakened masses, makes a much more difficult context for any major power including, currently, the leading world power: the United States.[61]     Conclusion So, the Technological Revolution has led to a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, and conflicting geopolitical reality: never before has humanity been so awakened to issues of power, exploitation, imperialism and domination; and simultaneously, never before have elites been so transnational and global in orientation, and with the ability to impose such a truly global system of scientific despotism and political oppression.   These are the two major geopolitical realities of the world today. Reflect on that.   Never in all of human history has mankind been so capable of achieving a true global political psycho-social awakening; nor has humanity ever been in such danger of being subjected to a truly global scientific totalitarianism, potentially more oppressive than any system known before, and without a doubt more technologically capable of imposing a permanent despotism upon humanity. So we are filled with hope, but driven by urgency. In all of human history, never has the potential nor the repercussions of human actions and ideas ever been so monumental. Suddenly, global elites are faced with the reality of seeking to dominate populations that are increasingly becoming self-aware and are developing a global consciousness.   Thus, a population being subjected to domination in Africa has the ability to become aware of a population being subjected to the same forms of domination in the Middle East, South America or Asia; and they can recognize that they are all being dominated by the same global power structures. That is a key point: not only is the awakening global in its reach, but in its nature; it creates within the individual, an awareness of the global condition.   So it is a 'global awakening' both in the external environment, and in the internal psychology. This new reality in the world, coupled with the fact that the world's population has never been so vast, presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination. This directly implies that these populations will be significantly more challenging to control: economically, politically, socially, psychologically and spiritually.   Thus, from the point of view of the global oligarchy, the only method of imposing order and control - on this unique and historical human condition - is through the organized chaos of economic crises, war, and the rapid expansion and institutionalization of a global scientific dictatorship. Our hope is their fear; and our greatest fear is their only hope. As Charles Dickens once wrote, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." That has never been so true as it is today.       Endnotes [1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html [2] Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President," International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 53 (emphasis added) [3] AFP, A new brain for Barack Obama. The Economist: March 14, 2007: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/03/a_new_brain_for_barack_obama [4] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56 [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Michael Collins, Brzezinski: On The Path To War With Iran. Global Research: February 25, 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4920 [13] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order. Global Research: July 28, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14552 ; see sections, "World War Restructures World Order," and "Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon," for a look at this interlocking network of think tanks. [14] John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & The Birth of PR. PR Watch, Second Quarter 1999, Volume 6, No. 2: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html [15] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order. Global Research: July 28, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14552 ; Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614 [16] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614 [17] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. (Viking Press, New York, 1970), page 10 [18] Ibid, page 12. [19] Ibid, page 29. [20] Ibid, page 97. [21] Ibid. [22] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614 [23] Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy. (Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, New York University Press, 1975), page 61 [24] Ibid, page 62. [25] Ibid, page 71. [26] Ibid, pages 74-75 [27] Ibid, page 77. [28] Ibid, page 93. [29] Ibid, pages 113-114. [30] Ibid, page 115. [31] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Forging a "New World Order" Under a One World Government. Global Research: August 13, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14712 [32] Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs: September/October, 1997: pages 184-185 [33] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order. Foreign Affairs: April, 1974: page 556 [34] Ibid, page 558. [35] Ibid. [36] Strobe Talbott, America Abroad. Time Magazine: July 20, 1992: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015,00.html [37] Ibid. [38] David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making. (Toronto: Penguin Books, 2008), pages 315-316 [39] Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government. The Financial Times: December 8, 2008: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html [40] Ibid. [41] Jeff Gates, Statistics on Poverty and Inequality. Global Policy Forum: May 1999: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/218/46377.html [42] Social & Economic Injustice, World Centric, 2004: http://worldcentric.org/conscious-living/social-and-economic-injustice [43] Ibid. [44] GPF, Press Release: Pioneering Study Shows Richest Own Half World Wealth. Global Policy Forum: December 5, 2006: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/218/46555.html [45] UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009. United Nations, New York, 2009: page 4 [46] G20 Summit: Bank bailout would end global poverty, says Oxfam. The Telegraph: April 1, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5087404/G20-Summit-Bank-bailout-would-end-global-poverty-says-Oxfam.html [47] Press Release, 100 people every minute pushed into poverty by economic crisis. Oxfam International: September 24, 2009: http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2009-09-24/100-people-every-minute-pushed-poverty-economic-crisis [48] Press Release, Financial crisis to deepen extreme poverty, increase child mortality rates - UN report. UN News Center: March 3, 2009: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=30070 [49] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Western Civilization and the Economic Crisis: The Impoverishment of the Middle Class. Global Research: March 30, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18386 [50] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Debt Dynamite Dominoes: The Coming Financial Catastrophe. Global Research: February 22, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17736 [51] Reuters, G20 communique after meeting in South Korea. G20 Communiqué: June 5, 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6540VN20100605 [52] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Forging a "New World Order" Under a One World Government. Global Research: August 13, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14712 ; or for a more succinct analysis, Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government. Global Research: April 6, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13070 [53] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Western Civilization and the Economic Crisis: The Impoverishment of the Middle Class. Global Research: March 30, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18386 [54] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Global Economic Crisis: Riots, Rebellion and Revolution. Global Research: April 7, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18529 [55] Matthew Rothschild, Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America. The Progressive: April 12, 2010: http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html [56] Justine Sharrock, Naomi Wolf Thinks the Tea Parties Help Fight Fascism -- Is She Onto Something or in Fantasy Land? Alternet: March 30, 2010: http://www.alternet.org/news/146184/naomi_wolf_thinks_the_tea_parties_help_fight_fascism_--_is_she_on_to_something_or_in_fantasy_land__ [57] Ibid. [58] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html [59] Ibid. [60] Ibid. [61] Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas       Part 2 Revolution and Repression in America June 29, 2010   Introduction As outlined in Part 1 above of this series, "The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom," there are two major geopolitical realities in the world today, both largely brought about as a result of the "Technological Revolution" in which technology and electronics have come to define and shape our society. The Technological Revolution has led to a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, and conflicting geopolitical reality: never before has humanity been so awakened to issues of power, exploitation, imperialism and domination; and simultaneously, never before have elites been so transnational and global in orientation, and with the ability to impose such a truly global system of scientific despotism and political oppression.       These are the two major geopolitical realities of the world today.   Never in all of human history has mankind been so capable of achieving a true global political psycho-social awakening; nor has humanity ever been in such danger of being subjected to a truly global scientific totalitarianism, potentially more oppressive than any system known before, and without a doubt more technologically capable of imposing a permanent despotism upon humanity.   So we are filled with hope, but driven by urgency. In all of human history, never has the potential nor the repercussions of human actions and ideas ever been so monumental. Not only is the awakening global in its reach, but in its very nature. It creates within the individual, an awareness of the global condition. So it is a 'global awakening' both in the external environment, and in the internal psychology.   This new reality in the world, coupled with the fact that the world's population has never been so vast, presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination. This directly implies that these populations will be significantly more challenging to control: economically, politically, socially, psychologically and spiritually.   Thus, from the point of view of the global oligarchy, the only method of imposing order and control - on this unique and historical human condition - is through the organized chaos of economic crises, war, and the rapid expansion and institutionalization of a global scientific dictatorship. Our hope is their fear; and our greatest fear is their only hope. This essay (Part II) will undertake an examination of these two geopolitical realities on a national scale, focusing primarily on the "American Awakening."       The American Awakening In the past decade, there has been an enormous surge in popular political activism, which has corresponded to the expansion of imperialism, exploitation and despotism in the world.   The events of September 11th, 2001, sparked two major geopolitical events.   The first was the implementation of the Bush Doctrine - the "War on Terror" - which was organized in response to the terrorist attacks. This imperialist expansion led to the war and occupation of Afghanistan, the war on Iraq and subsequent occupation, the war in Lebanon in 2006, the war on Somalia, continuing military expansionism and imposition in the Palestinian territories, as well as expansive covert operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and around the world. The second major geopolitical trend instigated by the 9/11 attacks was the formation of what has come to be known as the "9/11 Truth Movement," in which millions of people around the world, including thousands of academics, architects, engineers, government officials, intelligence and military officials and other professionals, as well as an exponentially growing abundance of people in the general population internationally have sought to question and challenge the official accounts of the events of 9/11.   Like all activist groups, there are fringe and radical elements within the movement, those who claim that "no planes" were used in the attacks, or that the attacks were undertaken by Israel - with anti-Semitic undertones - or other such fringe theories. Regardless of the fringe elements, the main focus of the movement is based around the fact that the official story of events does not stand up to any form of independent and unbiased, rational analysis.   The media for years ignored the growing international movement, but only in recent years have acknowledged the movement; however, they did not address the movement by analyzing the information and issues, but rather by seeking to discredit and demonize the political movement, focusing on the fringe elements and beliefs and applying labels of "conspiracy theorist," attempting to discredit anyone who questions the official story. In 2006, Time Magazine acknowledged that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not a "fringe movement," but is, in fact, "a mainstream political reality." They also cited a major political poll by Scripps-Howard in 2006, which revealed that 36% of Americans think it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves.[1] The growth of this movement spurred on major new movements and political activism, driven almost exclusively by organized and 'politically awakened' civilians. Driven largely by the Internet, this movement has awakened a mass of people globally to the political and strategic reality of what is known - in military terms - as a "false flag operation", in which an attack is carried out against a certain target, where those undertaking the attack fly the flag of someone else (i.e., "false flag") in an effort to implicate them in the attack; and thus the response to an attack would be against the perceived attackers.   It is, essentially, a covert military stratagem: a strategic deception.   The Greek dramatist and playwright Aeschylus wrote that, "In war, the first casualty is truth." A false flag attack an act of war that is deliberately designed to deceive and hide the truth. It is an attack carried out and blamed on one's enemy in order to justify implementing a political agenda.   Governments have used such tactics for centuries, and especially western nations in the past half-century.[2] This movement has spawned an activist resurgence in other global issues, such as the global economic system, and most notably, the central banking system, particularly the Federal Reserve. While many Americans knew next to nothing about their central bank, the Federal Reserve, a growing movement of Americans and others around the world were educating themselves about the Federal Reserve System and the global banking system in general.   Many found a leader in a Texas Congressman named Ron Paul, who campaigned on the Republican ticket for President in 2008, and who drew the widest grassroots support from across the nation of any Republican candidates.   Among Democrats, "9/11 Truthers" and others critical of US foreign policy came to find a passionate leader in Cynthia McKinney, who was one of the lone voices in Congress to directly challenge the Bush administration on the official version of events, and has challenged the election fraud in 2000 and 2004, conducted a Congressional hearing on covert activities in Africa, exposing the hand of western nations behind the Rwandan genocide and Congo Civil War. In late 2008, as the government began its financial bailout of the banks, the "End the Fed" movement emerged in sporadic protests at the 12 Federal Reserve Banks located around the country, and over 40 protests took place across the nation within a matter of months.[3]       The "Homeland Security State" Targets Dissenters With the increasing militarization of foreign policy, we also see the increasing militarization of domestic politics, and most notably the emergence of a high-tech surveillance police state: a "Homeland Security State."   National and international elites are in the process of incrementally constructing a 'new totalitarianism' in replacing democracy.[4]   Civil rights and freedoms are dismantled through anti-terrorist legislation, wiretapping and internet surveillance are rampant and expansive, "watch lists" are constructed, which often include the names of dissenters, and the military is increasingly poised to partake in policing. Further, over the past decade, we have seen the rapid expansion of "Continuity of Government" (COG) plans, which plan for the suspension of the Constitution and imposition of martial law in the event of an emergency.[5]   At this point in American society, if there was a rapid and expansive economic collapse or another major terrorist attack on US soil, America would transform into a military government, more fascist in nature than anything; but equipped with an arsenal and "technetronic" police state the likes of which no dictator in history has had access to.   Freedom has never been so threatened; yet, people have never been so mobilized in modern history to challenge the threats to freedom and democracy in America, in the west, and in the world. (See: The Transnational Homeland Security State and the Decline of Democracy) In 2003, General Tommy Franks gave an interview with Cigar Aficionado magazine in which he elaborated on this concept.   Tommy Franks was the former Commander of the Pentagon's Central Command over the Middle East, and thus he was the top General overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.   In his interview with the magazine, Franks stated that the objective of terrorism is "to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society," and thus, in the event of another major terrorist attack in America or in the West: the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean?   It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.[6] One interesting facet that very little is known about in the militarization of domestic society and incremental totalitarianism is how the coercive state apparatus, while being justified under the guise of fighting terrorism or "protecting the Homeland," is in fact being directed against citizen activists and popular political movements.   For example, following 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security established what are known as "Fusion Centers," set up all over the United States, and which are designed as "information sharing and collecting" hubs, in which agencies like the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the US Military collect and analyze information together.   As of July 2009, there were 72 acknowledged Fusion Centers around the United States.[7]   Think of them as local surveillance centers, because that's what they are. Fusion Centers are also positioned to take part as local command centers in the event of a national emergency or implementation of "Continuity of Government" plans to declare martial law. State and local law enforcement agencies provide the majority of information to the local Fusion Centers, which is then analyzed and disseminated to the major intelligence, military or Homeland Security departments and agencies.   However, in recent years, Fusion Centers have been criticized for their purported agenda, as they are justified on the basis of acting as centers designated for "counter-terrorism" purposes, but in practice are directed against citizen groups. In the spring of 2009, it was revealed that the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) - a Fusion Center - had put out an information pamphlet designed to help law enforcement officials identify "potential domestic terrorists."   According to the report: If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.[8] When did our society become something out of 1984? When did our governments designate "subversive literature" as a sign of terrorism?   The report classified such activities as being part of a "Modern Militia Movement," and further identified "potential threats to American security" as: People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.[9] In other words, those who are opposed to the political and economic process of "North American integration"[10] are seen and identified as "potential militia members."   The report even directly identified possession of such films like the anti-Federal Reserve film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" as "potential signals of militia involvement."[11]   The document put out by the Fusion Center further warned law enforcement officials to be "on the lookout" for "bumper stickers advertising third party candidates, or people with copies of the United States Constitution."   The report wrote that due to the economic crisis, "a lush environment for militia activity has been created," and: It goes on to cite possible militia members as people who talk about the New World Order conspiracy, express anger with the Federal Reserve banking system, resist paying taxes, warn other citizens about the perceived dangers of radio frequency identification (RFID) or lobby for a return to strict constitutionalism as possible threats to law enforcement. While the memo does offer something of a lopsided summary of many of the various groups which swelled enormously following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it also links individuals who are otherwise peaceful with the Ku Klux Klan and other violent organizations.[12] Another Fusion Center in Virginia identified many universities as potential "radicalization nodes" for terrorists, singling out "historically black colleges" as potential threats, and, "it also contains an extensive list of peaceful American and International activist groups from nearly all cross-sections of political engagement, placing them side-by-side with groups that have long been known for resorting to violence."[13] In April of 2009, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) released a report on the threat to liberties and civil rights posed by the Fusion Centers, saying that, "Fusion centers have experienced a mission creep in the last several years, becoming more of a threat than a security device. With no overarching guidelines to restrict or direct them, these centers put Americans' privacy at huge risk." The ACLU report identified several "troubling incidents" in regards to Fusion Centers violating privacy and civil rights: A May 7, 2008 report entitled "Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat Assessment" authored by a private contractor that labeled environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the Audubon Society as "mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism";   A potential abuse of authority by DHS officials who improperly monitored and disseminated the communications of peace activists affiliated with the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN);   A report produced on February 19, 2009 by the North Central Texas Fusion System entitled "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" which described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, the U.S. Treasury Department, hip hop bands and former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney to "provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish";   A "Strategic Report" produced February 20, 2009 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that described a purported security threat posed by the "modern militia movement" but inappropriately included references to social, religious and political ideologies, including support of third party presidential candidates such as Congressman Ron Paul and former Congressman Bob Barr; and   A "Protective Intelligence Bulletin" issued by the DHS Intelligence Branch of the Threat Management Division of the Federal Protective Service which improperly collected and disseminated information regarding political demonstrations and inappropriately labeled peaceful advocacy groups and other activists as "extremists."[14] To those in power, 'peace' is an 'extremist' idea, because 'war' and 'violence' are the norms to them.   Now it has come to the point where those who challenge the structures of power are simply designated as terrorists and extremists. This is an incredibly dangerous political road at which the end is despotism and the death of democracy. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, as one of those identified by Fusion Centers as providing "an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish," had this to say about the Fusion Center report: As a student of COINTELPRO, the government's infamous Counter-Intelligence Program [directed against the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s], I know what my government is capable of doing to quash dissent. That's why I voted against the Patriot Act, worked in Congress to roll back the Secret Evidence Act, and introduced legislation to repeal the Military Commissions Act.   I come from a long legacy of activists for justice and freedom inside this country. I am on the advocacy front lines for peace abroad and justice at home. But I know that we will not have peace or justice without truth. Truth is the foundation of the dignity that we seek. Dignity for all is not a threat to the United States.[15] It has become evident that the response of the American government to the "global political awakening" within the United States is aimed at demonizing, discrediting, and oppressing activist groups and political movements.   But how far can this oppression go?       Detention Camps for Dissidents? One startling and deeply concerning development in the area of "Homeland Security" is the highly secretive and deliberately quiet establishment of "detention centers" within the United States, designed to house millions of people in the event of an "emergency."   In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft, "announced [a] desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants'," and that his plan "would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants."[16] Also in 2002, it was reported that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (now under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security), was, "moving ahead with plans to create temporary cities that could handle millions of Americans after mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities." Newsmax reported that, "FEMA was seeking bids from three major real estate and/or engineering firms to help prepare for the creation of the emergency cities, using tents and trailers - if an urban area is attacked by NBC (nuclear, chemical or biological) weapons."[17] In 2006, Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, and its subsidiary company, Kellogg-Brown & Root (KBR) received a major contract from the Department of Homeland Security worth $385 million, which was given, "to support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." A press release on KBR's website stated that: The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.[18] Further, it stated that, "The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts."[19] Within two weeks, "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds (an increase of 32 percent over 2006)." As historian and author Peter Dale Scott reported: Both the contract and the budget allocation are in partial fulfillment of an ambitious 10-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named ENDGAME, authorized in 2003. According to a 49-page Homeland Security document on the plan, ENDGAME expands "a mission first articulated in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798."   Its goal is the capability to "remove all removable aliens," including "illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers (required to be retained by law) or potential terrorists."[20] Considering that the government labels anti-war activists, libertarians, progressives, and other peaceful citizens groups as "extremists," "paramilitary members" and "terrorists," this is especially concerning.   In 2008, a former US Congressman wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle in which he warned that, "Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of 'an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs'." He elaborated: Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.[21] As Peter Dale Scott explained: the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist. "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo." Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida.   The order called for "suspension of the Constitution" and "declaration of martial law."[22] More recently, there have been several reported incidents of small towns having major "detention centers" being built in them which remain empty and maintained for the event of an "emergency."   One such facility is being proposed for the City of Italy to build "a detention center for illegal immigrants."[23]   There was also an effort to have a detention center built in Benson City "to house illegal immigrants."[24] A major American prison corporation, Corplan Corrections, "has been at the center of numerous controversies, including a bizarre prison-building scheme in Hardin, Montana that involved a private military force called American Police Force run by an ex-con. The prison cost the small town $27 million but never housed any prisoners." Further, Corplan, "has approached city officials in several towns across the U.S. - Benson, Arizona; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Weslaco, Texas - with a proposal to build a new detention center for immigrant families."[25] These facilities, built under the pretences of housing "illegal immigrants" yet largely remaining empty, could potentially be used to house not only immigrants, but also Muslims and "possibly dissenters" following a major emergency, such as an economic collapse or terrorist attack within the United States.   After all, in World War II, Canada and the United States rounded up Japanese and German immigrants into internment camps.   Again, it becomes evident that the response of power structures to the manifestation of the global political awakening within the United States is to oppress and suppress the people, and with that, undermine democracy itself.       The Prospects of Revolution During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of "violent unrest on the streets."   The head of the IMF warned that, "violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite."[26] Naturally, the IMF director leaves out the fact that he is part of that small elite and that the IMF functions for the benefit of that very same elite. In late December of 2008, "A U.S. Army War College report warn[ed] an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order." The report stated that, "Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities... to defend basic domestic order and human security."[27] Throughout 2009, there was an abundance of civil unrest, protests and even riots all across Europe in response to the economic crisis.   In February of 2009, Obama's intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the economic crisis has become the greatest threat to U.S. national security: I'd like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries ... Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period... And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[28] In other words, the economic crisis poses two major social threats to the "national security" (i.e., imperial status) of the United States.   Of key importance is that America and other western nations may lose control of their colonial possessions and interests in the developing world - Africa, South America and Asia - as the people in those regions, the most "politically awakened" in the world, can cause "regime-threatening instability" as the prospects of riots, rebellion and revolution expose the failure of their national leaders and governance structures.   This would pose an immense threat to the interests of the west in those regions, as they primarily rely upon local nation-states to control the populations and resources. Concurrently, these revolts could spread to the developing world. So western elites are faced with the prospects of possibly losing their control over the world's resources and even their own domestic populations.   The natural reaction, in imperial logic, is to militarize both the foreign and domestic spheres. No wonder then, that in 2008, the highest-ranking general in the United States, "Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ranks the financial crisis as a higher priority and greater risk to security than current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." He explained, "It's a global crisis. And as that impacts security issues, or feeds greater instability, I think it will impact on our national security in ways that we quite haven't figured out yet."[29] The head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) warned that, "The global economic crisis could trigger political unrest equal to that seen during the 1930s." He elaborated, "The crisis today is spreading even faster (than the Great Depression) and affects more countries at the same time."[30] In February of 2009, renowned economic historian and Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, predicted a, "prolonged financial hardship, even civil war, before the 'Great Recession' ends," and that, "The global crisis is far from over, [it] has only just begun, and Canada is no exception," he said while at a speaking event in Canada. He explained, "Policy makers and forecasters who see a recovery next year are probably lying to boost public confidence," while, "the crisis will eventually provoke political conflict." He further explained: There will be blood, in the sense that a crisis of this magnitude is bound to increase political as well as economic [conflict]. It is bound to destabilize some countries. It will cause civil wars to break out, that have been dormant. It will topple governments that were moderate and bring in governments that are extreme. These things are pretty predictable.[31] Even in May of 2009, the head of the World Bank warned that, "the global economic crisis could lead to serious social upheaval," as "there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications."[32] Zbigniew Brzezinski himself warned in February of 2009 that, "There's going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could be even riots!"[33] In March of 2010, Moody's, a major credit ratings agency, warned that "social unrest" is coming to the west, as the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, "are all at risk of soaring debt costs and will have to implement austerity plans that threaten 'social cohesion'."[34] In 2007, a British Defense Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years.   In assessing "Global Inequality", the report stated that over the next 30 years: [T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge... Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.   Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency.   They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[35] Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes of the west: The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples' attachment to particular states.   The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.   Faced by these twin challenges, the world's middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[36]   From the Old World to the New So here we are, in the year 2010, the end of the first decade of the 21st century.   And what a century it has been thus far: 9/11 a recession the war on Afghanistan the "war on terror" the war on Iraq terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid, London and all across the Middle East the war on Somalia the Congo Civil War (the deadliest conflict since World War II, with upwards of 6 million innocent civilians killed since 1996) the Russia-Georgia war the expansion of the war into Pakistan the election of Barack Obama the global economic crisis, ...and here we are. All of human history is the story of the struggle of free humanity - the individual and the collective - against the constructs of power, which sought to dominate and control humanity.   From humanity's origins in Africa, civilizations rose and fell, dominated and decimated. From Ancient Egypt to Greece and Rome, the Chinese dynasties, the Mayans and Aztecs, all sought domination of land and people. The Persian Empire and the Ottoman Empire expanded and controlled vast populations and diverse people; and with the emergence of Capitalism came the emergence of the European powers. For the past 500 years, Europe and America have dominated the world; and in fact, only in the last 65 years has America dominated the globe. The Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending the Thirty Years' War in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands.   This agreement effectively ended the Holy Roman Empire, and marked the emergence of the idea of the modern nation-state. University studies in International Relations begin with the Peace of Westphalia, as it is viewed as the beginning of the international system we know today. Out of this emerged the great European empires: the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, and later the French, British and German empires, which created the first global political economy with the Atlantic Slave Trade, trading weapons and goods in exchange for captured slaves, fueling internal civil wars among the large African empires to feed them a supply of slaves which they then took to the Americas to use as a labour force.   That labour force would produce goods taken back to Europe, traded among the world's empires, and ultimately financing the continued flow of weapons into Africa. It was a triangular trade between Europe, Africa and the Americas. At this time, the notion of 'race' originated through a series of legal decisions made in the colonies. In the 1600s, the colonies in the Americas were made up of white, Indian and black indentured labourers and slaves, both 'un-free blacks and whites, with blacks being a minority, yet they still "exercised basic rights in law."   A problem arose for elites attempting to control the labour class: the un-free native labour force knew the land and could escape easily (so they would later be largely eliminated through genocide); and in the 1660s, the labour class was becoming rebellious, where black and white labourers worked together and rebelled against local elites.   The entire lower class of society was united - regardless of their varied and expansive differences - and they were united against the elites. Thus, a doctrine of 'divide and conquer' was implemented against the psycho-social foundations of the people.[37] The elite, "relaxed the servitude" of the white labourers, and "intensified the bonds of black slavery," and subsequently "introduced a new regime of racial oppression. In doing so, they effectively created the white race - and with it white supremacy." Thus, "the conditions of white and black servants began to diverge considerably after 1660." Following this, legislation would separate white and black slavery, prevent "mixed" marriages, and seek to prevent the procreation of "mixed-race" children.   Whereas before 1660, many black slaves were not indentured for life, this changed as colonial law increasingly, "imposed lifetime bondage for black servants - and, especially significant, the curse of lifetime servitude for their offspring."[38] A central feature of the social construction of this racial divide was "the denial of the right to vote," as most Anglo-American colonies previously allowed free blacks to vote, but this slowly changed throughout the colonies. The ruling class of America was essentially "inventing race."   Thus, "Freedom was increasingly identified with race, not class."[39] In 1648, the nation-state emerged; in 1660, racism was created through legal decisions; and in 1694, the Bank of England was created and the birth of the central banking system took place.   All of these were essentially 'social constructions' - nation, race, currency - in which they are simply ideas that are accepted as reality. A nation is not a physical entity Race has no true basis for discrimination or hierarchy A currency has no actual value They only hold as true because everyone accepts them as true. From this period of immense transition, European imperial nations dominated the world; racism justified their domination, and central banks dominated the empires at home and abroad. The 1800s saw the Industrial Revolution, which instigated the decline of slavery and the emergence of paid labour and hourly wages.   Eventually, the notion of 'race science' emerged within the eugenics movement, originating in Europe, and later migrating to the United States in the late 19th century. This helped justify the 'Scramble for Africa', which began in the 1880s and entailed the European empires formally colonizing the entire continent of Africa, carving it into nations among them, but justifying it on the basis of a racist "civilizing mission." The European imperial age declined with World War I, a battle of empires and economies. This led to the collapse of many European empires as well as the Ottoman and Russian empires, with the emergence of the Soviet Union as well as nation-states in the Middle East. The emergence of fascism took root in the 1920s and 30s, and grew to coalesce in World War II, which led to the ultimate decline of the British and French empires, and the emergence of the American empire. America became the engine of empire for the Atlantic community, Europe and North America. It created and ran international organizations allowing for transnational elites to share power among an increasingly global - an increasingly smaller - group of elites. The World, for nearly fifty years, was defined as a global struggle between Communism and Democracy - between the Soviet Union and the West.   This historical myth hides the face of global domination: a struggle between two blocs for global domination of the world's people and resources. With the end of the Cold War came the emergence of the New World Order, a world in which there was only one global power: the United States.   I was born shortly before the Berlin Wall came down, and I developed a memory only after the Soviet Union collapsed; the only world I know is the one in which the United States has been the only global power. I know only the era of 'globalization' and the promises it made my generation.   Think of the effect upon the youth this great period of transition will have. The history of humanity is one of constant change, sometimes slow and incremental, at other times rapid and expansive. Today, we are in a period in which we are seeing a convergence of never-before-seen global realities. The population of the world has never been so monumentally large - at 6.8 billion - and among the global population, for the first time in human history, there is a true "global political awakening."   This does not mean that everyone is correct in their views, but it does mean that the world's people are thinking and acting - even if incidentally or unknowingly - about the global polity. This is most especially so in the areas where the Atlantic world has dominated for so long, as they have been subjected to poverty, racism, and war like no other people on earth. Their 'awakening' was forced upon them, and the west is now having its awakening forced upon it. At our current position, we are about to undergo a global historical period of transition, the likes of which has never before been seen.   The incremental and slow building 'global political awakening' that emerged around the world in the past century, is reaching a precipice and rapid expansion at the beginning of the 21st century. Global power has never been so centralized, with international institutions and systems of global governance holding authority over several realms of humanity.   We are partaking in global wars seeking to dominate populations and control resources, democracy is eroding in the west, and wealth disparities have never been so great in all of human history. For the first time in the last 500 years, the East has risen - with China and India - as new global powers, rising within the system not against it; marking the first time that nation-states have not risen against the global power, but with the global power. China and India are being brought within a new global political and economic system that is being constructed: a global totalitarian system of continental colonies to a global state.   In 1998, then Secretary-General of NATO, Javier Solana, gave a speech in which he said: It is my general contention that humanity and democracy - two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order - can serve as guideposts in crafting a new international order, better adapted to the security realities, and challenges, of today's Europe.[40] Further, he explained, "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration." Thus, to truly have global power, the international system of nation-states must be 're-imagined' and altered: first, into continental governance structures, and ultimately a global structure.   As Solana said, "In the United Nations, the ideal of a global institution including all nations became a reality," and "the ideal of European integration was set in motion." He elaborated: But an integral part of the evolution of the Atlantic Alliance was the idea of reconciliation: the integration of our militaries, the common project of collective defense, and the willingness to work towards a common approach to defend the Alliance's common values. Unfortunately, also out of the same ashes of the second world war emerged the East-West confrontation that left Europe deeply divided for more than four decades.   As our century comes to an end, we at last have the opportunity to overcome this division and to set free all the creative energies this continent can muster to build the new security order which will lead us into the 21st century.[41] It is a difficult balancing act for global powers - particularly the United States - to manage the integration of China into the 'new world order', while simultaneously both of them compete for control of global resources, located primarily in regions of the world which are experiencing the most rapid and extensive 'awakening'.   The imperial mindset - like that of Brzezinski's - seeks to rationalize global power as being equated with 'global stability', and that without empire, there is only 'chaos'. Thus, imperial logic dictates that America must seek to dominate as much of the world as fast as possible, and hence control global resources, which will allow it to determine the terms of China and other powers' inclusion in the new world order.   This has the potential to spark a global war - a World War III type of scenario between the NATO powers and the China-Russia alliance - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - who seek to share power, not to be dominated. Global populations at home and abroad have never been so challenging to control: global war is inevitable in the imperial mindset.   As Brzezinski himself stated in a speech to Chatham House in London in 2009: But these major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low.   To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[42] In many people's view of the global economic crisis, the problem was 'greed'.   Greed is not the problem, it is but a symptom of the disease that is 'power'; which, like a cancer, expands and kills its host. Humanity is entering what will likely be the most turbulent period in human history.   The future is not yet written; all that is certain is that everything will change. What it comes down to is the greatest human struggle in the history of our small little planet: the struggle of the world's people - in every corner of the world, from every religion, 'race', ethnicity, ideology, language, sex, gender and variation - against a global power elite who control the most advanced, technological, and lethal tools of oppression every conceived. Make no mistake, we are not repeating history, we are making it.       The Power of Ideas Our awakening is the greatest threat to these global elites, and it is our only hope of protecting any notions of freedom, liberty, family, equality and individuality.   It is these notions that have led to and created the greatest developments and ideas in human history. Humanity's best is within these concepts, and its worst is within power. The shame of humanity is within its systems of power, so for humanity to survive we must re-imagine and remodel our global system and global power. We cannot design a society for humanity without taking into consideration human nature. If you build it, they will come. If we keep creating positions of great power, and continually globalize power, it will attract exactly the wrong type of people to those positions of power: the ones that want it and want to abuse the power.   These people are more likely to get to these positions of power because they are willing to do anything to get there, which means that once they have it, they will do anything to maintain and expand it. And so power grows, and the cancer spreads. Imagine if Hitler's rise to power took place not in the era of nation-states, but in the era of the 'global state.'   All that is required is one tyrant, and humanity is nothing if not proof that there are always tyrants in waiting. What is a nation? Is it an army, a flag, an anthem, or a building of government? A nation is an idea - and is constructed by a series of ideas. There is no 'real' border, it is an imaginary line, and everyone in the world pretends they are there, and nation-states (which are really people who are in control of these ideas), govern accordingly.   Now we are in a period in which elites are attempting to re-imagine the international community, to erase the 'idea' of borders, and to ultimately re-program humanity to follow their example.   Social planners seek to control not simply our land, resources and bodies, but most importantly, our minds. World government will be sold to us on the 'ideas' of peace, something all of humanity wants; all save the powerful, for war and conflict is the means through which power is accumulated and society is transformed. True peace will never be possible with a singular global power structure; for once power is globally centralized, what more can the powerful seek to achieve?   Thus, the powerful fight each other for control of the centralized authority, paranoia governs their minds, and distrust and hatred directs their actions. Power subsequently becomes its own worst enemy, as it eats away at its host and destroys the body within which it lives. True peace can only come from human understanding. Free humanity must understand each other if we are to live among each other. We cannot any longer view each other through the lenses of power: through the media, government, economic, and social structures.   These structures are designed with the intent to mislead and misrepresent people, they are illegitimate and must be considered as such. We must view and understand each other on a human level: on ideas of freedom, liberty, family, equality and individually. To achieve that understanding, one realizes that freedom must be for all or none, that liberty is not to be selective, the importance of family, the necessity of equality and the acceptance and celebration of individuality.   With that, peace is inevitable. With power, peace is impossible. Just as elites seek to re-imagine and recreate our world, we too, can do the same. This must begin with the human understanding, where we enter into a new Renaissance or Enlightenment, not western, but global; where the people communicate and interact with each other on a personal basis, not through elite structures.   This must be the aim of the global political awakening: to achieve peace through peaceful means. If everyone in the world simply decided to no longer acknowledge people and positions of power, that power would vanish. If there is no army, because the soldiers decided to no longer recognize the government, there is no one to pull the trigger on people in the street. I think, therefore I am. If I think I am free, I will become free.   But while an individual can do this, it does not work if everyone doesn't do it. This requires all people, everywhere, to work together, talk together, learn together, think together and act together. We can either do this now, or potentially be subdued for decades if not longer. If we do not achieve global peace and freedom for all people, if we do not understand each other, power will win, at least for a while.   What is important to note is that the emergence of a technetronic society reduces the need for people, as technology can watch, listen, control and kill people with the push of a button. We are also in danger of becoming a docile, tranquilized society, lost in drugs - whether recreational or even more notably, pharmaceutical.   We must avoid entering into a 'brave new world', and instead bravely construct a different world. From the militarization of domestic society, it would appear as if we are moving into a world quite reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984, in which the world is divided into a few major regional blocs that war against each other and terrorize their populations through acts of physical terror and total surveillance ("Big Brother").   This is but a phase and evolution into the final stage - the grand idea - or as Aldous Huxley referred to it, "The Ultimate Revolution": the global scientific dictatorship.   That will be the focus of the third and final part in this series.     Endnotes [1] Lev Grossman, Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away. Time Magazine: September 3, 2006: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html [2] Andrew Gavin Marshall, State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq. Global Research: June 25, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9447; Andrew Gavin Marshall, Breaking Iraq and Blaming Iran. Global Research: July 3, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9450 ; Andrew Gavin Marshall, Operation Gladio: CIA Network of "Stay Behind" Secret Armies. Global Research: July 17, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9556 ; also see: Daniele Ganser, NATO's secret armies: operation Gladio and terrorism in Western Europe, (Frank Cass: 2005). [3] Chris Steller, Minneapolis Federal Reserve draws third protest in six months. The Minnesota Independent: April 25, 2009: http://minnesotaindependent.com/33400/end-the-fed-minneapolis [4] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Transnational Homeland Security State and the Decline of Democracy. Global Research: April 15, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18676 [5] Peter Dale Scott, Supplanting the United States Constitution: War, National Emergency and "Continuity of Government". Global Research: May 19, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19238 ; Peter Dale Scott, Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War. Global Research: January 8, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11681 [6] Marvin R. Shanken, General Tommy Franks: An exclusive interview with America's top general in the war on terrorism. Cigar Aficionado Magazine: December 1, 2003: http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,201,00.html [7] Amy Goodman, Broadcast Exclusive: Declassified Docs Reveal Military Operative Spied on WA Peace Groups, Activist Friends Stunned. Democracy Now! July 28, 2009: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military [8] Joshua Rhett Miller, 'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members. Fox News: March 23, 2009: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/ [9] Joshua Rhett Miller, 'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members. Fox News: March 23, 2009: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/ [10] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Tyrants and Traitors: The "Evolution by Stealth" of a North American Union. Global Research: August 7, 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6475 [11] Joshua Rhett Miller, 'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members. Fox News: March 23, 2009: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/ [12] Stephen C. Webster, Missouri retracts police memo which labeled activists as 'militia'. The Raw Story: March 26, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_retracts_police_memo_which_labeled_0326.html [13] Stephen C. Webster, Fusion center declares nation's oldest universities possible terror threat. The Raw Story: April 6, 2009: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Virginia_terror_assessment_targets_enormous_crosssection_0406.html [14] Press Release, ACLU Calls For Internal DHS Investigations On Fusion Centers. ACLU: April 1, 2009: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-calls-internal-dhs-investigations-fusion-centers [15] Press Release, ACLU Calls For Internal DHS Investigations On Fusion Centers. ACLU: April 1, 2009: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-calls-internal-dhs-investigations-fusion-centers [16] Jonathan Turley, Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision. Los Angeles Times: August 14, 2002: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm [17] Christopher Ruddy, FEMA's Plan for Mass Destruction Attacks: Of Course It's True. Newsmax: August 6, 2002: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/6/183147.shtml [18] Press Release, KBR Awarded U.S. Department of Homeland Security Contingency Support Project for Emergency Support Services. KBR: January 24, 2006: http://www.kbr.com/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2006/01/24/KBR-Awarded-US-Department-of-Homeland-Security-Contingency-Support-Project-for-Emergency-Support-Services/ [19] Ibid. [20] Peter Dale Scott, 10-Year U.S. Strategic Plan For Detention Camps Revives Proposals From Oliver North. New American Media: February 26, 2006: http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=9c2d6a5e75201d7e3936ddc65cdd56a9 [21] Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg, Rule by fear or rule by law? The San Francisco Chronicle: February 4, 2008: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-02-04/opinion/17140386_1_martial-law-kbr-national-defense-authorization-act [22] Peter Dale Scott, Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps. Global Research: February 6, 2006: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1897 [23] Cindy Sutherland, Italy City Council hears proposal for commercial development. Italy Neotribune: May 18, 2010: http://www.italyneotribune.com/stories/italy-city-council-hears-proposal-for-commercial-development [24] Thelma Grimes, Council 'nay' on detention center; City wants project funding assurance. Benson News: May 11, 2010: http://www.bensonnews-sun.com/articles/2010/05/12/news/news03.txt [25] Forrest Wilder, For the Lucios, Private Prison Consulting is a Family Affair. Texas Observer: April 23, 2010: http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/for-the-lucios-private-prison-consulting-is-a-family-affair [26] Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis [27] Military.com, Study: DoD May Act On US Civil Unrest. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services: December 29, 2008: http://www.military.com/news/article/study-dod-may-act-on-us-civil-unrest.html [28] Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html [29] Tom Philpott, MILITARY UPDATE: Official: Financial crisis a bigger security risk than wars. Colorado Springs Gazette: February 1, 2009: http://www.gazette.com/articles/mullen-47273-military-time.html [30] AFP, WTO chief warns of looming political unrest. AFP: February 7, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpC1Q4gXJfp6EwMl1rMGrmA_a7ZA [31] Heather Scoffield, 'There will be blood'. The Globe and Mail: February 23, 2009: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article973785.ece [32] BBC, World Bank warns of social unrest. BBC News: May 24, 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8066037.stm [33] Press TV, Economic Crisis: Brzezinski warns of riots in US. Global Research: February 21, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12392 [34] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Moody's fears social unrest as AAA states implement austerity plans. The Telegraph: March 15, 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7450468/Moodys-fears-social-unrest-as-AAA-states-implement-austerity-plans.html [35] DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 3 [36] Ibid, page 81. [37] Andrew Gavin Marshall, War, Racism and the Empire of Poverty. Global Research: March 22, 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18263 [38] Ibid. [39] Ibid. [40] Dr. Javier Solana, "Securing Peace in Europe", NATO speech: November 12, 1998: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1998/s981112a.htm [41] Ibid. [42] Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President," International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 54     Part 3 New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship July 5, 2010 Introduction We are in the midst of the most explosive development in all of human history.   Humanity is experiencing a simultaneously opposing and conflicting geopolitical transition, the likes of which has never before been anticipated or experienced. Historically, the story of humanity has been the struggle between the free-thinking individual and structures of power controlled by elites that seek to dominate land, resources and people.   The greatest threat to elites at any time - historically and presently - is an awakened, critically thinking and politically stimulated populace.   This threat has manifested itself throughout history, in different places and at different times. Ideas of freedom, democracy, civil and human rights, liberty and equality have emerged in reaction and opposition to power structures and elite systems of control.         The greatest triumphs of the human mind - whether in art, science or thought - have arisen out of and challenged great systems of power and control.   The greatest of human misery and tragedy has arisen out of the power structures and systems that elites always seek to construct and manage. War, genocide, persecution and human degradation are directly the result of decisions made by those who control the apparatus of power, whether the power manifests itself as intellectual, ecclesiastical, spiritual, militaristic, or scientific.   The most malevolent and ruthless power is that over the free human mind: if one controls how one thinks, they control the individual itself.   The greatest human achievements are where individuals have broken free the shackles that bind the mind and let loose the inherent and undeniable power that lies in each and every individual on this small little planet. Currently, our world is at the greatest crossroads our species has ever experienced. We are in the midst of the first truly global political awakening, in which for the first time in all of human history, all of mankind is politically awakened and stirring; in which whether inadvertently or intentionally, people are thinking and acting in political terms.   This awakening is most evident in the developing world, having been made through personal experience to be acutely aware of the great disparities, disrespect, and domination inherent in global power structures. The awakening is spreading increasingly to the west itself, as the majority of the people living in the western developed nations are thrown into poverty and degradation.   The awakening will be forced upon all people all over the world. Nothing, no development, ever in human history, has posed such a monumental threat to elite power structures. This awakening is largely driven by the Technological Revolution, which through technology and electronics, in particular mass media and the Internet, have made it so that people across the world are able to become aware of global issues and gain access to information from around the world.   The Technological Revolution, thus, has fostered an Information Revolution which has, in turn, fed the global political awakening. Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has led to another unique and unprecedented development in human history, and one that is diametrically opposed, yet directly related to the global political awakening.   For the first time in human history, free humanity is faced with the dominating threat of a truly global elite, who have at their hands the technology to impose a truly global system of control: a global scientific dictatorship. The great danger is that through the exponential growth in scientific techniques, elites will use these great new powers to control and dominate all of humanity in such a way that has never before been experienced. Through all of human history, tyrants have used coercive force and terror to control populations. With the Technological Revolution, elites increasingly have the ability to control the very biology and psychology of the individual to a point where it may not be necessary to impose a system of terror, but rather where the control is implemented on a much deeper, psychological, subliminal and individual biological manner.   While terror can prevent people from opposing power for a while, the scientific dictatorship can create a personal psycho-social condition in which the individual comes to love his or her own slavery; in which, like a mentally inferior pet, they are made to love their leaders and accept their servitude. So we are presented with a situation in which humanity is faced with both the greatest threat and the greatest hope that we have ever collectively experienced in our short human history.   This essay, the third part in the series, "The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom," examines the ideas behind the global scientific dictatorship, and how it may manifest itself presently and in the future, with a particular focus on the emergence of 'new eugenics' as a system of mass control. Free humanity faces the most monumental decision we have ever been presented with: do we feed and fuel the global political awakening into a true human psycho-social revolution of the mind, creating a new global political economy which empowers and liberates all of humanity, or... do we fall silently into a 'brave new world' of a global scientific oppression, the likes of which have never before been experienced, and whose dominance would never be more difficult to challenge and overcome? We can either find a true freedom, or descend into a deep despotism. We are not powerless before this great ideational beast. We have, at our very fingertips the ability to use technology to our benefit and to re-shape the world so that it benefits the people of the world and not simply the powerful.   It must be freedom for all or freedom for none.       What is the 'Scientific Dictatorship'? In 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote his dystopian novel, "Brave New World," in which he looked at the emergence of the scientific dictatorships of the future.   In his 1958 essay, "Brave New World Revisited," Huxley examined how far the world had come in that short period since his book was published, and where the world was heading.   Huxley wrote that: In politics the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines. The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism.[1] Huxley explained that, "The future dictator's subjects will be painlessly regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers," and he quotes one "advocate of this new science" as saying that, "The challenge of social engineering in our time is like the challenge of technical engineering fifty years ago. If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of social engineers." Thus, proclaims Huxley, "The twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World."[2] In 1952, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social critic wrote the book, "The Impact of Science on Society," in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological revolution, was changing and would come to change society.   In his book, Russell explained that: I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study... This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda.   Of these the most influential is what is called 'education'. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part. What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler's with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis.   We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.[3] Russell went on to analyze the question of whether a 'scientific dictatorship' is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated: Apart from the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be unstable. After all, most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible.   And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class.   I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.[4] Drawing on the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley - of people loving their servitude - Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific dictatorship: It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished...   Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.   Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[5] Russell explained that, "The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy."[6] Russell later proclaimed in his book that, "a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government."[7] He elaborated: Unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself believe that this is possible.   The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible - that is until science is extinct.[8] Russell explains that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."[9] In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley spoke about the real world becoming the 'Brave New World' nightmare he envisaged. Huxley spoke primarily of the 'Ultimate Revolution' that focuses on 'behavioural controls' of people.   Huxley said of the 'Ultimate Revolution': In the past, we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. There's been the political revolution, the economic revolution... the religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings you did achieve - at one remove - an effect upon the human being. Today, we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the 'Ultimate Revolution' - the 'Final Revolution' - where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature.   The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and error - finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonments, constraints of various kinds... If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well it seems to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy - who have always existed and will presumably always exist - to get people to love their servitude. This is the ultimate in malevolent revolution... There seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . . I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future - and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world - will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the 'brave new world' pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.   That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living - the state of servitude - if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.[10] In 1961, President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the military-industrial complex: the interconnected web of industry, the military, and politics creating the conditions for constant war.   In that same speech, Eisenhower warned America and the world of another important change in society: Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.   Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.[11] In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about "the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society," in the "technetronic revolution"; explaining: Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.   Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.[12]     New Eugenics Many sciences and large social movements are directed by the same foundations and money that financed the eugenics movement in the early 20th century.   The Rockefeller foundations, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Harriman, and Morgan money that flowed into eugenics led directly to 'scientific racism,' and ultimately the Holocaust in World War II.[13]   Following the Holocaust, Hitler had discredited the eugenics movement he admired so much in America. So the movement branched off into forming several other social engineering projects: population control genetics environmentalism The same foundations that laid the foundations for eugenic ideology - the belief in a biological superiority and right to rule (justifying their power) - then laid the foundations for these and other new social and scientific movements. Major environmental and conservation organizations were founded with Rockefeller and Ford Foundation money,[14] which then continued to be central sources of funding to this day; while the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley's brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society.   Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization's first president.   Prince Bernhard also happened to be one of the founders of the elite global think tank, the Bilderberg Group, which he co-founded in 1954; and he was previous to that, a member of the Nazi Party and an SS officer.[15] Sir Julian Huxley also happened to be the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).   In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled, "UNESCO: It's Purpose and its Philosophy."   In it, he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO: is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species...[16]   At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved.   Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable...[17] Still another and quite different type of borderline subject is that of eugenics. It has been on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific, constantly in danger of becoming a pseudo- science based on preconceived political ideas or on assumptions of racial or class superiority and inferiority.   It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics...[18] It is worth pointing out that the applications of science at once bring us up against social problems of various sorts. Some of these are direct and obvious. Thus the application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values- what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future?[19] On page 6 of the UNESCO document, Sir Julian Huxley wrote that, "in order to carry out its work, an organization such as Unesco needs not only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate, a definite line of approach to its problems."[20] While much of the language of equality and education sounds good and benevolent, it is based upon a particular view of humanity as an irrational, emotionally driven organism which needs to be controlled.   Thus, the 'principle of equality' becomes "The Fact of Inequality": Finally we come to a difficult problem-that of discovering how we can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological fact of human inequality... The democratic principle of equality, which is also Unesco's, is a principle of equality of opportunity-that human beings should be equal before the law, should have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for freedom of expression and movement and thought.   The biological absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them. There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms.   However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco's task.[21] Many of these "genetic inequalities" revolve around the idea of intellectual superiority: the idea that there is no equality among the intellectually inferior and superior.   That inequality is derived from human biology - from genetics; it is a "human fact." It just so happens that elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite.   So eugenics must be employed, as the UENSCO paper explains, to address the issues of raising human welfare to a manageable level; that the time will come where elites will need to address the whole of humanity as a single force, and with a single voice. Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity.   Ultimately, eugenics is about the engineering of inequality.   In genetics, elites found a way to take discrimination down to the DNA.       Genetics as Eugenics Award-winning author and researcher, Edwin Black, wrote an authoritative history of eugenics in his book, "War Against the Weak," in which he explained that, "the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure," with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation.[22] While not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement "claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment."[23] In a 2001 issue of Science Magazine, Garland Allen, a scientific historian, wrote about genetics as a modern form of eugenics. He began by citing a 1998 article in Time Magazine which proclaimed that, "Personality, temperament, even life choices. New studies show it's mostly in your genes." Garland explains the implications: Coat-tailing on major advances in genetic biotechnology, these articles portray genetics as the new "magic bullet" of biomedical science that will solve many of our recurrent social problems. The implication is that these problems are largely a result of the defective biology of individuals or even racial or ethnic groups.   If aggressive or violent behavior is in the genes, so the argument goes, then the solution lies in biomedical intervention - gene therapy in the distant future and pharmacotherapy (replacing the products of defective genes with drug substitutes) in the immediate future. By promoting such claims, are we heading toward a new version of eugenics? Are we getting carried away with the false promise of a technological fix for problems that really lie in the structure of our society?   My answer to these questions is "yes," but with some important qualifications that derive from the different historical and social contexts of the early 1900s and the present... The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles Darwin. It meant to him "truly- or well-born," and referred to a plan to encourage the "best people" in society to have more children (positive eugenics) and to discourage or prevent the "worst elements" of society from having many, if any, children (negative eugenics).   Eugenics became solidified into a movement in various countries throughout the world in the first three decades of the 20th century, but nowhere more solidly than in the United States and, after World War I, in Germany.[24] While genetic traits such as eye color and the like were proven to be hereditary, "eugenicists were more interested in the inheritance of social behaviors, intelligence, and personality." Further: American eugenicists also strove to disseminate the results of eugenic research to the public and to lawmakers. They supported the idea of positive eugenics [encouraging the 'best' to become better], but focused most of their energies on negative eugenics [to encourage the 'worst' to become fewer].   Eugenicists wrote hundreds of articles for popular magazines, published dozens of books for the general (and some for the scientific) reader, prepared exhibits for schools and state fairs, made films, and wrote sermons and novels.[25] American eugenicists, fully backed by the financial support of the major American philanthropic fortunes, passed eugenics legislation in over 27 states across the United States, often in the form of forced sterilizations for the mentally 'inferior', so that, "By the 1960s, when most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes." As Garland Allen wrote: For the wealthy benefactors that supported eugenics, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, and Kellogg philanthropies, eugenics provided a means of social control in a period of unprecedented upheaval and violence. It was these same economic elites and their business interests who introduced scientific management and organizational control into the industrial sector... [In 1994] we saw the resurrection of claims that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races, leading to different socio-economic status. Claims about the genetic basis for criminality, manic depression, risk-taking, alcoholism, homosexuality, and a host of other behaviors have also been rampant in scientific and especially popular literature. Much of the evidence for such claims is as controversial today as in the past. We seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept what we view as imperfection in ourselves and others. As health care costs skyrocket, we are coming to accept a bottom-line, cost-benefit analysis of human life. This mind-set has serious implications for reproductive decisions. If a health maintenance organization (HMO) requires in utero screening, and refuses to cover the birth or care of a purportedly "defective" child, how close is this to eugenics?   If gene or drug therapy is substituted for improving our workplace or school environments, our diets and our exercise practices, how close is this to eugenics? Significant social changes are expensive, however.   If eugenics means making reproductive decisions primarily on the basis of social cost, then we are well on that road.[26] Genetics unleash an unprecedented power into human hands: the power of unnatural creation and the manipulation of biology.   We do not yet fully understand nor comprehend the implications of genetic manipulation in our food, plants, animals, and in humans, themselves. What is clear is that we are changing the very biology of our environment and ourselves in it. While there are many clear and obvious benefits to genetic technology, such as the ability to enhance ailing senses (sight, hearing, etc.) and cure diseases, the positive must be examined and discussed with the negative repercussions of genetic manipulation so as to better direct the uses of this powerful technology. Debates on issues such as stem-cell research and genetic manipulation often focus on a science versus religion aspect, where science seeks to benevolently cure mankind of its ailments and religion seeks to preserve the sanctity of 'creation'.   This is an irrational and narrow manner to conduct a real debate on this monumental issue, painting the issue as black and white, which it most certainly is not. Science can be used for good as well as bad, and human history, most especially that of the 20th century, is nothing if not evidence for that fact. Incredible scientific ingenuity went into the creation of great weapons; the manipulation of the atom to kill millions in an instant, or the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons.   The problem with the interaction of science and power is that with such great power comes the temptation to use and abuse it. If the ability to create a weapon like an atom bomb seems possible, most certainly there are those who seek to make it probable. Where there is temptation, there is human weakness. So while genetics can be used for benevolent purposes and for the betterment of humankind, so too can it be used to effectively create a biological caste system, where in time it would be feasible to see a break in the human race, where as human advancement technologies become increasingly available, their use is reserved to the elite so that there comes a time where there is a biological separation in the human species.   Oliver Curry, an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics predicted that, "the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000" and that, "The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures."[27] Such was the plot of H.G. Wells' classic book, "The Time Machine," who was himself, a prominent eugenicist at the turn of the 20th century. While this would be a long time from now, its potential results from the decisions we make today.       Population Control as Eugenics Not only was the field of genetics born of eugenics, and heavily financed by the same monied-interests that seek social control; but so too was the field of population control.   In environmental literature and rhetoric, one concept that has emerged over the years as playing a significant part is that of population control. Population is seen as an environmental issue because the larger the population, the more resources it consumes and land it occupies. In this concept, the more people there are the worse the environment becomes.   Thus, programs aimed at controlling population growth are often framed in an environmentalist lens. There is also a distinctly radical element in this field, which views population growth not simply as an environmental concern, but which frames people, in general, as a virus that must be eradicated if the earth is to survive. However, in the view of elites, population control is more about controlling the people than saving the environment. Elites have always been drawn to population studies that have, in many areas, helped construct their worldview. Concerns about population growth really took hold with Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century.   In 1798, Malthus wrote a "theory on the nature of poverty," and he, "called for population control by moral restraint," citing charity as a promotion of "generation-to-generation poverty and simply made no sense in the natural scheme of human progress." Thus, the idea of 'charity' became immoral.   The eugenics movement attached itself to Malthus' theory regarding the "rejection of the value of helping the poor."[28] The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of "Social Darwinism", which was, "the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act."[29] This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege. Francis Galton later coined the term "eugenics" to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the 'genetically unfit' "would have to be wiped away," using tactics such as, "segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia - and ultimately extermination."[30]   The actual science of eugenics was lacking extensive evidence, and ultimately Galton "hoped to recast eugenics as a religious doctrine," which was "to be taken on faith without proof."[31] As the quest to re-brand "eugenics" was under way, a 1943 edition of Eugenical News published an article titled "Eugenics After the War," which cited Charles Davenport, a major founder and progenitor of eugenics, in his vision of, "a new mankind of biological castes with master races in control and slave races serving them."[32] A 1946 article in Eugenical News stated that, "Population, genetics, [and] psychology, are the three sciences to which the eugenicist must look for the factual material on which to build an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and to develop and defend practical eugenics proposals."[33] In the post-war period, emerging in the 1950s and going into the 1960s, the European colonies were retracting as nations of the 'Third World' were gaining political independence.   This reinforced support for population control in many circles, as, "For those who benefited most from the global status quo, population control measures were a far more palatable alternative to ending Third World poverty or promoting genuine economic development."[34] In 1952, "John D. Rockefeller 3rd convened a group of scientists to discuss the implications of the dramatic demographic change. They met in Williamsburg, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and after two and a half days agreed on the need for a new institution that could provide solid science to guide governments and individuals in addressing population questions."[35] That new institution was to become the Population Council. Six of the Council's ten founding members were eugenicists.[36] According to the Population Council's website, it, "did not itself espouse any form of population policy. Instead, through grants to individuals and institutions, it invested in strengthening the indigenous capacity of countries and regions to conduct population research and to develop their own policies. The Council also funded seminal work in U.S. universities and further developed its own in-house research expertise in biomedicine, public health, and social science."[37] In 2008, Matthew Connelly, a professor at Columbia University, wrote a book called, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population," in which he critically analyzes the history of the population control movement.   He documents the rise of the field through the eugenics movement: In 1927 a Rockefeller-funded study of contraception sought, "some simple measure which will be available for the wife of the slum-dweller, the peasant, or the coolie, though dull of mind." In 1935 one representative told India's Council of State that population control was a necessity for the masses, adding that "it is not what they want, but what is good for them."   The problem with the natives was that "they are born too much and they don't die enough," a public-health official in French Indochina stated in 1936.[38] Connelly's general thesis was, "how some people have long tried to redesign world population by reducing the fertility of other's." Further: Connelly examines population control as a global transnational movement because its main advocates and practitioners aimed to reduce world population through global governance and often viewed national governments as a means to this end. Fatal Misconceptions is therefore an intricate account of networks of influential individuals, international organizations, NGOs, and national governments.[39] As one review in the Economist pointed out, "Much of the evil done in the name of slowing population growth had its roots in an uneasy coalition between feminists, humanitarians and environmentalists, who wished to help the unwillingly fecund, and the racists, eugenicists and militarists who wished to see particular patterns of reproduction, regardless of the desires of those involved." The Economist further wrote: As the world population soared, the population controllers came to believe they were fighting a war, and there would be collateral damage. Millions of intra-uterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility.   "Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things," said a participant at a conference on the devices organized in 1962 by the Population Council, a research institute founded by John D. Rockefeller, "particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilizing but not lethal."   In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."[40] A review in the New York Review of Books pointed out that this movement coincided a great deal with the feminist movement in advancing women's reproductive rights.   However, "these benefits were seen by many US family planning officials as secondary to the goal of reducing the absolute numbers of people in developing countries. The urgency of what came to be known as the "population control movement" contributed to a climate of coercion and led to a number of serious human rights abuses, especially in Asian countries."[41] Dominic Lawson, writing a review of Connelly's book for The Sunday Times, explained that: the population-control movement was bankrolled by America's biggest private fortunes - the Ford family foundation, John D Rockefeller III, and Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble). These gentlemen shared not just extreme wealth but a common anxiety: the well-to-do and clever (people like them, obviously) were now having much smaller families than their ancestors, but the great unwashed - Chinamen! Indians! Negroes! - were reproducing themselves in an irresponsible manner. What they feared was a kind of Darwinism in reverse - the survival of the unfittest.[42] As the New Scientist reported, while contraceptives and women's fertility rights were being expanded, "For much of the past half-century, population control came first and human rights had to be sacrificed." Further, the New Scientist wrote that Connelly, "lays bare the dark secrets of an authoritarian neo-Malthusian ethos that created an international population agenda built around control." One such horrific notion was, "the official policies that made it acceptable to hand out food aid to famine victims only if the women agreed to be sterilized."[43] In a sad irony, this seemingly progressive movement for women's rights actually had the effect of resulting in a humanitarian disaster, disproportionately affecting women of the developing world. In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote his widely influential book, 'The Population Bomb,' "in which he predicted that global overpopulation would cause massive famines as early as the 1970s."[44] In his book, he refers to mankind as a "cancer" upon the world: A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.   The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.[45] The American political elite fully embraced this population paradigm of viewing the world and relations with the rest of the world.   President Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying, "I'm not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems," while his successor, Richard Nixon, was quoted as saying, "population control is a must... population control must go hand in hand with aid."[46] Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank and former Secretary of Defense in the Johnson administration, said that he opposed World Bank programs financing health care, "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."[47] Ehrlich was also influential in tracking India's rapid population growth into the 1970s.   The rapid population growth in India was attributed at the time to the result of the public health system the British had set up under the colonial government, as well as the fact that, as a means to maintaining a relationship of dependence with Britain, the British had discouraged industrialization in India.   As famine was around the corner in India, "President Johnson used food aid to pressure the Indian government to meet its family planning targets," and "By the early 1970s, Bangladesh was spending one third of its entire health budget on family planning and India was spending 60 percent."[48] Further: [B]etween the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs [intrauterine devices], as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported.[49] The Population Council knowingly sent un-sterile IUDs to India, and in the 1970s, nearly half a million women in forty-two developing countries were treated with defective IUDs that "heightened the risk of infection and uterine perforation," after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had "quietly bought up thousands of the devices at a discount for distribution overseas."   Then sterilization was introduced as a means for "keeping the quotas" on population control in India, as, "sterilization was made a condition for receiving land allocations and water for irrigation, as well as electricity, rickshaw licenses, and medical care." A Swedish diplomat touring a Swedish/World Bank population program at the time was quoted as saying, "Obviously the stories... on how young and unmarried men are more or less dragged to the sterilization premises are true in far too many cases."[50] In 1967, the UN Fund for Population Activities was created, and in 1971, "the General Assembly acknowledged that UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] should play a leading role within the UN system in promoting population programs."[51] In 1970, Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, known as the Rockefeller Commission, for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller 3rd.   In 1972, the final report was delivered to Nixon. Among the members of the Commission (besides Rockefeller) were David E. Bell, Vice President of the Ford Foundation, and Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council.   Among the conclusions were that, "Population growth is one of the major factors affecting the demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment in the United States. The further we look into the future, the more important population becomes," and that, "From an environmental and resource point of view, there are no advantages from further growth." Further, the report warned: The American future cannot be isolated from what is happening in the rest of the world. There are serious problems right now in the distribution of resources, income, and wealth, among countries. World population growth is going to make these problems worse before they get better. The United States needs to undertake much greater efforts to understand these problems and develop international policies to deal with them.[52] In 1974, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 was issued under the direction of US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, otherwise known as "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests."   Among the issues laid out in the memorandum was that, "Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries]," and "The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions." Further, "rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production." The report plainly stated that, "there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values."[53] The memorandum lays out key policy recommendations for dealing with the "crisis" of overpopulation.   They stated that, "our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000," and that this strategy "will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective [and] U.S. leadership is essential." They suggested a concentration on specific countries: India Bangladesh Pakistan Nigeria Mexico Indonesia Brazil the Philippines Thailand Egypt Turkey Ethiopia Colombia [54] They recommended the "Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning," as well as "Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology," and "Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline."   The memorandum even specifically mentioned that, "We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs [Lesser Developed Countries] of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs."[55] Essentially, NSSM 200 made population control a key strategy in US foreign policy, specifically related to aid and development. In other words, it was eugenics as foreign policy. In 1975, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared martial law.   Her son Sanjay was appointed as the nation's chief population controller. Sanjay "proceeded to flatten slums and then tell the residents that they could get a new house if they would agree to be sterilized. Government officials were given sterilization quotas. Within a year, six million Indian men and two million women were sterilized. At least 2,000 Indians died as a result of botched sterilization operations." However, the following year there was an election, and Indira Gandhi's government was thrown out of power, with that issue playing a major factor.[56] Next, however, "China became the major focus of the population control movement, which "offered technical assistance to China's "one child" policy of 1978-83, even helping to pay for computers that allowed Chinese officials to track "birth permits," the official means by which the government banned families from having more than one child and required the aborting of additional children."[57] Further: Even China's draconian population programs received some support in the 1980s from the US-funded International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund. Before China launched its infamous "One Child Policy," concerns were being raised about its "voluntary" family planning program.   In 1981, Chinese and American newspapers reported that "vehicles transporting Cantonese women to hospitals for abortions were 'filled with wailing noises.' Some pregnant women were reportedly 'handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig's baskets.'" After 1983, coercion became official Chinese policy. "All women with one child were to be inserted with a stainless-steel, tamper-resistant IUD, all parents with two or more children were to be sterilized, and all unauthorized pregnancies aborted," according to the One Child Policy.   During this time, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund continued to support China's nongovernmental Family Planning Association, even though some of its top officials also worked for the government.[58] The UN was not a passive participant in population control measures, as it actively supported these harsh programs, and in many cases, rewarded governments for their vicious tactics in reducing population growth: In 1983, Xinzhong Qian and Indira Gandhi were awarded the first United Nations Population Award to recognize and reward their accomplishments in limiting the population growth in China and India in the previous decade. During the 1970s, officials in these countries had launched extremely ambitious population programs that were supposed to improve the quality of the population and halt its growth. The measures used were harsh.   For example, slum clearance resulting in the eradication of whole urban neighborhoods and the widespread sterilization of their inhabitants was an important part of India's 'Emergency' campaign. In Delhi, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes in events that resulted in numerous clashes, arrests, and deaths, while a total of eight million sterilizations were recorded in India in 1976.[59] Horrifically, "between the 1960s and 1980s, millions of people in India and other Asian countries were sterilized or had IUDs, as well as other contraceptives, inserted in unhygienic conditions. Numerous cases of uterine perforation, excessive bleeding, infections, and even death were reported, but these programs made little effort to treat these conditions, or even determine their frequency, so we don't know precisely how common they were."[60] In the late 1980s, revelations in Brazil uncovered the NSSM 200 in Brazil since its implementation in 1975 under the Ford Presidency.   An official government investigation was launched, and it was discovered that, "an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized."   Further, the programs of sterilization, undertaken by a number of international organizations, were coordinated under the guidance of USAID.[61] At the UN's 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo, Third World delegates to the conference emphasized the need for development policies as opposed to demographic policies; that the focus must be on development, not population. This was essentially a setback for the radical population control movement; however, it wasn't one they couldn't work around. There was still a great deal of support among Western elites and co-opted developing world elites for the aims of population control.   As Connelly articulated: It appealed to the rich and powerful because, with the spread of emancipatory movements and the integration of markets, it began to appear easier and more profitable to control populations than to control territory. That's why opponents were correct in viewing it as another chapter in the unfinished history of imperialism.[62] It was around this point that the population control movement, while continuing on its overall aims of curbing population growth of Third World nations, began to further merge itself with the environmental movement.   While always working alongside the environmental movement, this period saw the emergence of a more integrated approach to policy agendas.       Environmentalism as Eugenics Michael Barker extensively covered the connection between the Rockefeller and Ford foundations in funding the environmental movement in the academic journal, Capitalism Nature Socialism.   As Barker noted, following World War II, the public became increasingly concerned with the environment as the "chemical-industrial complex" grew at an astounding rate.[63] Since Rockefeller interests were heavily involved in the chemical industry, the rising trend in environmental thought and concern had to quickly be controlled and steered in a direction favorable to elite interests. Two important organizations in shaping the environmental movement were the Conservation Foundation and Resources for the Future, which largely relied upon Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding, and both conservation organizations had interestingly helped to "launch an explicitly pro-corporate approach to resource conservation."[64]   Laurance Rockefeller served as a trustee of the Conservation Foundation, and donated $50,000 yearly throughout the 50s and 60s. Further, the Conservation Foundation was founded by Fairfield Osborn, whose cousin, Frederick Osborn, became another prominent voice in conservation.[65] Frederick Osborn was also working with the Rockefeller's Population Council and was President of the American Eugenics Society. In 1952, the Ford Foundation created the organization Resources for the Future (RFF), (the same year that the Rockefellers created the Population Council), and the original founders were also "John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s chief advisors on conservation matters."   Laurance Rockefeller joined the board of the RFF in 1958, and the RFF got $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1970.[66] The Ford Foundation would also go on to create the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.[67]   McGeorge Bundy, who was President of the Ford Foundation from 1966 until 1979, once stated that, "everything the foundation did could be regarded as 'making the world safe for capitalism'."[68] Certainly one of the pre-eminent, if not the most prominent environmental organizations in the world is the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF).   The WWF was founded on September 11, 1961, by Sir Julian Huxley, the first Director General of the UN organization, UNESCO.[69] Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62.   In the biography of Julian Huxley on the British Eugenics Society's website (now known as the Galton Institute - a genetics research center), it stated that, "Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race," and that, "A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace, as the extinction of the dinosaurs gave the mammals their chance to take over the world. It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome. Like the small mammals in dinosaur times they must await their opportunity."[70] In 1962, Rachel Carson, an American marine biologist, published her seminal work, Silent Spring, which has long been credited with helping launch the modern environmental movement.   Her book was largely based around the criticism of pesticides as harmful to the environment and human and animal health. Of particular note, she is seen as being the starting force for the campaign against DDT. Carson died in 1964, but her legacy was set in stone by the emerging environmental movement. The Environmental Defense Fund was founded in 1967 with the specific aim to ban DDT. Some of its initial funding came from the Ford Foundation.[71]   This also spurred the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an official US government agency, in 1970. In 1972, the EPA banned the use of DDT in the United States.   Since this time, "DDT prohibitions have been expanded and enforced by NGO pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of economic sanctions by foundations, nations and international aid agencies."[72] DDT is widely regarded as a carcinogen, and most have never questioned the banning of DDT until understanding the effects of DDT usage beyond the environmental aspect.   In particular, we need to look at Africa to understand the significant role of DDT and why we need to re-evaluate its potential usage, weighing the pros and cons of doing so. We must bring in the "human element" and balance that out with the "environmental element" instead of just simply writing off the human aspect to the issue. The World Health Organization (WHO) said in 2000, that, "malaria infected over 300 million people. It killed nearly 2,000,000 - most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Over half the victims are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day," and that, "Since 1972, over 50 million people have died from this dreaded disease. Many are weakened by AIDS or dysentery, but actually die of malaria." In 2002 alone, 80,000 Ugandans died from malaria, half of which were children.[73]   The fact is, that: No other chemical comes close to DDT as an affordable, effective way to repel mosquitoes from homes, exterminate any that land on walls, and disorient any that are not killed or repelled, largely eliminating their urge to bite in homes that are treated once or twice a year with tiny amounts of this miracle insecticide.[74] Donald Roberts, Professor of Tropical Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, explained that, "DDT is long-acting; the alternatives are not," and that, ultimately, when it comes to the issue of poor countries and poor people, "DDT is cheap; the alternatives are not. End of Story."[75] Richard Tren, President of Africa Fighting Malaria, said that, "In the 60 years since DDT was first introduced, not a single scientific paper has been able to replicate even one case of actual human harm from its use." At the end of World War II, DDT was used on nearly every concentration camp survivor to prevent typhus, and the, "widespread use of DDT in Europe and the United States played vital roles in eradicating malaria and typhus on both continents." Further, in 1979, a World Health Organization (WHO) review of DDT use could not find, "any possible adverse effects of DDT," and said it was the "safest pesticide used for residual spraying and vector control programs."[76] However, organizations such as the WHO, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the World Bank, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and a variety of others still remained adamantly opposed to the use of DDT. While DDT is not outright banned, it is extremely difficult to have it used in places like Africa due to funding.   The funding for health care and disease-related programs comes largely from western aid agencies and NGOs, and, "The US Agency for International Development [USAID] will not fund any indoor residual spraying and neither will most of the other donors," explained Richard Tren, which "means that most African countries have to use whatever [these donors] are willing to fund (bed nets), which may not be the most appropriate tool."[77] A Ugandan Health Minister said in 2002 that, "Our people's lives are of primary importance. The West is concerned about the environment because we share it with them. But it is not concerned about malaria because it is not a problem there. In Europe, they used DDT to kill anopheles mosquitoes that cause malaria. Why can't we use DDT to kill the enemy in our camp?"[78] Michael Crichton, an author and PhD molecular biologist, plainly stated, "Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die, and we didn't give a damn." As author Paul Driessen eloquently explained, the West, "would never tolerate being told they had to protect their children solely by using bed nets, larvae-eating fish and medicinal treatments. But they have been silent about conditions in Africa, and about the intolerable attitudes of environmental groups, aid agencies and their own government[s]."[79] James Lovelock, a scientist, researcher, environmentalist and futurist, became famous for popularizing his idea known as the Gaia hypothesis.   He first started writing about this theory in journals in the early 1970s, but it shot to fame with the publication of his 1979 book, "Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth."   The general theory is that the Earth acts as a single organism, where all facets interact and react in a particular way that promotes an optimal environment on Earth. Thus, the theory was named after the Greek Earth goddess, Gaia.   In the opening paragraph of his book, he stated that, "the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the largest living creature on Earth."[80] His theory provoked a fair amount criticism within the scientific community, with some referring to it as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes.[81] Lovelock has also been known to make wild predictive statements. In 2006, he wrote an article for the Independent, in which he stated that, "My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease," and that the Earth is "seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years."[82] In 2008, the Guardian interviewed Lovelock, who contended that it was "too late" to do anything about global warming, that catastrophe was inevitable, and that, "about 80%" of the world's population [will] be wiped out by 2100."[83]   In August of 2009, Lovelock became a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a British population control organization.   Upon his becoming a patron, he stated that, "Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational." He added, "How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognize the truth and speak out?"[84] Taxes and trades in carbon and carbon credits virtually commodify our atmosphere, so that the very air we breathe becomes property that is bought and sold.   A tax on carbon is a tax on life. Since the lifeblood of an industrial society is oil, this requires carbon emissions in order to develop. The restraints on carbon, particularly the notion of trading carbon credits - i.e., trading the 'right' to pollute a certain amount - will disproportionately affect the developing world, which cannot afford to finance its own development.   Corporations and banks will trade and own the world's carbon credits, granting them the exclusive right to pollute and control the world's resources and environment. The carbon trading market could become twice the size of the world oil market within ten years time.[85] In regards to the Copenhagen Climate talks, which essentially broke down in December of 2009, the real source of this failure lies in a document that revealed the true nature of the negotiations, referred to as the 'Danish Text.'   The 'Danish Text' was a leaked Danish government document which outlined a draft agreement, "that hands more power to rich countries," as, "The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank" and "would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions."[86] In other words, it becomes the new means of exerting "conditionality" upon the developing, and increasingly the developed world. 'Conditionality' implying - of course - a restructuring of society along lines designated by the World Bank. While these are but examples of the influence and shaping of science to mold society and control humanity, much more discussion and debate is needed on these issues. While science can be used for the benefit of mankind, so too can it be used for the control and oppression of humanity. The people who run our societies view us as needing to be controlled, so they redirect the social apparatus into systems of control and coercion.   Science can allow us to understand an idea or organism; but in doing so, it can also allow us to understand how to dominate and control that idea or organism. We must continually engage in a discussion of our changing society to better understand the nature of its changes and how that could affect us both positively and negatively. If not for the Technological (or 'Technetronic') Revolution, elites would not have access to such powerful means of control; but, simultaneously, people have never had such great access to each other through mass communications and the Internet.   So while environmental science can allow us to better understand our environment, something we seem still to be very much an adolescent in accomplishing, it also unleashes an ability, and what's greater - a temptation - to control and shape the environment. Science can be used to both free and imprison the human mind. It is imperative that we approach and discuss the sciences (and all issues) from this perspective, not from a narrow-minded and divisive black-and-white world of 'left' and 'right', of religion or science.   We cannot simply view criticism and opposition to social and scientific endeavors as 'backwards', or based on 'religious doctrine'. There are rational reasons and purposes for criticism and debate on all of these issues, and rational positions of dissent. Issues like climate change are generally divided upon those who 'believe' in climate change, and those who are termed 'deniers', which is a disingenuous and divisive approach to rational debate. It silences the critical scientists, who do not get funding from governments or corporations. It classifies those who dissent as 'deniers', employing rhetoric like that used against Holocaust deniers, whereas the majority of the dissent within the scientific community comes from those who simply see the role of other forces (often natural) in shaping and changing our climate, such as solar radiation.   They do not 'deny' climate change, but they dissent on the causes and consequences. Is their opinion not worth hearing?   If we are reshaping our entire global political and economic spheres as a result of our supposedly 'collective' perception of this issue - as we certainly are - then is it not of the utmost importance that we hear from other voices, especially those of dissent, in order to better understand the issue?       Merging Man and Machine - The Future of Humanity Eisenhower warned, "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded," and that, "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."[87] Bill Joy, a computer scientist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who was co-chair of the presidential commission on the future of IT research, wrote an article for Wired Magazine in 2000 entitled, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us."   Joy explained the possibilities in a technological society of the near future, that "new technologies like genetic engineering and nanotechnology were giving us the power to remake the world."   One startling development in the world is that of robot technology and its potential impact upon society.   Joy explains: Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology - pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.[88] Joy explains that while these technologies can, and consistently are promoted and justified in the name of doing good (such as curing diseases, etc.), "with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger." Joy ominously warns that: The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them. Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication. I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.[89] In other words: we are entering an era faced with the "scientific dictators" of Huxley's nightmare vision in 'Brave New World'.   Joy explained that by 2030, "we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a million times as powerful as the personal computers of today." Thus: As this enormous computing power is combined with the manipulative advances of the physical sciences and the new, deep understandings in genetics, enormous transformative power is being unleashed. These combinations open up the opportunity to completely redesign the world, for better or worse: The replicating and evolving processes that have been confined to the natural world are about to become realms of human endeavor.[90] Joy examined the transformative nature of robotics, as an intelligent robot may be built by 2030, "And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself." Further, "A second dream of robotics is that we will gradually replace ourselves with our robotic technology, achieving near immortality by downloading our consciousnesses." Joy further warns of the potential for an arms race to develop in these technologies, just as took place in the nuclear, radiological and biological weapons of the 20th century.[91] Joy aptly explained that in the 20th century, those technologies were largely the products of governments, whereas in the 21st century, the new technologies of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR), are the products of corporations and capitalism. Thus, the driving force is that of competition, desire, and the economic system.   Hence, there is far less regulation and discussion of these new technologies than there was of the 20th century technologies, as the new technologies are developed in privately owned labs, not public. Joy often quotes a passage from Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto regarding a future dystopia, which Joy feels has "merit in the reasoning."   In the event that human control over machines is retained (as opposed to the machines taking over): [C]ontrol over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite - just as it is today, but with two differences.   Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem."   Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free.   They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.[92] A horrifying vision indeed; but one which builds upon the ideas of Huxley, Russell and Brzezinski, who envisioned a people who - through biological and psychological means - are made to love their own servitude.   Huxley saw the emergence of a world in which humanity, still a wild animal, is domesticated; where only the elite remain wild and have freedom to make decisions, while the masses are domesticated like pets.   Huxley opined that, "Men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown."[93]     We Can Have a Scientific Dictatorship, or... We can create an alternative.   We use, strengthen, mobilize, decentralize, and mobilize the global political awakening into a global movement of people not simply politically aware, but politically active and engaged. A world where people do not simply observe the apparatus of political, economic and social power influencing their lives; but in which the people actively seek to change it to better suit their lives and their freedom.   We need to understand each other better; but to do that, we cannot view each other through the harsh and deceptive lens of power. To understand each other, we must know each other. People must communicate with one another around the world; ideas must be exchanged between people and discussed, debated, and decided upon; the people must determine their own futures. Take the elites out of the equation: if you do not want them to dominate your lives, do not give them the power to do so.   Talk to each other and determine your own polities, economies and societies. Do not entrust dying ideas and diseased institutions to determine your future for you. The tools and systems of social control are vast and evasive; they penetrate the very psychology and biology of the individual. The elite feel that they are entrusted - due to their supposed 'innate' superior intelligence and specialization - to control society and reshape it as they see fit, to actively mold and construct public opinion and ideas.   They have a belief that people are essentially irrational emotional beings, and that they must be controlled by an elite or else the world would be in chaos. This is what underpins the ideas of 'stability' and 'order'. The state has been used to fight every progressive form of change that society has ever developed for its betterment: women's rights, racial rights, civil rights, the anti-war movement, gay rights, etc. Initially, the impulse - the immediate reaction of the state - is to oppress social movements and to suppress human freedoms.   This approach often leads to a situation in which social movements are only accepted by the state when they are co-opted by the state or powerful economic forces, which then exert their influence over the state to alter the policy. If we gain stability and order at the cost of our very humanity, is it worth it? Do we really need this eternal guidance, which has been constant through almost all of human history, to treat the human species as if it was in a constant state of adolescence, never quite prepared to make its own decisions or go out in the world on its own?   Well it is time for humanity to grow up, leave the strange comfort of mental authoritarianism.   The strive for human autonomy has only just begun; only now is all of humanity politically awakened; only now - and never before - has all of known humanity had such a great and perfect opportunity to remake the world, retake power, re-imagine individuality and revitalize freedom. Our world is governed not by a conspiracy, but by ideas: ideas of power, money, the state, military, empire, race, religion, sex, gender, politics and people. The only challenge to those ideas, are new ideas. There are roughly 6,000 members of the 'global elite,'[94] there are over 6.8 billion people in the world. That sounds like a lot of potential for new ideas. The greatest resource for the future of humanity is not in the 'control' of humanity, which is doomed to ultimate failure, but for the release and encouragement of the human mind and spirit. People can understand the science and mechanics of the brain, the functions of psychology, the ability of human strength; but still, today, we do not know how all that biology can create Beethoven's 9th Symphony.   Humanity is still very much a mystery to humans, and it would seem likely that the best answers to the questions of 'how should we live?' and 'how should our societies function?' are best answered with the bigger question of 'why are we here'? If the purpose of people and humanity is to consume and dominate, then our present situation seems only natural. If we were meant for more, then we must become more. If we were meant to be free, we must become free. Ideas are powerful things: they can build empires, and collapse them just as easily. In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered one of his most moving and important speeches, "Beyond Vietnam," in which he spoke out against war and empire.   He left humanity with sobering words: I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society.   When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[95]   Endnotes [1] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited. (Harper Perennial, New York, 2004), page 255 [2] Ibid, page 259. [3] Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, (Routledge, 1985), page 40 [4] Ibid, page 66. [5] Ibid, page 62. [6] Ibid, page 58. [7] Ibid, page 117. [8] Ibid, page 118. [9] Ibid, page 63. [10] Aldous Huxley, The Ultimate Revolution, March 20, 1962. Berkeley Language Center - Speech Archive SA 0269: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Speech/VideoTest/audiofiles.html#huxley [11] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation. January 17, 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm [12] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. (Viking Press, New York, 1970), page 97 [13] Edwin Black, Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection. The San Francisco Chronicle: November 9, 2003: http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-11-09/opinion/17517477_1_eugenics-ethnic-cleansing-master-race [14] Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008 [15] Bruno Waterfield, Dutch Prince Bernhard 'was member of Nazi party'. The Telegraph: March 5, 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7377402/Dutch-Prince-Bernhard-was-member-of-Nazi-party.html [16] Julian Huxley, UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946). Preparatory Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, page 61. [17] Ibid, page 21. [18] Ibid, pages 37-38. [19] Ibid, page 38. [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid, page 18. [22] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. (New York: Thunders's Mouth Press, 2004), page 418 [23] MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure [24] Garland E. Allen, "Is a New Eugenics Afoot?" Science Magazine, October 5, 2001: Vol. 294, no. 5540: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5540/59 [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. [27] Niall Firth, Human race will 'split into two different species'. The Daily Mail: October 26, 2007: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-489653/Human-race-split-different-species.html [28] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2004), 11-12 [29] Ibid, pages 12-13. [30] Ibid, page 19. [31] Ibid, page 28. [32] Ibid, page 416. [33] Ibid, page 418. [34] Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293 [35] History, ABOUT THE POPULATION COUNCIL. The Population Council: September 10, 2008: http://www.popcouncil.org/about/history.html [36] MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure [37] History, ABOUT THE POPULATION COUNCIL. The Population Council: September 10, 2008: http://www.popcouncil.org/about/history.html [38] Review, Horrid History. The Economist: May 24, 2008 [39] Heli Kasanen, BOOK REVIEW: Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population, By Matthew Connelly: The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 2009, 1(3), page 15 [40] Review, Horrid History. The Economist: May 24, 2008 [41] Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html [42] Dominic Lawson, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly. The Sunday Times: May 18, 2008: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3938455.ece [43] Fred Pearce, Fatal Misconception by Matthew Connelly. The New Scientist: May 21, 2008: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826572.400-review-ifatal-misconceptioni-by-matthew-connelly.html [44] Jack M. Hollander, The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2003), page 30 [45] Lara Knudsen, Reproductive Rights in a Global Context. (Vanderbilt University Press: 2006), page 3 [46] Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293 [47] Nicholas D. Kristof, Birth Control for Others. The New York Times: March 23, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/books/review/Kristof-t.html [48] Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html [49] Ibid. [50] Ibid. [51] UNFPA, UNFPA and the United Nations System. About UNFPA: http://www.unfpa.org/about/unsystem.htm [52] Population and the American Future, The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The Center for Research on Population and Security: March 27, 1972: http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm#Commission [53] NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200: April 24, 1974: http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html#summary [54] Ibid. [55] Ibid. [56] MARTIN MORSE WOOSTER, The War Against Fertility. The Wall Street Journal: April 1, 2008: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700566688178565.html?mod=hpp_europe_leisure [57] Ibid. [58] Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books: August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html [59] Heli Kasanen, BOOK REVIEW: Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population, By Matthew Connelly: The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 2009, 1(3), page 15 [60] Helen Epstein, The Strange History of Birth Control. The New York Review of Books, August 18, 2008: http://www.powells.com/review/2008_08_18.html [61] F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. (Global Research, Montreal: 2007), page 65 [62] Simon Butler, The Dark History of Population Control. Climate and Capitalism: November 23, 2009: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1293 [63] Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008: page 15 [64] Ibid, pages 19-20. [65] Ibid, page 20. [66] Ibid, page 22. [67] Ibid, page 25. [68] Ibid, page 26. [69] WWF, A History of WWF: The Sixties. World Wildlife Fund: November 13, 2005: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/who_we_are/history/sixties/index.cfm [70] John Timson, Portraits of the Pioneers: Sir Julian Huxley, FRS. The Galton Institute: December 1999 Newsletter: http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9912/julian_huxley.htm [71] Michael Barker, The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism: Volume 19, Number 2, June 2008: page 25 [72] Paul Driessen, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. (Merril Press: 2004), page 67 [73] Ibid, page 66. [74] Ibid, page 67. [75] Ibid, page 68. [76] Ibid, page 69. [77] Ibid, page 71. [78] Ibid, page 72. [79] Ibid, page 73. [80] James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. (Oxford: 1979), page 1 [81] S.J. Gould, Kropotkin was no crackpot. Natural History, June 1997: pages 12-21 [82] James Lovelock, The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. The Independent: January 16, 2006: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html [83] Decca Aitkenhead, 'Enjoy life while you can'. The Guardian: March 1, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange [84] OPT, GAIA SCIENTIST TO BE OPT PATRON. News Release: August 26, 2009: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Aug09.htm [85] Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade. The Guardian: November 29, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit [86] John Vidal, Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak. The Guardian: December 8, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text [87] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation. January 17, 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm [88] Bill Joy, Why the future doesn't need us. Wired Magazine: April 2000: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html [89] Ibid. [90] Ibid. [91] Ibid. [92] Ibid. [93] Time, The Press: Brave New Newsday. Time Magazine: June 9, 1958: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,868521,00.html [94] Laura Miller, The rise of the superclass. Salon: March 14, 2008: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass [95] Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html   Return to Technocracy Return to Big Brother Loves You... Return to Depopulation of Planet Earth