Dear rn list again! may 31
In Ed Deak's message you may remember this line:
"The recent events around the MAI have shown that it is impossible to
influence leaders, they all came up with the same prescribed lies and
platitudes."
Don Giles, also on the MAI-not list pointed out that:
>A word that should be banished from activists' language is "instead".
>Yves' and Ed's programmes are for addressing different people. Yves'
>programme is directed towards addressing the investors and the leaders and
>the experts, Ed's is directed towards addressing the population. We must of
>course do both. Certainly it is important to lobby leaders of opinion. I
>think asking investors to change, however, is like telling the wolf not to
>eat the chooks because the supply will run out. They can satisfy their
>immediate interests, no matter where the world's heading, without making
>such changes. Those with a real vested interest in the future of the
>world, and especially in its present economic conditions and the "rules"
>governing this and the outcomes of corporate greed, are the population as a
>whole. That's why democracy is the least worst conceivable form of
>government.
>
>Dion Giles
>Fremantle, Western Australia.
>--
Yes, I (Jan) say! We need to address different audiences and, actually, I
think it is important to include the investors, the politicians, etc. too.
Maybe my main reason is that once we "write ANY group off" as "on the other
side", we open the door to hatred. Gandhi told us that we all have a piece
of the truth; we need to dialogue with people very different from ourselves
to get their "piece".
Also, real life shows us that change is possible, that all people are
potentially our allies. For example, Sir James Goldsmith was "once a widely
known corporate raider whose vast holdings included such companies as
Goodyear, Diamond International, Crown Zellerbach paper company in the US
and such leading publications as _l'Express of Paris. [In 1989] Sir James...
sold his assets and has since devoted his energies to addressing the dangers
posed by global warming, AIDS, nuclear power, chemical-based agriculture and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade". (_Earth Island Journal, winter,
1992)
*********************************************************************
Anyhow, I think you will find the following essay that Richard wrote
complements the folder or brochure I did up (in the previous rn message).
Obviously, where the folder is directed at a local audience, Richard's has a
much more "global" usefulness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore)
To: "Multiple recipients of list •••@••.•••"
<•••@••.•••>
Subject: PPI-010-"The Making of the New World Order"
010-Making-of-the-NWO.txt
* ARTICLE / ANALYSIS *
"The Making of the New World Order"
(C) Richard K. Moore 1998
As published in: "Toward Freedom", May 1998
- - -
Absolute Power
The Making of the New World Order
RICHARD K. MOORE
The dominant trend of our time is globalization, taking such forms
as the elimination of trade barriers, downsized governments, greater
reliance on the private sector, reduced regulation of business, and
an increasingly global economy. Many people interpret this as economic
progress, basically a good thing. But this form of globalization is
actually political regression, threatening to destroy democratic
institutions and turn the clock of human progress centuries backward
to something resembling feudalism.
In some ways, the US is central to the process. It's the leading
proponent of free trade, and provides the primary military muscle to
shape and maintain global order. When the US president speaks on
international issues, his words are taken seriously. He is, after all,
the most powerful and influential world leader. Yet, the US isn't the
primary beneficiary of globalization, and doesn't appear to be
exploiting its advantage in the traditional fashion.
The reason should be obvious: Globalization isn't about competition
among nations, but rather about the increasing power of mega-corporations
over nations and their peoples. In effect, the US government acts as a
proxy for elite corporate interests, not as a representative of its people
or even national interests in any traditional sense. Although sovereign
national states, sometimes competing and sometimes cooperating, are the
Familiar World Order, globalization is leading us inexorably toward a
New World Order where mega-corporations (and the wealthy elite who
control them) reign supreme, while nations are reduced to a vestigial,
subservient, policing role -- as we see in much of the Third World.
The Democratic Illusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
During the era of feudalism, there were three elites: the church
hierarchy, landed aristocracy/nobility, and royal families. As that
system ended, an additional elite -- the business wealthy -- gained
status and influence through trade and manufacture. These elite groups
competed for power, with different accommodations from time to time
and place to place.
For the general population, the elites represented security or tyranny,
depending on your perspective. But it was obvious to all that they ran
things; no one pretended society was democratic. With the advent of
"democratic republics," however, the older elites were removed from
power, while the business wealthy, who ushered in capitalism,
remained relatively undisturbed. Did this transformation bring about
democracy in any genuine sense, or merely monopolization of power
in the hands of the single remaining elite? The question remains open.
Although sentiment for independence in the American colonies was
minimal prior to the latter half of the 18th century, objective conditions
made it a natural, and comparatively non-disruptive step. The colonies
were already largely self-governing and economically self-sufficient,
and had their own social identity, extensive trading fleets, and
considerable natural resources. Boston was the third busiest port in the
British Empire. The issue was independence, not a social or political
revolution. The existing colonial assemblies would presumably
continue afterward, with more or less the same people as leaders, and
land ownership and economic activity continuing more or less as
before. However, industrial development would be possible and
international trade wouldn't be directly limited by the vagaries of
British imperial entanglements. The resources of the new continent
could be developed without sharing the spoils. For the elite, therefore,
a divorce from the empire represented profound and immediate
economic opportunities.
Whatever one might think about the intentions of the (mostly elite)
Founding Fathers -- or the theory of the Constitution -- US history has
been a see-saw battle for control between the people and the capitalist
elite. At times, as in the late 19th century robber-baron era, the elite
brazenly ruled. John. D. Rockefeller bragged about how many
government officials were "in his pocket." At other times, as during
Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, government seemed more responsive
to the needs and wishes of the general population.
Gradually, the US became an almost mystical symbol, complete with
fable-like imagery: the land of freedom and opportunity, a "bastion of
democracy" where the streets were "paved with gold." People
everywhere yearned to believe in this fairy tale kingdom. In reality, its
growth was largely achieved through periodic warfare.
There has been a significant war approximately every 30 years, often
initiated (overtly or covertly) by the US, and more often than not
sparking a further expansion of US power and US-based elite interests.
Such aggression isn't particularly unusual among nations; what is
different is the propaganda mythology that successfully defined the US
as always acting in defense of "freedom and democracy."
Again and again, the use of outrage-incidents triggered the war spirit,
and channeled the resulting wrath toward the nominated enemy. It
concentrated power in the executive branch, where elite control was
(and is) usually most undiluted by popular influence. This process is
exemplified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which enabled full-scale
US military involvement in Vietnam. The incident itself was faked, but
Congress promptly issued its usual knee-jerk resolution, authorizing
the president to "act in defense." The "authorized actions" were then
incrementally escalated into a full-scale war, with Congress having
minimal additional influence and popular will finding expression only
in the streets. Even when the hoax was exposed, it was too late to put
the genie back in the bottle.
Toward Global Dominance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The rise of communist and socialist movements following World War I
created considerable fear in elite capitalist circles. Marxist ideology
emphasized the tyrannical aspects of the capitalist elite, and issued a
call for solidarity among peasants and industrial workers, whom Marx
credited with creating all real wealth. Although simplistic, this
ideology nonetheless took firm root in Russia and seemed poised to
spread farther.
In Germany, Italy, and Spain, anti-elite movements gained popular
strength under the banners of socialism, communism, or anarchism.
Thus, it wasn't surprising that the elites in those and other
countries welcomed and encouraged the rise of fascist movements.
Fascism was virulently anti-communist, pro-capitalist, and willing
to brutally suppress any who opposed its agenda.
Hitler began his political career as an operative of German military
intelligence and received funding and support from Western industrialists.
While in prison, writing Mein Kampf, he kept a portrait of Henry Ford on
his desk. Mein Kampf made it unambiguous that Hitler's primary objective
was the subjugation and economic exploitation of Russia. By ignoring their
own prohibition on German re-armament, the Western elite in fact collab-
orated with Hitler in the development of an invasion force targeted on
socialism's bastion. Meanwhile, it watched with discomfort Japan's
growing economic power and imperial scope.
The latter was a significant threat. Not only would markets and
investment opportunities in populous Asia be highly curtailed, but
Japan would be dislodging the West from its accustomed role as
collective master of the seas and arbiter of global imperial
arrangements.
The US handled this complex situation with all the finesse and subtlety
of a skilled martial-arts expert, guided by a strategic vision unsurpassed
by the imperial masterminds of any previous age. The war-popularizing
incident was the inevitable Japanese strike on the US Pacific fleet,
sparked by the cutoff of Japanese oil supplies, which the US convinced
Holland to undertake. President Roosevelt feigned surprise and outrage,
and the most formidable, popularly supported military crusade of all
time was launched.
By end of the war, the US was very close to total global hegemony. It
had the run of the seven seas, an intact military machine and national
infrastructure, a monopoly on nuclear weapons, greatly expanded influence
in the oil-rich Middle East, and the lion's share of the world's disposable
wealth and industrial capacity. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world
was in shambles, deep debt, and/or under occupation. The US had the prestige,
power, and resources to guide the construction of post-war arrangements
largely according to its own designs.
Rise of the Megacorps
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Following the war, the Western elite, led by the US, drew a line on
the globe, separating the part they dominated from the part they didn't.
The "free world" (doublespeak for "elite-controlled zone") was organized
into a new kind of investment realm, while much of the "free" population
was systematically subjected to military dictatorships responsive to elite
interests. The doublespeak usage of "freedom," originating during the
American Revolution, had been globalized.
Meanwhile, the "communist bloc" (doublespeak for "beyond elite
control") was contained: ostracized, pestered around its periphery by
provocative military deployments, and subjected to chronic economic
destabilization via the "arms race," expensive brushfire engagements,
and trade restrictions.
However, rather than using its strength to establish a traditional
imperial system, with Europe relegated to a secondary position and
Japan kept underdeveloped, the US implemented a bold new global
scheme: collective imperialism. Under a Pax Americana military
umbrella, an international economic infrastructure was established
(IMF, World Bank, et al). Investment and trade were free to flow,
increasingly, around the "free" world, without the territorial
partitions traditionally imposed by a competitive European imperial
system. For the ex-colonies (soon to be dubbed the "Third World"),
the result was domination by the capital elite, rather than the
business interests of a single national power.
This semi-homogenized, semi-pacified, investment environment enabled
large corporations to develop operations on a global scale. Thus arose
the era of megacorps -- mammoth corporations with wealth and influence
comparable to nations. Megacorps are much more than simply giant units
of economic enterprise, capable of executing large-scale business
transactions. They're also significant political and economic powers.
Beyond any sense of home-nation loyalty, they view regulations and trade
barriers as provincial interference. Their needs and demands are more often
than not the hidden agenda behind Western policies.
This is a new species of political entity, in direct competition with its
ancestor species, the modern nation state. Born out of limited-liability
laws, nurtured by capitalist culture, and lacking any natural sense of
limits, megacorps extend themselves like cancer cells, poisoning their
host planet in the process. Their motivation is to increase their market
value on behalf of their owners.
What would be the nature of a megacorp-governed world? There's no
need to speculate: We can simply look at Third-World countries, many
of which have been dominated by megacorps for some time. What we
see are minimal regulation and taxation of megacorp activities, along
with repressive regimes subsidized, armed, and otherwise bolstered by
outside elite interests.
The Neoliberal Revolution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In 1980, a new phase of consolidation was launched simultaneously in
the US and Britain, under the stage management of Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher. The platform of the "neoliberal revolution" was
lower corporate taxes, reduced corporate regulation, privatization of
public services, elimination of international trade barriers, and the
self-demonization of democratic political institutions. "The only good
government is less government" became the kamikaze agenda.
This amounts to a wholesale transference of power, assets, and
sovereignty into megacorp hands, embezzlement on the grandest scale
ever attempted. Public lands, rights, responsibilities, and assets
are being passed into private hands at undervalued prices -- without
effective public oversight. Government itself is being dismantled. By
rights, neoliberalism's public leaders ought to be indicted for conspir-
acy and high treason. Their revolution represents a declaration that nation
states are no longer the tools of power, and that megacorps are the primary
vehicle for wealth accumulation and organizing global society.
And they're making it clear that First-World nations and their
populations are no longer privileged partners in the game. To this
end, international arrangements such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank,
NAFTA, and GATT have been set up to ensure that economic, social,
and political polices can be dictated globally by corporate-dominated
commissions. Megacorps and their commissions are controlled directly
by the elite. There are no democratic mechanisms and no pretense that
they represent the "will of the people." Democracy, the scam which
unleashed capitalism, has finally become a direct hindrance to elite
hegemony.
A significant difference between the neoliberal and American
revolutions is the lack of emphasis on democracy and freedom.
Today's promises are related mainly to "opportunity." People are
encouraged to assume that democracy is a fact of life, an unshakable
institution, secure from any fatal dangers. We're also encouraged to
view capital exploitation itself as a sign of democracy, particularly in
formerly socialist states. As citizens there suffer under intentionally
destabilized economies, megacorps organize exploitive infrastructures.
Meanwhile, we're told that the locals are simply "slow to adapt."
Traditionally in "democracies," police forces have been small and order
has arisen from the spirit of citizenship. But under neoliberalism,
abandonment of public services is depressing satisfaction, while the
de-emphasis of nationalist ideology is undermining civic identity and
voluntary compliance. The elite understands that, as living standards
decline in once-prosperous nations, more economic suffering -- and
political discontent -- are inevitable. Not surprisingly, then,
police-state systems are growing, and an intense propaganda campaign is
underway regarding crime, its causes, and cures. More police, longer
sentences, and more prisons are the elite's answer to the question of
public order.
The nature of the US penal system is changing. As prison construction
becomes the largest growth industry, a formidable capacity is being
built. Prisons are literally becoming the concentration camps of the
neoliberal regime, places to isolate those redundant to corporate needs.
But never wanting to waste an exploitable resource, the elite are also
developing an extensive prison-labor system, renting out inmates to fill
lower-rung labor needs. This growing network of slave-labor concentration
camps has so far escaped public notice. So, too, has its racial and ethnic
bias.
The World Cop
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If nations are to be weakened, from where will the armies come to
maintain the New World Order? Nationalist spirit has been central to
modern war efforts. How can a disenfranchised, betrayed populace be
expected to rally "to the defense" when the elite need their support?
Who will maintain the infrastructure for weapons systems and delivery?
What will be the command structure, and on behalf of what political
entity will military operations be carried out? Finally, what
about public opinion? The myth of democracy requires that some
degree of popular sentiment be roused for dramatic military
interventions.
The Gulf "War" and its aftermath demonstrated how the elite plans to
deal with some of these problems. The episode set major historic
precedents, establishing new paradigms for global propaganda, weapons
technology blitzkrieg tactics, and international law. It planted
in the global public mind the principle that the US has a justifiable
global policing role, and exported to the global stage its traditional
war-incident scenario.
Technologically, it was a field test of significant new weapons systems.
Precise night operations, stealth defenses, guided weapons, satellite
navigation, cruise missiles, bulldozers as mass-murder devices, air-fuel
explosives, uranium-weighted shells, anti-nerve gas vaccinations -- an
entire new generation of weaponry was tested on a modern, supposedly
well-armed, industrial nation. With almost no loss of life in the elite
forces, Iraq's infrastructure was systematically destroyed and its
population subjected to relentless terrorism.
Technology helps solve the problem posed by the demise of strong
nationalism, which formerly provided large, motivated armies. By
emphasizing hi-tech weapons, operated from safe havens, and using
blitzkrieg tactics, the length of the intervention was minimized,
the number of casualties (on the elite side) kept low, and the need
for a large, non-professional army reduced.
The war-provoking incident -- Iraq's invasion of Kuwait -- was brought
about by Kuwait's economically provocative oil-dumping policy,
followed by a "go signal" from the US secretary of state regarding
Iraq's invasion. Once the incident occurred, outrage and surprise were
feigned, and a world-wide media/lobbying campaign was launched to
cajole UN approval of US military action. Saddam Hussein was
quickly assigned the role of Hitleresque madman. The US launched a
military campaign of its own design, and -- as with the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution -- UN approval was a blank check, interpreted however the
war-leaders wished.
This precedent has established itself very firmly on the media-managed
"world stage." Since then, the US has all but been handed the official
title of "Judge Dredd" -- -judge, jury, and executioner of international
law -- and US intervention is no longer considered imperialism.
Unraveling the Big Lie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the New World Order becomes completely operational, overall
policies will be set by non-elected, corporate-dominated commissions;
the world's economy, information, and working conditions will be
managed directly by megacorps; governmental functions will be
reduced to administrative matters and police-management. And all this
will be enforced globally by an elite-dominated strike force built
around the US military and NATO.
The US has a unique role only partly due to its position as the dominant
military power. It also reflects the fact that, compared to other First-
World countries, it's the most thoroughly captured by megacorp interests.
And the US people, in their habitual credulity, are the most effectively
mesmerized by media mythology fed them via television. It's almost a "safe
house" for NWO operations.
There is only a brief window of opportunity in which First-World
populations can reclaim their paper democracies, through intensive
political organizing and the creation of broad coalition movements.
But such an unprecedented peaceful revolution will only become possible
if people wake up to the true nature of the threat. Given the dire
consequences of globalization, the widespread acclaim for its steady
progress is somewhat remarkable. The credit goes to the sophistication
and pervasiveness of the accompanying propaganda campaign, plus the
absence of effective forums for alternate perspectives. If a Big Lie
is repeated often and loudly enough, people will eventually believe it.
In countering globalization rhetoric, therefore, perhaps the most
powerful argument regards the corruption of governments and politicians.
Although we're reminded daily of that corruption, we're rarely informed
that political corruption is really the illegal intrusion of the corporate
elite into the political process. But if enough people realize this, it will
no longer be as easy for global corporatization to pose as a "solution" to
the problem.
~-===================================================================-~
