Global War and Dying Democracy: The Revolution of the Elites

Politics / New World Order Aug 21, 2009 - 02:39 AM GMT

Andrew Gavin Marshall writes: This article is the 5th and final part in the series, "Global Power and Global Government," published by Global Research.

Diamond Rated - Best Financial Markets Analysis Article Part 1: Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
Part 2: Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order
Part 3: Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
Part 4: Forging a “New World Order” Under a One World Government

Transnational Totalitarianism

Global trends in political economy suggest that “democracy” as we know it, is a fading concept, where even Western industrialized nations are retreating from the system. Arguably, through party politics and financial-corporate interests, democracy is something of a façade as it is. However, we are entering into an era in which even the institutions and image of democracy are in retreat, and the slide into totalitarianism seems inevitable.

The National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2025, stated that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[1] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.

The nature of totalitarianism is such that it is, “by nature (or rather by definition), a global project that cannot be fully accomplished in just one community or one country. Being fuelled by the need to suppress any alternative orders and ideas, it has no natural limits and is bound to aim at totally dominating everything and everyone.” David Lyon explained in Theorizing Surveillance, that, “The ultimate feature of the totalitarian domination is the absence of exit, which can be achieved temporarily by closing borders, but permanently only by a truly global reach that would render the very notion of exit meaningless. This in itself justifies questions about the totalitarian potential of globalization.” The author raises the important question, “Is abolition of borders intrinsically (morally) good, because they symbolize barriers that needlessly separate and exclude people, or are they potential lines of resistance, refuge and difference that may save us from the totalitarian abyss?” Further, “if globalization undermines the tested, state-based models of democracy, the world may be vulnerable to a global totalitarian etatization.”[2]

Russia Today, a major Russian media source, published an article by the Strategic Cultural Fund, in which it stated that, “the current crisis is being used as a mechanism for provoking some deepening social upheavals that would make mankind – plunged as it is already into chaos and frightened by the ghost of an all-out violence – urge of its own free will that a ‘supranational’ arbitrator with dictatorial powers intervene into the world affairs.” The author pointed out that, “The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle.” However, as the author noted, this time around, it’s different, as this “is the final stage in the ‘global control’ strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.”

The author explained that a global police state is forming, as “Intelligence activities, trade of war, penitentiary system, and information control are passing into private hands. This is done through so-called outsourcing, a relatively new business phenomenon that consists of trusting certain functions to private firms that act as contractors and relying on individuals outside an organization to solve its internal tasks.” Further, “he biggest achievements have been made over the last few years in the area of establishing electronic control over people’s identities, carried out under the pretext of counterterrorism. Currently, the FBI is creating the world’s biggest database of biometric indexes (fingerprints, retina scans, face shapes, scar shapes and allocation, speech and gesture patterns, etc.) that now contains 55 million fingerprints.”[3]

Global War

Further, the prospects of war are increasing with the deepening of the economic crisis. It must be noted that historically, as empires are in decline, international violence increases. The scope of a global depression and the undertaking of restructuring the entire global political economy may also require and produce a global war to serve as a catalyst for formation of the New World Order.

The National Intelligence Council document, Global Trends 2025, stated that there is a likely increase in the risk of a nuclear war, or in the very least, the use of a nuclear weapon by 2025, as, “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.”[4]

The report also predicts a resurgence of mercantilist foreign policies of the great powers in competition for resources, which “could lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.” In particular, “Central Asia has become an area of intense international competition for access to energy.”[5]

Further, “Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the most vulnerable region on Earth in terms of economic challenges, population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability. The weakness of states and troubled relations between states and societies probably will slow major improvements in the region’s prospects over the next 20 years unless there is sustained international engagement and, at times, intervention. Southern Africa will continue to be the most stable and promising sub-region politically and economically.” This seems to suggest that there will be many more cases of “humanitarian intervention,” likely under the auspices of a Western dominated international organization, such as the UN. There will also be a democratic “backslide” in the most populous African countries, and that, “the region will be vulnerable to civil conflict and complex forms of interstate conflict—with militaries fragmented along ethnic or other divides, limited control of border areas, and insurgents and criminal groups preying on unarmed civilians in neighboring countries. Central Africa contains the most troubling of these cases, including Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Central African Republic, and Chad.”[6]

In 2007, the British Defense Ministry released a report in which they analyzed future trends in the world. Among many of the things predicted within 30 years are: “Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. ‘Flashmobs’ - groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.”

It further reported that, “The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organisms but not buildings ‘might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world’. The use of unmanned weapons platforms would enable the ‘application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues’. The ‘explicit use’ of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and devices delivered by unmanned vehicles or missiles.” Further, “an implantable ‘information chip’ could be wired directly to the brain. A growing pervasiveness of information communications technology will enable states, terrorists or criminals, to mobilise ‘flashmobs’, challenging security forces to match this potential agility coupled with an ability to concentrate forces quickly in a small area.”

In regards to social problems, “The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.” Interestingly, “The thesis is based on a growing gap between the middle classes and the super-rich on one hand and an urban under-class threatening social order: ‘The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest’. Marxism could also be revived, it says, because of global inequality. An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the ‘sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism’.”

The report also forecasts that, “Globalisation may lead to levels of international integration that effectively bring inter-state warfare to an end. But it may lead to "inter-communal conflict" - communities with shared interests transcending national boundaries and resorting to the use of violence.”[7]

RAND corporation, a Pentagon-linked powerhouse think tank, connected to the Blderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, came up with a solution to the financial crisis in October of 2008: for the United States to start a major war. Chinese media reported that RAND “presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.” Further, “the target country would have to be a major influential power,” and Chinese media “speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country.”[8]

Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, the most highly respected trend forecaster in the United States, has been sounding the alarm over the trends to come in the next few years. Having previously predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the dot-com bubble burst, and the 2008 housing bubble burst, these forecasts should not be taken lightly.

Celente told Fox News that, “by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.” He stated that this will be “worse than the great depression.” In another interview, Celente stated that, “There will be a revolution in this country,” and, “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.” He further explained, “The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.”[9]

In June of 2009, Gerald Celente reported that, “The measures taken by successive governments to save the politically corrupt, morally bankrupt, physically decrepit [American] giant from collapse have served to only hasten its demise. While the decline has been decades in the making, the acceleration of ruinous policies under the current Administration is leading the United States — and much of the world — to the point of no return.” This coming catastrophe, which Celente refers to as “Obamageddon,” will become the “Greatest Depression.”[10]

In May of 2009, Celente forecasted that a major issue is the “bailout bubble” which is bigger than the dot-com bubble or the real estate bubble that preceded it, and is made up of 12.8 trillion dollars. He states that with the bursting of this bubble, the next trend would be what he calls “fascism light” and that it will be followed by war.[11] He stated that, “this bubble will be the last one. After the final blowout of the bailout bubble, we are concerned that the government will take the nation into war. This is a historical precedent that’s been done over and over again.” He elaborated, “So, it’s not the dollar that will survive. We may not even survive. Look at the German mess after WWI. It gave rise to Fascism and WWII. The next war will be fought with weapons of mass destruction.”[12]

The Imperial Project

War should not be understood as a recent phenomenon in regards to accelerating capitalism through expansion and transition, as this has been a continual theme throughout the history of capitalism. The notion of “surplus imperialism” is what describes the function and role of war and militarism within capitalism. The concept is built around the function of “constant war.”

Ellen Wood explains the notion of ‘surplus imperialism,’ in that, “Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time.”[13] Further, “Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world order.”[14]

Shortly after George Bush Sr. declared a “new world order coming into view,” in 1991, the US strategic community began setting forth a new strategy for the United States in the world. This first emerged in 1992, with the Defense Planning Guidance. The New York Times broke the story, reporting that, “In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union,” and that, “The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”

The main figure that drafted this policy was the Pentagon’s Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, who would later become Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, as well as President of the World Bank. Wolfowitz is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and is currently a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank.

The document places emphasis “on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe,” and that, “What is most important, it says, is ‘the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.’ and ‘the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated’ or in a crisis that demands quick response.” Further, “the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.” Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document “postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,” and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further “suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf.”[15] The Secretary of Defense at the time of this document’s writing was none other than Dick Cheney.

When George Bush Sr. was replaced by Bill Clinton in 1993, the neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report called, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that, “the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,”[16] that there is “need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,”[17] and that “the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.”[18] Further, “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”[19] In describing the need for massive increases in military spending, rapidly expanding the armed forces and “dealing” with threats such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran, they state, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[20]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carter’s administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy for America in the world. He wrote, “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power.” Further, “how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.”[21] Brzezinski explained that, “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”[22] Brzezinski also outlines Russia and China, in cooperation with Iran and possibly Pakistan, as the most significant coalition that could challenge US hegemony.

With the George W. Bush administration, the neo-conservative war hawks put into action the plans set out in their American imperial strategic documents. This made up the Bush doctrine, which called for “a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure that ‘[o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States’.”[23]

In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future. “Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.” The report “addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.” Further, “The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.”[24]

The War on Terrorism, as a war with invisible enemies and borderless boundaries, a truly global war, marks a major stage in the evolution of the constant war “surplus imperialism” of the American empire. The US military, while being used as a vehicle for surplus imperialism; is also creating and maintaining and expanding NATO. NATO is expanding its role in the world. The wars in Yugoslavia following the collapse of the Soviet Union were used to legitimize NATO’s continued existence, which was created to have an alliance against the USSR. When the USSR vanished, so too did NATO’s purpose, until it found a new calling: becoming a global policeman. NATO has undergone its first major war in Afghanistan and its expansion into Eastern Europe is enclosing Russia and China.

Ivo Daalder, the US representative to NATO, also a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs in which he advocated for a “global NATO” to “address the global challenges of the day.”[25] In April of 2009, NATO began to review its Strategic Concept “in order to stay relevant in a changing security environment,” and that, “The leaders envisage cyber-attacks, energy security and climate change as new threats to NATO, which would mean big changes in NATO's future operations.”[26] Since 2008, NATO has been re-imagining its strategy and moving to a doctrine of advocating for pre-emptive nuclear warfare.[27]

As George Orwell wrote in 1984, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”

The Revolution of the New World Order

The new system being formed is not one based upon any notion of competition or “free markets” or “socialist morality”, but is, instead a system based upon consolidation of power and wealth; thus, the fewer, the better; one government, one central bank, one army, one currency, one authority, one ruler. This is a much more “efficient” and “controllable” system, and thus requires a much smaller population or class to run it, as well as a much smaller population to serve it. Also, with such a system, a smaller global population would be ideal for the rulers, for it limits their risk, in terms of revolt, uprising, and revolution, and created a more malleable and manageable population. In this new capitalist system, the end goal is not profit, but power. In a sense, this is how the whole capitalist system has functioned, as profit has always acted as a means and lever to achieve power. Power itself, was the goal, profit was merely the means of achieving such a goal.

Shortly following the origins of the capitalist system, central banking emerged. It was through the central banking system that the most powerful figures and individuals in the world were able to consolidate power, controlling both industry and governments. Through central banks, these figures would collapse economies, destroying industry and thus, profits; bankrupt countries and collapse their political structures, destroying a base for the exercise of power; but in doing so, they would consolidate their authority over these governments and industry, wiping out competition and eliminating dissent. It is these individuals who have played the greatest roles in shaping and reshaping the capitalist system, and are the main figures in the current reorganization of world order.

However, such is the nature of individuals whose lives revolve around the acquisition and exercise of power. Like the saying goes, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Those who are driven by the lust for power often eliminate and remove all of those who helped them reach such a position. Hitler undertook the Night of Long Knives, in which a series of political executions were carried out, targeting prominent figures of the SA, who helped Hitler rise to power. Stalin similarly, also purged the Soviet Union of those who helped him rise to power.

Power alters the psychology of the individual that holds it. It is an extremely lonely condition, in which, once power is achieved, and with no more power to gain, the obsession turns to the preservation of power, and with that, paranoia of losing it. This is why those that assist the powerful in gaining more power are doomed to a fate that is similar or worse than those who fight against such a power. This, ultimately, is why it is futile to join forces with such systems of power, or ally oneself with such powerful figures.

Power is a cancer; it eats away at its host. The greater the power held, the more cancerous it is, the more malignant it becomes. The less power held by individuals, the less chance there is for growth of this cancer, or for it to become malignant. Power must be shared among all people, for the risk carried thus becomes a risk to all, and there is a greater degree of cooperation, support, and there is a more efficient and effective means through which everyone can act as a check against the abuse of power.

Theoretical Foundations of Global Revolution

Currently, we are witnessing, in the wake of the massive economic crisis, a revolution in the global political economy. This revolution, like all revolutions, is not simply a top-down or a bottom-up revolution. Historically, revolutions are driven by a combination of both the grassroots and the elite. Often, this materializes in clashes between social groups, such as with the American Revolution. Although, the American Revolution itself was primarily waged by the American landed elite against the foreign imperial elite of Great Britain. The French Revolution was the combination of the banking and aristocratic elite co-opting, manipulating and controlling the grassroots opposition to the established order. The Russian Revolution, also being able to see rising social tensions among the lower classes, was co-opted by an international banking elite.

Currently, the transnational elite are very aware of the increasing social tensions among the worlds majority. As the crisis deepens, tensions will rise, and the chances of revolt and revolution from below greatly increase. Governments everywhere, particularly in the Western industrialized nations are building massive police states to monitor and control populations, and are actively preparing for martial law and military rule in the event of such a situation unfolding.

However, the transnational elite are undertaking their own revolution from above. This revolution is encompassing the restructuring of the global political economy through their orchestrated economic crisis.

Neo-Gramscian political economic theory can help us understand how this revolution has been and is currently being undertaken. Neo-Gramscian IPE (International Political Economy) emerged in the 1980s within the critical camp of theory. Largely based off of the Italian Marxist writer, Antonio Gramsci, it places a great focus on analysis of global power, order and structure. There has been much analysis within Neo-Gramscian theory on the nature and structure of the transnational capitalist class. Among the analysis of transnational classes, Neo-Gramscian theory also places emphasis on the notions of hegemony and resistance, or counter-hegemony.

The Gramscian notion of hegemony differs from other perspectives in, particularly mainstream, Global Political Economy. With the Gramscian concept of hegemony, it does not focus simply on the use of state power at exerting power, but rather defines hegemony as a system of power that is dual; it requires both coercion and consent. Consent is key, as it implies the active consent of “subaltern” or “subordinate” groups (in other words, the great majority of the world’s people), to being submissive to the system itself. This hegemony is built around the notion of conformity; thus, conformity is an active consent to hegemony. By conforming, one is submitting to the system and their place within it. This is also an internationalizing concept, in that this hegemony is not nation-based, but transnational, and backed by the threat of coercive force.

In discussing resistance to hegemony, or counter-hegemony, Gramsci identified two forms of resistance; the war of position and the war of movement. Robert Cox, the most well known Neo-Gramscian theorist, analyzed how Gramsci defined these notions by comparing the experiences of Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution as compared with experiences in Western Europe. As Cox explained, “The basic difference between Russia and Western Europe was in the relative strengths of state and civil society. In Russia, the administrative and coercive apparatus of the state was formidable but proved to be vulnerable, while civil society was undeveloped. A relatively small working class led by a disciplined avant-garde was able to overwhelm the state in a war of movement and met no effective resistance from the rest of civil society.”[28]

So a war of movement was characterized by a small vanguard seizing power and overthrowing the state. “In Western Europe, by contrast, civil society, under bourgeois hegemony, was much more fully developed and took manifold forms. A war of movement might conceivably, in conditions of exceptional upheaval, enable a revolutionary vanguard to seize control of the state apparatus; but because of the resiliency of civil society such an exploit would in the long run be doomed to failure.” As Gramsci himself noted, “In Russia, the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society, and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.”[29]

In this instance, a war of movement was impossible to achieve in Western Europe, and thus, “The alternative strategy is the war of position which slowly builds up the strength of the social foundations of a new state. In Western Europe, the struggle had to be won in civil society before an assault on the state could achieve success.” This undertaking is massive to say the least, as it implies as a necessity, “creating alternative institutions and alternative intellectual resources within existing society and building bridges between workers and other subordinate classes. It means actively building counter-hegemony within an established hegemony while resisting the pressures and temptations to relapse into pursuit of incremental gains for subaltern groups within the framework of bourgeois hegemony.” In other words, it is a “long-range revolutionary strategy,” as compared to social democracy, which is “a policy of making gains within the established order.”[30]

However, I wish to take the concept and notion of the “war of position” and re-imagine it, not as a means of counter-hegemony, but as a means of supra-hegemony. This is not a war of position on the part of a counter-hegemonic group (grassroots opposition, etc), but is rather a war of position on the part of an embedded international elite, or supra-hegemonic group. Supra is Latin for “above,” which implies that this group is above hegemony, just as supra-national institutions (such as the European Union) are above nations. This is the elite of the elite, beyond national elites, and composing the top tier of the hierarchy within the transnational superclass. In terms of composition, this group is the highly concentrated international bankers, the dynastic banking families such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who control the major banking institutions of the world, which in turn, control the international central banking system. Their centralized power is exemplified in the Bank for International Settlements.

I will refer to this group as the Global Cartel. This Cartel has usurped global authority and power through an incremental, multi-century spanning war of position. The Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, constituting two separate treaties, created the notion of the nation state and state sovereignty within Western Europe. Feudalism dominated Europe from the medieval period through the 16th century, and was slowly replaced by the emergence of Capitalism. Major European empires had, since the 15th century, been pursuing empire building, such as with the trans-Atlantic slave trade and expansion into the Americas. This formed the first truly global economy. The empires worked under and in service to the monarchies that oversaw them.

It was with the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 that a European group of bankers overtook one of the major European empires. Great Britain then became the dominant empire, experiencing the Industrial Revolution prior to any other nation, and became a global hegemon. With the French Revolution, these European bankers took over another major empire through the establishment of the Bank of France, and then financed and profited off of all sides of every major war, and expanded imperial reach.

Through the expansion of the central banking system, a highly concentrated group of European bankers were able to overtake the major nations of the world. The entire history of the United States is the story of a Republic’s struggle and battle against a central bank. Finally, the bankers usurped monetary authority with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and built up and created the American empire.

It was in the 20th century that the war of position of the cartel is most apparent. As the world globalized, so too did the war of position. The major banking dynasties founded powerful philanthropies, such as the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. These organizations shaped civil society in the United States and set their sights internationally in scope. Through the establishment of think tanks like the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in Britain and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States, this cartel was able to bring in and centralize the intellectual, academic, strategic, military, economic and political establishments under the cartel’s influence. This was expanded by the cartel through organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

Centralizing and controlling debate and discussion within these vital socio-political-economic realms was a vital component of institutionalizing hegemony, as Gramsci understands it, in that the cartel used their monetary and financial hegemony (controlling the printing and value of currencies) to stimulate an active consent among the socio-political-economic elite. National elites consented to the hegemony of the cartel, whose coercive hegemony was in their ability to destroy a national economy through monetary policy.

This hegemony, both coercive and consenting, based within the elite class themselves, facilitated the war of position of the cartel to advance their interests and proceed with their incremental revolution. The aim of this cartel, like many tyrants and power-hungry people before it, was world domination. Bankers command no army, lead no nation, and motivate no people. Their influence lies in co-opting the commanders, controlling the leaders, and manipulating motivation.

Thus, it was of absolute necessity for the cartel to undertake their ultimate aim of world domination and world government through a war of position, as no person would fight for, surrender a nation to, or be motivated to help any banker achieve their own selfish goals. Rather, they had to slowly usurp power incrementally; control money, buy politicians, own economies, build empires, engineer wars, mold civil society, control their opposition, overtake educational institutions and ultimately, control thought.

Conclusion

As George Orwell wrote, “Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

The more people that think for themselves; the worse it is for the cartel. People, free thinking individuals, are the greatest threat to this cartel and their war of position. That is why the answer and solution to exposing the supra-hegemonic war of position, challenging and triumphing over the New World Order, lies in the free-thinking individual. The challenge is global and globalized; the solution is local and localized. The problem is conformity and controlled thought; the answer is individuality and free thought.

While humanity is faced with such monumental crises the likes of which in scope and size, we have never before faced, so too, are we faced with the greatest opportunities for an ultimate change in the right direction. While people are controlled and manipulated through crisis and disorder, so too can people be awoken to seeing the necessity of knowledge and critical thought. When one’s life is thrown into disorder and chaos, suddenly observation, information and knowledge become important in understanding how one got into that situation, and how one can escape it.

With this in mind, while facing the potential for the greatest struggle humanity has ever faced, so too are we facing the greatest potential for a new Enlightenment or a new Renaissance; an age of new thought, new life, new potential, and peace. No matter how much elites think they control all things, life has a way of making one realize that there are things outside the control of people. With every action, comes an equal and opposite reaction.

We may not reach a new age of thinking and peace before we enter into a new age of oppression and war. In fact, the former may not be possible without the latter. People must awake from their slumber; their immersion in consumerist society and pop culture distractions, and awake to both the malevolence of world systems and the wonder of life and its potential. Through crisis, comes control; through control, comes power; through power, comes resistance; through resistance, comes thinking; through thinking, comes potential; through potential, comes peace.

We may very well be entering into the most oppressive and destructive order the world has yet seen, but from its ruins and ashes, which are as inevitable as the tides and as sure as the sun rises, we may see the rise of a truly peaceful world order; in which we see the triumphs of individualism merge with the interests of the majority; a people’s world order of peace for all. We must maintain, as Antonio Gramsci once wrote, “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

Notes

[1] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 70-72: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[2] David Lyon, Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond. Willan Publishing, 2006: page 71

[3] Olga Chetverikova, Crisis as a way to build a global totalitarian state. Russia Today: April 20, 2009: http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-20/Crisis_as_a_way_to_build_a_global_totalitarian_state.html

[4] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 67: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 63: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[6] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 56: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[7] Richard Norton-Taylor, Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future. The Guardian: April 9, 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news

[8] Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai, RAND Lobbies Pentagon: Start War To Save U.S. Economy. Prison Planet: October 30, 2008: http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-lobbies-pentagon-start-war-to-save-us-economy.html

[9] Paul Joseph Watson, Celente Predicts Revolution, Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012. Prison Planet: November 13, 2008: http://www.prisonplanet.com/celente-predicts-revolution-food-riots-tax-rebellions-by-2012.html

[10] Gerald Celente, Obamageddon — 2012. Prison Planet: June 30: 2009: http://www.infowars.com/obamageddon-2012/

[11] CNBC, Gerald Celente. May 21, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akH5C3f4aTI

[12] Terry Easton, Exclusive Interview with Future Prediction Expert Gerald Celente. Human Events: June 5, 2009: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32152

[13] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144

[14] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157

[15] Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March 8, 1992. http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

[16] PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000, page 6: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

[17] Ibid. Page 8

[18] Ibid. Page 9

[19] Ibid. Page 14

[20] Ibid. Page 51

[21] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages 30-31

[22] Ibid. Page 36

[23] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160

[24] Jim Garamone, Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance. American Forces Press Service: June 2, 2000: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289

[25] Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier, Global NATO. Foreign Affairs: Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 85, Issue 5

[26] Xinhua, NATO changes to stay relevant. Xinhua News Agency: April 5, 2009: http://www.china.org.cn/international/2009-04/05/content_17554731.htm

[27] Ian Traynor, Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told. The Guardian: January 22, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/nato.nuclear

Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life". Global Research: February 11, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048

[28] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: pages 164-165

[29] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: page 165

[30] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: page 165

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Andrew G. Marshall is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Andrew G. Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew G. Marshall

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

Comments

Mojmir Babacek
26 Aug 09, 06:41

article which should reach people

MEANS OF INFORMATION WAR THREATEN DEMOCRACY AND MANKIND

Mojmir Babacek

(edited by John Allman and Rudy Andria)

The report on U.S. military policy by “Project for New American Century” states: "It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies … are creating a dynamic that may threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals, such as China are anxious to exploit those transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons … the effects of information and other advanced technologies promise to revolutionize the nature of conventional armed forces" (ref. 13, pg. 4 and 11). The military concept of information technologies is, however, kept hidden from the world general public.

In February 2000 the Russian daily Segodnya, in the article "Riders of Psychotronic Apocalypse" (1), informed that in 1996 Russian government's information agency FAPSI warned that the effect of "informational means of war" is comparable to "the effect of the use of weapon of mass destruction" and produced a report entitled "Information Weapon as a Threat to National Security of Russia". In reaction, the Russian State Duma and consequently , the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Union of Independent States addressed the United Nations, OBSE and the European Council with a proposal for an international convention banning the development and use of informational weapons. According to the same newspaper Segodnya in March 1998, the matter was discussed with U.N. secretary general Kofi Anan, and included on the agenda of the General Assembly of the U.N. Most probably the USA vetoed this proposal and in consequence , the ban of informational weapons was not discussed by the United Nations General Assembly.

In the Doctrine of Informational Security of the Russian Federation, signed by President Putin in September 2000, among the dangers threatening the informational security of the Russian Federation, there is “the threat to the constitutional rights and freedoms of people and citizens in the sphere of spiritual life and to individual, group and societal consciousness” by “illegal use of special means affecting individual, group and societal consciousness.” (16). Among “the main areas of international cooperation of the Russian Federation in the field of information security” , is listed “banning the development, proliferation and application of ‘information weapons’ ” (17).

In the article under discussion Segodnya described "mysterious information-psychological" means capable not only of harming human health, but also of blocking human free will at the subconscious level, impairing human beings’ ability of “political, cultural and other self-identification" and even “causing destruction of indivisible informational and spiritual space of the Russian Federation”. According to Russian scientist A. F. Okhatrin, those means are also capable to kill people (2). Underneath the article, Segodnya published a review of weapons affecting human psyche which it obtained from the Russian Department of Defense. Together with ultrasound and microwave weapons, there are also "psychotronic weapons" which, in addition to having the capability of "transfering information among people", are able to act on communication and electronic systems (1).

The Space Preservation Bill proposed by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2001, names the following technologies enabling access to the human brain, human health impairment or the killing of people: "land-based, sea-based or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood managment or mind control of such persons or populations" (4). "Psychotronic weapon" listed in the Dennis J. Kucinich's bill is described as a weapon using "torsion fields" radiation in the book "Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia" (6) by Russian scientist Vladimir Tsygankov and Vladimir Lopatin (a politician, who worked on Committees on Security in Russian Federal Republic, State Duma of the Russian Federation and the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Union of Independent States). Among the possible sources of remote influence on human psyche those two authors list “generators of physical fields” of "known as well as unknown nature" (14). It is common knowledge that both KGB and CIA carried out a large-scale research of psychic phenomena in the 70’s of the past century. It is not out of question that their scientists succeded in discovering the physical basis of those phenomena.

Among the known physical concepts non-local electron and photon connection can be used to explain telepathy. The ability of sound and light technologies to influence human psyche is exemplified by Psychowalkman industry. The existence of the electromagnetic mind control technology is confirmed in the Conclusion of the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma [3] and can be deduced from scientific and military literature.

Nerve impulses in the brain are carried by electrical signals triggered by changes in chemical balance. During the fifties and sixties of the past century, it was proved that human nervous system and behavior can be thoroughly controlled by electric signals imported to the brain by tiny electrodes (41). 100 stimulations of one point in the bull‘s brain made him 100 times bellow. When a man was asked to straighten his hand the bending of which was stimulated he replied “I think your electricity is stronger than my will.” By means of electrical stimulation of the brain the rhythm of breathing and heart beat [this was even stopped for several pulses] was affected as well as the function of the most of the viscera - like the secretion of the gall bladder. The stimulation of areas in the brain where feelings and emotions reside produced decisions. A passive, depressed woman tore up a piece of paper when her center of anger was stimulated: “I did not control myself. I had to get up and tear”, she commented. An aggressive woman, with the same area stimulated, got up and smashed against the wall the guitar she was playing until the moment of stimulation. The intensity of feelings could be controlled by turning the knob which reduced or increased the intensity of the electric current. When the pleasure area was stimulated women offered marriage to therapists. Stimulation of a particular area in a female monkey‘s brain ended her motherly care for a newborn baby. When the limbic system was stimulated the patients vigilance weakened, they lost the ability to think, they often began to undress or grope and when the stimulation stopped they could not remember what was happening. The signals had to be delivered in specific frequencies to produce repetitive action of neurons. Spanish scientist Jose Delgado became world known when he, with the use of this technology, made a bull attack him by pressing one button on the small black box and stopped the bull few feet away from him by pressing another button.

The idea that electric currents in the brain could be induced by electromagnetic energy is obviously subsequent step in this path of research. The information inside of the brain is processed digitally; in other words analog perceptions are “translated” and transferred by a number and frequency of nerve impulses, while the intensity of the feeling or perception usually corresponds to the intensity of electrical current. Walter J. Freeman, who had been for years measuring the brain activity in reaction to different stimuli by multitudes of microelectrodes, presented already in 1975 a hypothesis “that a novel external stimulus is broadly transmitted from the primary sensory cortex or thalamus to other parts of the cortex... transmission occurs at some characteristic frequency, and...reception occurs in ... sets tuned to that frequency” (37). In other words, when neurons cooperate in the processing of specific information they synchronize their activity and oscillate in the same frequency. In an experiment by Wolf Singer (20) the differences in brain activity in reaction to two different stimuli, presented to the tested subject at the same time, were represented by two different groups of neurons oscillating in different frequencies. In the modern scientific literature synchronization of frequencies of emitted nerve impulses in different parts of the brain as a principle of brain functioning is generally accepted (19). Electroencephalographers have no doubt that those synchronizations appear on the EEG recordings and are already able to “read” in those frequencies the single letters of a word perceived by the tested subject (21). Theoretically this means that the events in the brain can be produced “synthetically” from the outside when additional energy is pumped into the brain in specific frequencies corresponding to specific brain activities. John Marks, in his book on CIA mind control research, quotes one of the CIA research veterans recalling a colleague’s joke: “If you could find the natural radio frequency of a person‘s sphincter, you could make him run out of the room real fast” (22). Since most of the activity of human brain takes place in frequencies from 1 to 100 Hz and electromagnetic waves of this frequency are hundreds and even thousands of miles long, and, for that matter, could not target human brain, scientists started experimenting with pulsed microwaves. There are “window” microwave frequencies which penetrate deep enough into the brain tissue to produce activity of neurons there.

The interaction of electromagnetic radiation and chemicals in the brain was proved for example by the experiment where irradiation of rats’ heads by 20 and 40 mW/cm2 microwaves pulsed at 300, 600 and 1000 Hz woke the rats up in 5 minutes from narcosis (23). Electrical signals of neurons in the brain are mediated by chemicals called neurotransmitters. At a conference on “Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine” in 1989 Capt. Paul Tyler, director of the U.S. Navy Electromagnetic Radiation Project between 1970 and 1977, quoted in his lecture the research of Dr. Merrit who measured the decrease of norepinephrine, serotonine and dopamine when a field of 80 mW/cm2 was applied (24). All those hormones act as neurotransmitters into the cortex. Dopamin influences the ability to learn and other cognitive abilities. Disruption in the biosynthesis or transmission of dopamine can lead to Parkinson’s disease. In another experiment a 500Hz signal produced release of neradrenaline in sympathetical neurons (25). Since those neurons control the muscles of internal organs and noraderenaline acts there as a neurotransmitter, an oposite signal should be able to reduce the activity of internal organs and eventually impair human health. The publication of the World Health Organization on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms from 1981 (25) gives many examples of the effects of microwave radiation on the excretion of glands and chemical composition of blood. Many of those effects could harm human health. Microwave radiation can also affect molecules of DNA and thus affect the development of organisms (25). This was proved by an experiment by Yale neurophysiologist, Jose Delgado, where the irradiation of chicken embryos by 10, 100 and 1000 Hz stopped their development including the development of hearts and veins. The experiment was replicated by the American Navy with the same results. Such attack by microwaves could have, in the long run, disastrous impact on targeted populations.

A a matter of fact microwave radiation can produce many deadly effects. In the experiment by McAffee already mentioned, the microwaves pulsed at 300, 600 and 1000 Hz produced impairment in breathing (even leading to suffocation) in rats. A similar signal could also suffocate human beings. At the conference on Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems in 1983 the experiment was presented where blood clots were formed by microwave radiation (26). This capability is also suitable for weaponisation. Similarly dangerous is the finding of Allan Frey that radio frequency radiation can weaken the blood-brain barrier that prevents poisonous chemicals from the access into the brain (30). In 1986 the American Air Force issued a book “Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology” (18). The chapter “Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low Intensity Conflict”, was written by Capt. Paul Tyler, who had been the director of the U.S. Navy Electromagnetic Radiation Project from 1970 until 1977. At the beginning of the chapter, Capt. Tyler quotes a source entitled “Final Report on Biotechnology Research Requirements for Aeronautical Systems Through the Year 2000” that had been issued by American Air Force in 1982: “Currently available data allow the projection that specially generated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose a powerful and revolutionary antipersonnel military threats ... the passage of approximately 100 miliamperes through the myocardium can lead to cardiac standstill and death ... A rapidly scanning RFR system could provide an effective stun or kill capability over a large area. System effectiveness will be a function of wave form, field intensity, pulse width, repetition frequency, and carrier frequency.”

In less draconian assault, the use of microwaves could be limited just to the influence of human behavior. In 1985 Kathleen McAuliffe visited Jose Delgado in his laboratory in Spain, where he experimented with electromagnetic stimulation of brain. She subsequently wrote an article for the magazine OMNI (27). Jose Delgado showed her how he could make an ape fall asleep, or make it overactive, or how he could calm down fighting fish using suitably modulated microwave radiation.

The next series of experiments shows that human behavior can be controlled in even more intricate ways. In 1962 Allan H. Frey published in the “Journal of Applied Physiology” (28) the results of experimentation with transmission of sounds into the brain by electromagnetic radiation at a distance of up to 1000 feet. The “electromagnetic” sounds were heard by deaf as well as hearing people. In his report, Frey writes that, by then, only the visual system had been shown to respond to electromagnetic energy and he noted that, “With somewhat different transmission parameters we can induce the perception of severe buffeting of the head..” and ”Changing ... parameters again, one can induce a ‘pins-and-needles’ sensation.” Frey’s experiment was replicated several times by other scientists (28). Another, more advanced experiment that involved the transmission of radio modulated with audible sounds into the brain, was published only inadvertently, when Don R. Justesen published, in the article on "Microwaves and Behavior" (29), the result of an experiment described to him over the telephone conversation by his colleague J. C. Sharp, who worked on a secret military project Pandora. Joseph C. Sharp at the Walter Reed Army Institute improved the method of Frey to the point that he was able to transmit into the experimental subject’s brain words which he could understand. The ability of U.S. military to produce perception of speech in humans by microwave radiation substantiates the article by Sharon Weinberger, “Mind Games”, which was published in The Washington Post in January 2007. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed for the article the Air Force released “records that note that the patent was based on human experimentation in October 1994 at the Air Force lab, where scientists were able to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects” The article also states that “the research laboratory, citing classification, refused to discuss it or release other materials” (31).

Robert Becker, who was twice nominated for Nobel price for his share in the discovery of the effects of pulsed fields at the healing of broken bones, wrote in his book (30) about the experiment by J. F. Schapitz, who stated: “In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of hypnotist may also be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into the subconcscious parts of the human brain - i. e. without employing any technical devices for receiving or transcoding the messages and without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously.” In one of the four experiments subjects were given a test of hundred questions, ranging from easy to technical ones. Later, not knowing they were being irradiated, they would be subjected to information beams suggesting the answers to the questions they had left blank, amnesia for some of their correct answers, and memory falsification for other correct answers. After 2 weeks they had to pass the test again (30). The results of those experiments were never published. It is rather evident that in those experiments the messages were sent into human brain in ultrasound frequencies which the human brain perceives, but of which the subject is unaware. According to Russian newspapers, in this way, people may be programmed to perform different actions in the same way people can be programmed under hypnosis. In Moscow there exists Psychocorrection Center, where this method is used to heal psychical diseases such as alcoholism. The use of this method was questioned in the Russian press when general Lev Rokhlin was killed by his wife in his sleep at 2 a.m. after she had had a casual telephone conversation with a female friend. Did her friend use a sequence of words which were supposed to trigger the murderous action? Before his murder General Rokhlin planned for army protests against army reform and visited editor’s desks of Russian newspapers, telling them he might be soon killed in a car accident, during a drinking spree or during an argument with his wife (42).

In his other book “Cross Currents” Robert Becker presents the report coming from the Microwave Research Department at the Walter Reed Army Institute, where J.C. Sharp carried out his experiment with the transmission of words into the brain by radiofrequency radiation. The report deals with the effects of pulsed microwaves on the nervous system and describes the division of testing program into four parts: 1) prompt debilitating effects; 2) prompt stimulation auditory effects; 3) work interference (stoppage) effects; 4) effects on stimulus controlled behavior. The report presents this conclusion: “Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation unrelated to heat” (32).

In the second volume of the Final Report on Biotechnology Research Requirements for Aeronautical Sysmes of the American Air Force it is stated: “While initial attention should be toward degradation of human performance through thermal loading and electromagnetic filed effects, subsequent work should address the possibilities of directing and interrogating mental functioning, using externally applied fields…” (33). In the second volume of the report the research was evaluated as "progressing according to the schedule or in advance" and was supposed to be terminated in 2010.

In the Soviet Russia the ongoing research in this area was completely hidden from the public, but change of political system and actual use of this equipment during the putsch against Gorbachov brought this subject to newspapers headlines. According to Russian daily newspapers, during the failed coup d'etat against Gorbachov, General Kobets warned the defenders of the Russian White House that mind control technology could be used against them. After the putsch, respected Russian scientist Victor Sedlecki published a statement in the Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda that psychotronic biogenerators were mass produced in the Soviet Union and were used during the failed coup d'etat [7], but failed to succeed due to the inexperience of the personel who operated them. In the following spree of articles on the subject of mind control, the experiment was published where manipulation of masses of people by microwave radiation was performed. Already in 1974, after successful testing on a military unit in Novosibirsk, the installation Radioson (Radiosleep) was registered with the Government Committee on the Matters of Inventions and Discoveries of the USSR, described as a method of induction of sleep by means of radio waves. Apparently, in 1974, the entire military unit was put to sleep (5).

In the book “Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology” (18), Captain Tyler also wrote: “Because of the many parameters involved and the apparent specificity of each parameter, one can tailor a specific response. The ability to have this kind of flexibility provides an enormous range of options to the user. It opens the door for providing an appropriate response in warfare, be it conventional or unconventional” (18). If you object that the range of frequencies in which the human nervous system works is too narrow to provide for such a wide choice of reactions, Capt. Tyler writes: “There are unconfirmed reports that change of 0.01 Hz can make a difference.” Since many activities of human brain are represented by different sequences of frequencies, this provides for further large choices.

At the end of 1994 the first tests of the most powerful radar system in the world were carried out in Alaska. This year its power should reach 10 billion watts and later 100 billion watts. The main features of the system include its ability to heat the ionosphere and in this way change the altitude of the ionosphere. By this kind of manipulation of the ionosphere, it is possible to bounce the electromagnetic waves back from the ionosphere to whichever region of the planet one wishes to target. According to the official information by the U.S. government the system HAARP is designed for scientific research. However, there are too many facts suggesting that the major reason for its construction are military purposes. The main patent of Bernard J. Eastlund (number 4,686,605) proposes the use of the system for destruction of navigation systems of airplanes and missiles wherever in the atmosphere they might be, and for interference with all communication systems anywhere on the planet, and the global weather control. Other patents connected with the system propose the use of the system for induction of detonations in the extent of nuclear explosions and other military uses (33).

Evidently, the warning of Russian intelligence agency FAPSI to the Russian government and the article in the Russian daily “Segodnya” were direct recations to the installation of the U.S. HAARP system. The HAARP system can start pulsing microwave radiation with one thousandth of one Hertz and this means that, when raising pulsing frequencies, it can change pulses of microwave radiations by one thousandths of one Hertz and can control the activity of human brain in frequencies from 1 to 100 Hertz which are crucial for functioning of human nervous system. In June 1995, Michael Persinger, who apparently worked on the American Navy's project of non-lethal electromagnetic weapons “Sleeping Beauty”, published, in a scientific magazine Perception and Motor Skills the article where he states: “the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species without mediation through classical sensory modalities by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed… is now marginally feasible” (34).

John B. Alexander, who later became the Director of Non-lethal Programs in Los Alamos National Laboratory, wrote in his article in the Military Review in the year 1980: “whoever makes the first major breakthrough in this field will have a quantum lead over his opponent, an advantage similar to sole possession of nuclear weapons” (35). Samuel Koslov, a leading personality of the Pandora project that was dedicated to research of effects of microwave radiation on humans, and a researcher at the John Hopkins University, in his closing speech at the conference on Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems in 1984, said that the conference had proven that the external electric fields can “become a key to the cellular control console. The implications, social, economic, and even military are enormous.” Koslov went on: “If much of what we have heard is indeed correct, it may be not less significant to the nation than the prospects that faced the physics community in 1939 when the long-time predicted fissionability of the nucleus was actually demonstrated. You may recall the famous letter of Albert Einstein to President Roosvelt. When we’re in a position to do so in terms of our proofs, I would propose that an analogous letter is required” (26).

It is this perspective, of the revolutionary nature of these scientific developments, that gives us the title, “Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War”, of a book published by the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College in 1994 (36). Since the national security information is in question, the book cannot tell the readers what technology exactly is making this revolution feasible. From the beginning the authors were aware that the use of this technology may run counter to basic moral and political values of the American society, and in consequence the revolution in military affairs would require a moral and political revolution to come first: ”In the pre-RMA days, psychological operations and psychological warfare were primitive. As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic... Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic ”consciousness raising”, old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed.” Since it is difficult for them to imagine that the American society would accept the ethical and political revolution that would deprive the citizen of his privacy, they develop a scenario of events which would lead the American political leaders to back this revolution. The scenario is placed into the year 2000, and is based on the situation of growing terrorism, drug trafficking and criminality. In the document Rebuilding Americas Defenses, backed by the past U.S. government, we read: “To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must … seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs … Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” (ref. 13, pg. 51). Was it by accident that in 2001 a massive terrorist attack ocurred in the USA facilitated by questionable work of U.S. intelligence services and followed by anthrax attacks where the only indicted scientist, Bruce Ivins, did not have the technical means and scientific knowledge to turn the anthrax spores into a deadly aerosol which was used and that those two attacks were followed by an assault on privacy of U.S. Citizens and international law?

The scenario goes on: “The president was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA (revolution in military affairs) in conflict short of war ... As technology changed the way force was applied, things such as personal courage, face-to-face leadership, and the ‘warfighter’ mentality became irrelevant.” So the psychotechnology, which formed the core of the RMA, provided new methods for influencing the psyche of the adversary, in place of the classical strategy to make him fear his death. The book goes on: “Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as ‘potential’ or ‘active’, with sophisticated personality simulations used to develop, tailor and focus psychological campaigns for each. There is also potential for defensive psychotechnology such as ‘strategic personality simulations’ to aid national security decision makers.” (See Norman D. Livergood and Stephen D. Williams, “Strategic Personality Simulation: A New Strategic Concept”, unpublished draft paper, Carlisle Barracks, PAK: U.S. Army War College, 1994). Human behovior and thinking is substantially controlled by emotions. If simulated emotions are broadcasted into somebody’s nervous system they will orient his thinking and behavior. Thoughts are another organizer of human behavior and personal thoughts can be overridden by ultrasound messages. In other words if there was, for example, a new Jesus Christ, U.S. agencies would simply engineer his personality to make sure he would not introduce any cultural changes. Once the strategy of computerized personality simulation is applied, the unfolding of human history will be totally controlled by elites having exclusive access to those technologies. The conclusion of the authors was: “Whether we opt for revolution or evolution, change will occur.”

The concept of the “strategic personality stimulation” is probably tested on some of the people in the USA who claim to be mind control experiments victims, whose number, rapidly growing after 9/11 attacks, inspired the article in Washington Post, entitled “Mind Games” (31) in 2007. Cheryl Welsh, the director of the American organization Mind Justice (38) claims that she has received over 2500 complaints from U.S. citizens. Though some of those people may be mentally ill, many of them defend themselves in a rational way that suggests that they may be mentally sound. The same situation is in Russia. Russian politician Vladimir Lopatin even admitted nonconsensual human-subject experiments had been conducted in Russia, when he wrote in the quoted book: “Compensation of damages and losses connected with social rehabilitation of persons suffering from destructive informational influence must be realized in legal trial…” (14). Growing numbers of complaints are coming as well from China and Japan (over 200).

The European Parliament reacted to the installation of HAARP system by calling for “an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings” (15, Paragraph 27). The body of the European Parliament STOA (Scientific and Technolgical Options Assessment) in the document “Crowd Control Technologies”, stated that „some of these concerns… have been more specifically covered by the resolution on legal aspects of military activities passed at the meeting of the EP_s Foreign Affairs, Security and defence Policy which called for an international convention and global ban on all research and development , whether civilian or military , which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems. (40, pg CII, ref. 369). The „actual“ deployment of those means confirmed US Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, the author of a Bill introduced into the US Congress in October 2001 proposing a ban on the deployment of “mind control” weapons, when he was quoted to assert that those weapons actually exist and “those people who control them are deadly serious and intend to use them, if we don't stop the weaponisation of space” (10).

Electromagnetic technology enabling remote control of the functioning of human organism is subjected to National Security Information law in the USA (8) and all technologies enabling access to human brain are subject to the same law in the Russian Federation (9). Under such conditions, the mass media cannot fully disclose the existence and capacities of those technologies and world public cannot be engaged in favour of a ban on the use of such capabilities. The ownership of those technologies gives opportunity to governments to use them against individuals (and eventually against masses), without giving them any access to any legal remedy. The concept of the world respecting freedom and human rights is fundamentally corrupted in this way. In November 2000 the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma stated that capabilities enabling remote control of human nervous system or the remote infliction of health impairment are available to many modern governments (3). This was confirmed by the article from the U.S. army weekly Defense News stating that mind control technologies were used by the Israelis against the Palestinians (12).

Evidently the secret arms race among the world governments may continue until the information war actually breaks out. V. Lopatin, in the book “Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia”, stated that psychotronic war is, as a matter of fact, “already taking place without declaration of war”. In this way the human world may sink into some kind of virtual reality where the independence of human thinking, feeling and decision making will be destroyed as a part of an “information war” or, in the worst case, into the reality where large masses of people will be killed, and unlike the aftermath of the deployment of nuclear weapons, the planet will still remain inhabitable for the survivors.

With emerging energetic and climate crises either the next world war could erupt, or the means of remote manipulation of human brains and organisms could be applied to control dissatisfied citizens. In the conclusion of the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma it is stated: “Phone lines, heating and sewer pipes, TVs, fire signalisation can be used as transmitting antennas” (3). Our elected democratic representatives are responsible for foreseeing the emerging crises and preventing them from happening by appropriate measures. However, they do not have mandate from citizens to allow those crises to happen, and then use technologies of mind manipulation to do away with citizen’s dissatisfaction. If this technology is once used against citizens it is questionable whether true democracy will be restored one day. The countries with the most advanced military technologies include the USA, which has never proposed any international initiative aimed at securing the ban of technologies enabling the remote control of human beings. According to the study “Crowd Control Technologies” published by the European Parliament’s STOA office, the USA are the major promoter of the use of those arms. (In fact, it was principally the efforts of the USA government to persuade this outcome that ensured the inclusion in NATO military doctrine of non-lethal technology.) The STOA states: “In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals”; and “In 1996 non-lethal tools identified by the U.S. Army included… directed energy systems” and “radio frequency weapons” (40).

According to the Russian government intelligence agency FAPSI, in the last 15 years, the U.S. expenses on the development and acquisition of the means of informational war grew fourfold and at the present time they occupy the first place among all military programs (17),(3). Though there are concepts of informational warfare other than the remote control of human beings, the unwillingnes of the USA to engage in the negotiations aimed at the ban of the manipulation of human brains suggests an intention to use those means in internal as well as in international affairs. If the USA achieve essential military preeminence in this area and if no global ban of the use of those technologies against civilians is negotiated, the USA may become a world totalitarian superpower of the new type.

So far the only government who made a small step toward the ban of those technologies is the Russian Federation where the addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law “On Weapons” was approved on July 26, 2001. The legislation states: “within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects … the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations…”. Besides omitting the use of the term “psychotronic energy” that both Lopatin and Kucinich used, the Russian legislation does not provide any means for Russian citizens to defend themselves against the use of those weapons. Nor is there any compulsion upon the police or public health organizations to set up teams capable of detecting radiation that was enabling remote manipulation of human body and nervous system, or the source of such radiation. Nor does this legislation prohibit Russian government agencies from the use of such technology against their own citizens. In the USA alone, some of the federal states have enacted in their laws on firearms, new standards on electric and electromagnetic weapons (Michigan in 2003, Massachusetts in 2004, Maine in 2005). Sanctions go from 15 years in jail to life imprisonment, identically with weapons of mass destruction. As in Russia, those laws do not provide for the defense of citizens against the use of those weapons by government agencies.

On February 25, 2009 Deputy Chief of General Staff of Russian Army, Anatoli Nogovicyn, stated that within 2 or 3 years a full fledged war in informational sphere, including “information-psychlogical influence on population and military units” may break out (39). So far politicians (especially in the USA) have not shown responsible intention to take action to stop this new arms race, which threatens to place human beings in a position subsidiary to machines and to destroy democracy. Humanitarian organizations apparently do not dare to challenge this National Security Information (on several occasions Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have refused to engage with this issue). Under such circumstances, it is left to citizens themselves to organize defense of their freedoms and elementary human rights, before those technologies are used at war or to suppress their dissatisfaction with governments who failed to prevent the emerging crises. They should coordinate their efforts internationally if they want to succeed.

1) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - Russian original - “Riders of Psychotronic”, concise English translation of "Riders of Psychotronic Apocalypse" at - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

2) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - Russian original: “Zombeing Bluff or” – concise English translation of the article "The Project Zombie is a Bluff or…?" - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

3) see Russian original “Dokument” - http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz, translation – “State Duma” -http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

4) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?c107:chemtrails

5) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - Russian original “Installation Radiosleep”, concise English translation http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm - "Installation Radiosleep"

6) http://www.mindjustice.org/russian.pdf pg. 27-37 concise overview of the book other excerpts you will find at the address http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

7) Russian original - http://web.io.cz.mhzzrz : “Authors of Project Zombie”, concise English translation - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm - "Authors of Project Zombie Discovered in Kiev".

8) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - see memorandum of the Department of the Air Force, Assembly State of New York and Communicating via the Microwave Auditory Effect or article „Mind Games“ in Washington Post from January 2006, where an experiment with microwave transmission of spoken phrases into the human brain was published as well as the fact that this technology is subject to the National Security Information law

9) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - Russian original: “Secret Weapon in Action” - concise translation "Secret Superweapon in Action": http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

10) see the article from Berkeley Daily Planet" http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=06-03-05&storyID=21550

11) http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

12) http://web.iol.cz/mhzzrz - Israel Fields Means to Suppress Palestinian Violence

13) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf , pg. 4

14) http://www.mindjustice.org/russian.pdf pg. 36, or concise English translation of the book „Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia“ at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2289/webpage.htm

15) Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pv2/pv2?PRG=DOCPV&APP=PV2&DATE=280199&DATEF=990128&TPV=DEF&TYPEF=A4&POS=1&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=RESOL&PrgPrev=TYPEF@A4%7CPRG@QUERY%7CAPP@PV2%7CFILE@BIBLIO99%7CNUMERO@5%7CYEAR@99%7CPLAGE@1&LANGUE=EN

16) Doctrine of the Informational Security of the Russian Federation there see pg. 3 - Types of Threats to the Informational Security of the Russian Federation) http://www.medialaw.ru/e_pages/laws/project/d2-4.htm

17) See ref. 16, pg. 19, “The International Cooperation of the Russian Federation in the Field of Ensuring Information Security"

18) Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology, ed. Lt.Col. J. Dean, USAF, Air University Press, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, june 1986 (on Internet the site exists, but can not be found)

19) Francis H. Crick: The Astonishing Hypothesis. The Scientific Search for the

Soul, Simon and Schuster, London, 1994, U.K.

20) Wolf Singer: The Formation of Representations in the Cerebral Cortex, 1992, Editor: Arzneimittelinformation/Medizinische redaktion, Schering, Germany, ISSN 0940-9300

21) Journal of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, supplement no. 45, 1996, “Continuous Wave-Form Analysis”, page 64

22) John Marks: The CIA and Mind Control - the Search for Manchurian Candidate, USA, 1988, ISBN 0-440-20137-3

23) James C. Lin: Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications, Charles C. Thomas publisher, Springfield, Illinois, USA, ISBN 0-398-03704-3, (experiments by McAffee conducted in 1961, 1962 and 1970)

24) Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine, 1990, conference proceedings

25) Critere d'hygiene de l'environment, frequence radioelectric et

hyperfrequences, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland, 1981

26) Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems, ed. Ross Adey, proceedings of the conference, Plenum Press, New York, London, 1984

27) magazine OMNI, February 1985, Kathleen McAuliffe "The Mind Fields"

28) Allan H. Frey, 1962, Human Auditory System Response to Modulated

Electromagnetic Energy, Journal of Aplied Physiology, 17/4, pg. 689 – 692 - http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/689

E..M. Taylor. B-. Ashelman, 1974, Analysis of Central Nervous System

Involvment in Microwave Auditory Effects, Brain research, vol. 74, pg. 201 -206

J.L. Flanagan, 1961, Audibility of Periodic Pulses and a Model for the Threshold, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, vol. 33 (11), pg. 1540 – 49 K.R. Foster, E.D. Finch, 1974, Microwave Hearing: evidence for Thermoacoustic Auditory Stimulation by Pulsed Microwaves, Science, vol. 185, pg. 256 -258

29) Don R. Justesen, 1975, Microwaves and Behavior, American Psychologist, March 1975, pg. 391

30) Dr. Robert Becker: Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of

Life, William Morrow and comp., New York, 1985

31) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399_pf.html

32) Robert Becker: Cross Currents, The Startling Effects of Electromagnetic

Radiation on Your Health, 1991, Bloomsberry Publishing, London, Great Brittain, ISBN 0-7475-0761-9

33) Dr. Nick Begich, Jeanne Maning: Angels Don't Play this HAARP, Earthpulse

Press, P.O. Box 393, Anchorage, Alaska 99520, USA (on Internet you will find the reference to the “Final Report…” but the site can not be found)

34) M.A. Persinger: On the Possibility of Directly Accessing Every Human brain

by Electromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorythms, Perception and Motor Skills, june 1995, vol. 80, pg. 791 -799 - http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn165.htm

35) John B. Alexander: The New Mental Battelfield: Beam me up Spock, Military

Review, Dec. 1980 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon16.htm

36) Steven Metz, James Kievit, "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict

Short of War, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle

Barracks, PA 17013-5050 http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241

37) Mlada Fronta Dnes, March 28, 1997 (the Czech newspaper)

38) http://www.mindjustice.com

39) http://www.lenta.ru/news/2009/02/25/strategy/

40) Working document for STOA panel of the European Parliament entitled “Crowd Control Technologies” - http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publications/studies/19991401a_en.pdf

41) Jose M. R. Delgado: Physical Control of the Mind, Toward a Psychocivilized

Society, 1969, USA

42) Russian weekly “Argumenty I Fakty”, number 32, August 2003, article title: “Versii ubiistva generala Rokhlina” (Versions of Murder of General Rokhlin)

43) Walter J. Freeman: Mass Action in the Nervous System, Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, 1975

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

The Market Oracle is a FREE Financial Markets Forecasting & Analysis web-site.
(c) 2005-2024 MarketOracle.co.uk (Market Oracle Ltd) - Market Oracle Ltd asserts copyright on all articles authored by our editorial team and all comments posted. Any and all information provided within the web-site, is for general information purposes only and Market Oracle Ltd do not warrant the accuracy, timeliness or suitability of any information provided on this site. nor is or shall be deemed to constitute, financial or any other advice or recommendation by us. and are also not meant to be investment advice or solicitation or recommendation to establish market positions. We do not give investment advice and our comments are an expression of opinion only and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as recommendations to enter into a market position either stock, option, futures contract, bonds, commodity or any other financial instrument at any time. We recommend that independent professional advice is obtained before you make any investment or trading decisions. By using this site you agree to this sites Terms of Use. From time to time we promote or endorse certain products / services that we believe are worthy of your time and attention. In return for that endorsement and only in the cases where you purchase directly though us may we be compensated by the producers of those products.