New World Order & Open Space - Long reply

[STS]

On Thursday, September 27, 2001, at 10:46 PM, J. Paul Everett wrote:

> In a message dated 9/26/01 9:49:05 PM, sacred at anacortes.net writes:
>
> << "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the
> right
>
> major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David
>
> Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations,
>
> September 14, 1994
>
>
> Toni Petrinovich >>
>
> I think it would be useful to carefully and completely define this 'New
> World
> Order' that David Rockefeller speaks about.  It's not useful to merely
> quote
> someone without providing the framework in which the quote stands
> unless the
> quote is self-defining.  This one clearly is not.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul Everett
>

Paul's suggestion to examine the 'New World Order' is a good one - and a
quite consuming one - too consuming for this list-serve. However, for we
agents of openness, it warrants an introduction - and your further
independent investigation. If we really understood what is happening
behind the scenes of our respective governments and multi-lateral
organizations such as the UN, The World Bank, the IMF and WTO, we'd
start to fathom how much work we have to do as Open Space advocates.

You may have noticed that in the wake of 911, the 'Council on Foreign
Relations' (CFR), has been cited several times in the mainstream media.
This is a relatively new phenomenon despite the fact the CFR has been
around for decades and counts virtually all Presidents since 1940 as
it's members (including George W. Bush, Clinton and George Bush Sr. who,
by the way, spoke many times about a 'New World Order'), It also counts
as members, nearly all top American governmental and military positions,
top bankers, and corporate & media executives. While ostensibly a North
American organization, he CFR is closely tied to mirror entities in
Europe (Royal Institute of International Affairs),  Asia (Tri-Lateral
Commission) & The Middle East (Middle East Policy Council) making it an
international network. When you examine these organizations and see how
their members occupy virtually all positions of power in our society, it
becomes apparent how insidious the matrix has grown.

As Open Space advocates, I'm sure you're all aware of how
compartmentalization works. It's quite easy for a secret agenda to be
kept within a clique that effects the masses of a company, organization
or institution. How many times have you heard someone say "I had no idea
the company was being sold (or was in trouble etc.)!"
Compartmentalization can also exist on a global scale, particularly when
media ownership (read: propaganda organ) is so highly concentrated as it
is today.

Media executives are quite blatant about their control:

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they
ought to have." -- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it. If I allowed my honest
opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my
occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy
the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet
of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and
I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are
the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the
jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our
possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are
intellectual prostitutes." --  John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff
at the New York Times when giving a toast before the prestigious New
York Press Club in 1953. It's worth noting that Swinton was called "The
Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly.

The 'New World Order' is nothing but a euphemism for global control by a
ruling group of elites. This will not likely be benevolent but more like
global feudalism. Here's a direct quote about the objectives of the CFR
from a CFR member of 16 years, US Rear Admiral Chester Ward:

"The most powerful clique in these elitest groups have one objective in
common, they want to bring about the surrender of the soveriegnty of the
national independence of the United States of America. A second clique
of international members in the CFR comprises of Wall Street
international bankers and their key agents. Primarily they want the
world banking monopoly from whatever power that ends up in control of
the global government."

Below you'll find a recent article from "The Nation" called "Blowback"
which demonstrates that the people who run the United States government
and it's agencies (i.e. CFR) do not have the interests of the human
populace in mind. It's not even about the US populace, as the following
excerpted section indicates:

"Two of the most influential federal institutions are not in Washington
but on the south side of the Potomac River--the Defense Department and
the Central Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must
conclude that the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no
longer bears much relationship to the government that actually rules
from Washington. Until that is corrected, we should probably stop
talking about "democracy" and "human rights."

Just like companies fall prey to hostile take-overs and governments of
sovereign nations are subverted, globally, our natural, God-given rights
as free human beings are being usurped - and the events of 911 just
accelerated the time-lines.

There is hope - especially for those of us who believe in open space
organizations. Open Space promotes decentralization and empowerment.
Good reason for all of us to press on.

CFR Official Sites:
http://www.cfr.org
http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org

CFR Overviews - shorter & lighter fare, includes CRF roster list:
http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/cfr.htm
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/cfr.html

CFR Introduction & History (non-religious despite URL name) - heavier
reading, very well documented:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nowcfr.htm

CFR In The Context of Larger Global Networks - fascinating:
Transcript - detailed, heavier reading:
http://Posse-Comitatus.org/realaudio/fagan/transcript.html
Interview in RealAudio:
http://64.33.18.141/realaudio/fagan/fagan_0.html

=====================================

Article from "The Nation" magazine http://www.thenation.com

Blowback
by Chalmers Johnson


For Americans who can bear to think about it, those tragic pictures from
New York of women holding up photos of their husbands, sons and
daughters and asking if anyone knows anything about them look familiar.
They are similar to scenes we have seen from Buenos Aires and Santiago.
There, too, starting in the 1970s, women held up photos of their loved
ones, asking for information. Since it was far too dangerous then to say
aloud what they thought had happened to them--that they had been
tortured and murdered by US-backed military juntas--the women coined a
new word for them, los desaparecidos--"the disappeareds." Our government
has never been honest about its own role in the 1973 overthrow of the
elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile or its backing, through
"Operation Condor," of what the State Department has recently called
"extrajudicial killings" in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and elsewhere in
Latin America. But we now have several thousand of our own
disappeareds, !
and we are badly mistaken if we think that we in the United States are
entirely blameless for what happened to them.

The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America,"
as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they
attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak,
they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because
they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the
innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The
United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for
its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon
of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it
did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military
machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the
disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were
attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers
were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, !
"This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define
difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a
"clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is
not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the
"blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated.

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently
declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of
Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended
consequences of the US government's international activities that have
been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there
might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the
affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought
twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and
elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American
embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided
"covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable
people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an
implacable enemy.

The pattern has become all too familiar. Osama bin Laden, the leading
suspect as mastermind behind the carnage of September 11, is no more (or
less) "evil" than his fellow creations of our CIA: Manuel Noriega,
former commander of the Panama Defense Forces until George Bush
père in late 1989 invaded his country and kidnapped him, or
Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom we armed and backed so long as he was at war
with Khomeini's Iran and whose people we have bombed and starved for a
decade in an incompetent effort to get rid of him. These men were once
listed as "assets" of our clandestine services organization.

Osama bin Laden joined our call for resistance to the Soviet Union's
1979 invasion of Afghanistan and accepted our military training and
equipment along with countless other mujahedeen "freedom fighters." It
was only after the Russians bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age
and suffered a Vietnam-like defeat, and we turned our backs on the death
and destruction we had helped cause, that he turned against us. The last
straw as far as bin Laden was concerned was that, after the Gulf War, we
based "infidel" American troops in Saudi Arabia to prop up its decadent,
fiercely authoritarian regime. Ever since, bin Laden has been attempting
to bring the things the CIA taught him home to the teachers. On
September 11, he appears to have returned to his deadly project with a
vengeance.

There are today, ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union, some
800 Defense Department installations located in other countries. The
people of the United States make up perhaps 4 percent of the world's
population but consume 40 percent of its resources. They exercise
hegemony over the world directly through overwhelming military might and
indirectly through secretive organizations like the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Though
largely dominated by the US government, these are formally international
organizations and therefore beyond Congressional oversight.

As the American-inspired process of "globalization" inexorably enlarges
the gap between the rich and the poor, a popular movement against it has
gained strength, advancing from its first demonstrations in Seattle in
1999 through protests in Washington, DC; Melbourne; Prague; Seoul; Nice;
Barcelona; Quebec City; Göteborg; and on to its violent
confrontations in Genoa earlier this year. Ironically, though American
leaders are deaf to the desires of the protesters, the Defense
Department has actually adopted the movement's main premise--that
current global economic arrangements mean more wealth for the "West" and
more misery for the "rest"--as a reason why the United States should
place weapons in space. The US Space Command's pamphlet "Vision for
2020" argues that "the globalization of the world economy will also
continue, with a widening between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots,'" and
that we have a mission to "dominate the space dimension of military
operations to protect U!
S interests and investments" in an increasingly dangerous and implicitly
anti-American world. Unfortunately, while the eyes of military planners
were firmly focused on the "control and domination" of space and
"denying other countries access to space," a very different kind of
space was suddenly occupied.

On the day after the September 11 attack, Democratic Senator Zell Miller
of Georgia declared, "I say, bomb the hell out of them. If there's
collateral damage, so be it." "Collateral damage" is another of those
hateful euphemisms invented by our military to prettify its killing of
the defenseless. It is the term Pentagon spokesmen use to refer to the
Serb and Iraqi civilians who were killed or maimed by bombs from
high-flying American warplanes in our campaigns against Slobodan
Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. It is the kind of word our new ambassador
to the United Nations, John Negroponte, might have used in the 1980s to
explain the slaughter of peasants, Indians and church workers by
American-backed right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua while he was ambassador to Honduras. These
activities made the Reagan years the worst decade for Central America
since the Spanish conquest.

Massive military retaliation with its inevitable "collateral damage"
will, of course, create more desperate and embittered childless parents
and parentless children, and so recruit more maddened people to the
terrorists' cause. In fact, mindless bombing is surely one of the
responses their grisly strategy hopes to elicit. Moreover, a major
crisis in the Middle East will inescapably cause a rise in global oil
prices, with, from the assassins' point of view, desirable destabilizing
effects on all the economies of the advanced industrial nations.

What should we do? The following is a start on what, in a better world,
we might modestly think about doing. But let me concede at the outset
that none of this is going to happen. The people in Washington who run
our government believe that they can now get all the things they wanted
before the trade towers came down: more money for the military,
ballistic missile defenses, more freedom for the intelligence services
and removal of the last modest restrictions (no assassinations, less
domestic snooping, fewer lists given to "friendly" foreign police of
people we want executed) that the Vietnam era placed on our leaders. An
inevitable consequence of big "blowback" events like this one is that,
the causes having been largely kept from American eyes (if not Islamic
or Latin American ones), people cannot make the necessary connections
for an explanation. Popular support for Washington is thus, at least for
a while, staggeringly high.

Nonetheless, what we should do is to make a serious analytical effort to
determine what overseas military commitments make sense and where we
should pull in our horns. Although we intend to continue supporting
Israel, our new policy should be to urge the dismantling of West Bank
Israeli settlements as fast as possible. In Saudi Arabia, we should
withdraw our troops, since they do nothing for our oil security, which
we can maintain by other means. Beyond the Middle East, in Okinawa,
where we have thirty-eight US military bases in the midst of 1.3 million
civilians, we should start by bringing home the Third Marine Division
and demobilizing it. It is understrength, has no armor and is not up to
the standards of the domestically based First and Second Marine
Divisions. It has no deterrent value but is, without question, an
unwanted burden we force the people of this unlucky island to bear.

A particular obscenity crying out for elimination is the US Army's
School of the Americas, founded in Panama in 1946 and moved to Fort
Benning, Georgia, in 1984 after Panamanian President Jorge Illueca
called it "the biggest base for destabilization in Latin America" and
evicted it. Its curriculum includes counterinsurgency, military
intelligence, interrogation techniques, sniper fire, infantry and
commando tactics, psychological warfare and jungle operations. Although
a few members of Congress have long tried to shut it down, the Pentagon
and the White House have always found ways to keep it in the budget. In
May 2000 the Clinton Administration sought to provide new camouflage for
the school by renaming it the "Defense Institute for Hemispheric
Security Cooperation" and transferring authority over it from the Army
Department to the Defense Department.

The school has trained more than 60,000 military and police officers
from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Among SOA's most
illustrious graduates are the dictators Manuel Noriega (now serving a
forty-year sentence in an American jail for drug trafficking) and Omar
Torrijos of Panama; Guillermo Rodrigues of Ecuador; Juan Velasco
Alvarado of Peru; Leopoldo Galtieri, former head of Argentina's junta;
and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. More recently, Peru's Vladimiro
Montesinos, SOA class of 1965, surfaced as a CIA asset and former
President Alberto Fujimori's closest adviser.

More difficult than these fairly simple reforms would be to bring our
rampant militarism under control. From George Washington's "farewell
address" to Dwight Eisenhower's invention of the phrase
"military-industrial complex," American leaders have warned about the
dangers of a bloated, permanent, expensive military establishment that
has lost its relationship to the country because service in it is no
longer an obligation of citizenship. Our military operates the biggest
arms sales operation on earth; it rapes girls, women and schoolchildren
in Okinawa; it cuts ski-lift cables in Italy, killing twenty
vacationers, and dismisses what its insubordinate pilots have done as a
"training accident"; it allows its nuclear attack submarines to be used
for joy rides for wealthy civilian supporters and then covers up the
negligence that caused the sinking of a Japanese high school training
ship; it propagandizes the nation with Hollywood films glorifying
military service (Pearl Harbor); !
and it manipulates the political process to get more carrier task
forces, antimissile missiles, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers and other
expensive gadgets for which we have no conceivable use. Two of the most
influential federal institutions are not in Washington but on the south
side of the Potomac River--the Defense Department and the Central
Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must conclude that
the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no longer bears much
relationship to the government that actually rules from Washington.
Until that is corrected, we should probably stop talking about
"democracy" and "human rights."

Once we have done the analysis, brought home most of our "forward
deployed" troops, refurbished our diplomatic capabilities, reassured the
world that we are not unilateralists who walk away from treaty
commitments and reintroduced into government the kinds of idealistic
policies we once pioneered (e.g., the Marshall Plan), then we might
assess what we can do against "terrorism." We could reduce our
transportation and information vulnerabilities by building into our
systems more of what engineers call redundancy: different ways of doing
the same things--airlines and railroads, wireless and optical fiber
communications, automatic computer backup programs, land routes around
bridges. It is absurd that our railroads do not even begin to compare
with those in Western Europe or Japan, and their inadequacies have made
us overly dependent on aviation in travel between US cities. It may well
be that some public utilities should be nationalized, just as safety
aboard airliners should be!
come a federal function. Flight decks need to be made genuinely
inaccessible from the passenger compartments, as they are on El Al. In
what might seem a radical change, we could even hire intelligence
analysts at the CIA who can read the languages of the countries they are
assigned to and have actually visited the places they write about
(neither of these conditions is even slightly usual at the present time).

If we do these things, the crisis will recede. If we play into the hands
of the terrorists, we will see more collateral damage among our own
citizens. Ten years ago, the other so-called superpower, the former
Soviet Union, disappeared almost overnight because of internal
contradictions, imperial overstretch and an inability to reform. We have
always been richer, so it might well take longer for similar
contradictions to afflict our society. But it is nowhere written that
the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must
go on forever.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 21735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011001/5d6e82d5/attachment-0016.bin>