Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GLOBALISATION AND THE GLOBALISTS AGE
#7
GLOBALIZATION IS THE NEW IMPERIALISM-
DON'T TRY TO "IMPROVE" IT, BURY IT!
RESTORE NATIONAL-INTEREST POLICIES
  

Hearing on Trade and Globalization by the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives
Jan 30 2007

Dear Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and other Honorable
Members of the Committee:


We fully support your opening of the work of the 110th Congress, by holding a series of hearings on the economic conditions of the United States; and in that spirit, we respond bluntly to your questions for this third hearing--on how to identify the "successes" of globalization and improve its "benefits"--by stressing this one central point: Globalization has been a raving success for those financial interests who imposed it over the past 40 years; and a disaster--as they intended--for the nations and peoples that are being looted. Therefore, it should be stopped--NOT improved or adjusted to. So-called free (rigged) trade must be stopped, and a set of monetary, foreign policy and economic measures initiated for the mutual benefit of building up nations again.

"Too late? Can't be done?" Not at all. The popular groundswell for "fair" trade, not free trade, and for curbing the "excesses" of globalization, is evident across the United States. Just look at the many articles and books by your fellow Congressmen on the topic. The Nov. 7 election results are a mandate to end the globalization disasters of the last three decades of GATT/NAFTA/WTO/"free trade democracy," and all the other variants. Internationally, a rush of support is awaiting any Congressional initiative in this direction, even for the most preliminary measures. It would signify that the United States is returning to sanity and its founding principles.

Secondly, we have no choice but to confront the real nature of the menace involved in globalization. We are at a blow-out stage of the world monetary and financial system. The unprecedented volumes of speculative activity--mostly denominated in U.S. dollars--are at the point of chain-reactions of non-payment. Look at the bursting of the home mortgage bubble, the commodities prices volatility, the frenzied hedge fund takeovers of economic activity, the privatization-grab for government infrastructure assets, not to mention gambling, otherwise known as derivatives.
 
"Globalization, The New Imperialism"

"Globalization, The New Imperialism," was the title of a policy document by Lyndon LaRouche in October 2005, which was a forewarning, to provide policymakers the means to understand what we're up against. (See www.larouchepac.com, "A Strategic View of European History Today; Globalization, The New Imperialism.") The United States and other republics would not exist today, if in the 1700s, the leaders of the American colonies, and their European allies, decided to lobby to merely "improve" the conduct of the British and Dutch East India Companies, rather than to break from their imperial control. (In historical fact, the British East India Co. itself backed fake "popular movements" to plead with the Company to not overcharge for goods, to go easy on slaves, and to provide chaplains on commercial missions, etc.).

Unfortunately, these networks were not trounced in the American Revolution, and have attempted to re-gain dominance at many times since. Today, the particulars may be different from the 18th century, but there is a continuity of both the nature of imperial control, and even of the pedigree of major financial interests involved, whose practices are called by economic historians, "Anglo-Dutch liberalism." LaRouche warned in 2005,

"The long-ranging drive of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical establishment, over the post-Franklin Roosevelt period of world history, has been to destroy the institution of the sovereign nation-state republic throughout the planet, an intention which has been turned loose, full force, with the collapse of the Soviet system. The name given to this global destruction of sovereignty of nations, including that of the U.S.A. itself, is 'globalization.'

"The systemic characteristic of this transformation, most clearly since the middle to late 1960s, has been the destruction of the so-called ``protectionist model'' of the U.S. economy. The intent has been, including from the government of the U.S.A. itself, to destroy the role of the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation-state, by destroying the so-called 'protectionist' system on which the superiority of the U.S. economy to that of other parts of the world had depended, prior to the 1971-1982 transformation of the U.S. into the presently bankrupt 'service economy' rubbish-bin it has become. The intent of globalization is to make the poverty of the so-called 'developing sector' permanent, by degrading the physical economies of the Americas and Europe to the notoriety of 'Third World' conditions, and by making 'Third World' conditions the standard for economy world-wide."

From this vantage point, we here provide summary documentation and references to back Congressional action to end the globalization era, under three main points:

* history of the imposition of globalization

* review of the damage from globalization

* emergency measures called for.

Globalization Was Imposed, Not "Evolved"

At the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, which set up the post-WW II financial system, a proposal to establish an ITO--International Trade Organization--was voted down. This reflected the prevailing principled view that trade between nations was a prerogative of sovereign governments to determine what was in their mutual best economic interest, and not that of either supra-national agencies, nor private multi-national financial interests. Over the subsequent 15-20 years, this principle continued, despite exceptions and assaults, as post-war reconstruction took place, new nations gained independence, and the prospects for a vast advance in economic conditions globally were indicated in the "Atoms for Peace" program, to harness nuclear power.

The original goal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for a post-war "International New Deal" for deliberate multi-nation collaboration on infrastructure and rapid economic development was thwarted, because of direct opposition through the Truman Administration. But there was still a vector of development underway until the mid-1960s.

  However, by the 1970s, this dynamic had been seriously undermined by the opponents of national sovereignty and development. In brief: In 1971, the dollar was "floated," which ushered in the era of increasing uncertainty from fluctuating currency exchange rates, and speculative activity amounting to a World Casino. The graph here shows that over two decades, the volume of currency exchange associated with trade in goods collapsed, in contrast to exchange associated with speculation.

In the United States, deregulation was launched in all manner of vital functions--trucking and rail, health care (1973 was the first HMO act), and energy, culminating in Enronomics. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's Britain became the world model for radical privatization and deregulation. In 1986, with the "Uruguay Round" of the U.N. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade," a Thatcher-type campaign was launched to "reform' the entire world farm and food systems by taking away "trade-distorting" practices such as tariffs and national food reserves.

The sophistry of the GATT globalist movement was shown in its slogan, "One World, One Market' to argue that citizens of every nation had the "right" to access their food and all other needs directly from world sources, not from the "confines" of their own nations. "Borderless" free trade was the goal across the board for banking, labor, industrial and agricultural goods and services, and especially access to minerals and natural resources.

In January 1988, the Canada-United States Free Trade Act was signed. In 1992, NAFTA was concluded. In 1995 the World Trade Organization was established. During this process, when Germany was re-unified in 1990, the "free trade" movement was imposed on it, including on Russia, and other parts of the former Soviet bloc.

In the course of all this, a "blob" of cartels and multi-national financial networks positioned themselves for near-total control and killer-profiteering. In 1968, this was described explicitly as a  "world company" project, by George Ball, a former Undersecretary of State, and Chairman of Lehman Brothers, in a speech to a conference of the Bilderberg Society, on whose steering committee he then served. Ball gave an outline of how the archaic nation-state system should be replaced by globalized corporate cartels.

The "names" associated with this process indicate the networks involved. Lehman Brothers itself, along with Lazard, are foremost entities, and have been in the forefront of the sell-off of the U.S. auto/machine tool capacity and other industrial assets, as well as infrastructure rip-offs through what's now politely termed, "Public Private Partnerships." The poster boy for this process is Felix Rohatyn, long at Lazard, and now a top consultant for Lehman. Also in the line-up is George Shultz, direct collaborator of Rohatyn et al. One view of how the networks operate, is provided by John Perkins' book, "Economic Hit Man."

This gang is now under scrutiny for their global equity fund and hedge fund frenzy of LBO grabs of companies, whose operations are then indebted, downsized and ruined.

            
Below Economic Breakeven

The net effect on the physical economy, of the years of out-sourcing industry, "global-sourcing" food supply and all related hallmark practices of globalization, has been a net reduction of productive capacity and living conditions overall, so that the world economy as a whole is way below even a breakeven threshold of required activity. Specifically: shutting down manufacturing and farming in the United States, and relocating it abroad to cheap labor and low infrastructure sites, causes harm and a net reduction in productivity in all nations involved. Look at some of the features of this, sector by sector.

Industry. There has been an absolute loss of 5.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 1979--including elimination of nearly half the employment in the aerospace and auto industries, the two major machine-tool reserves of the economy. The re-employment of contingents of these former manufacturing workers at less-skilled, lower-wage jobs has lowered the productivity of the American workforce. U.S. consumption of machine tools is now only 60% of the 1980 level, and 60-70% of that consumption is imported machine tools.

What remains of global industrial capacity is now being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, for example, the Mittal Steel empire, part of the Anglo-Dutch imperium. Steel and heavy industrial goods--measured on a per capita basis of consumption, are declining.

Agriculture. The United States is now food import dependent for 30 to 80 percent of various consumption items, from fruits and vegetables to seafood, even while its former farm counties are experiencing drastic population reductions. On the continent of Africa, food availability per capita is declining. Expected life span itself is dropping in Sub-Saharan Africa. A very few agro-cartels now exert vast control of global food supply lines, including such names as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus, as well as Smithfield, Suiza and others. International retail food sales are now dominated by Wal-Mart, Carrefour and a few others.

Population Millions of people are being dislocated by the takedown of national economies. In the United States, there are 12 million Mexicans who would otherwise be in their homeland, but for the free-trade breakdown process. The nation of the Philippines is dependent on remittances from its citizens who are forced to seek work abroad. This is true for all of Central America. In Africa, the refugee population is in the millions. The population of Russia is declining in absolute numbers.

Biological Breakdown With the decline in infrastructure over the past years--water, power, transportation, health care--the rise of new and resurgent diseases now poses the threat of biological holocaust. This is typified, but not confined to avian flu, or to the new strain of "super"-tuberculosis, now spreading in southern Africa.

Food shocks are also in store, because of the absence of food reserves, and contingencies for botanical pests. A new wheat rust is making its way from eastern Africa, across the Arabian Peninsula, eastward toward the Indian sub-continent, on a spread-path potentially involving 25% of global wheat output. The reason for the danger is that in recent decades, resources were not put into having stand-by resistant wheat varieties, but instead, private agro-companies came to dominate seed development--including gaining sweeping patent rights--for their own purposes of control and furthering monoculture.

Emergency Measures/The FDR Paradigm
These then, are just a few elements of the "Big Picture" of how far gone we are under globalization. No fix-ups will work, of labor standards or environmental codes, or the like. Emergency action is required. In brief, there are two main areas for legislative initiative. First, to stabilize currency exchange, and put in place measures to prevent insolvencies causing out-of-control shutdown of vital goods and services activities. In particular, the Federal Reserve banking system--with trillions in unpayable claims of derivatives and other "assets"--is bankupt; and government action is required to place the Federal Reserve under bankruptcy protection and re-organization, in order that required levels of banking function are maintained and obligations honored, but claims equivalent to gambling are frozen at lowest priority.

Going along with this, is the need to initiate nation-to-nation agreements for mutually beneficial fair trade, and to call a halt to the harmful "free trade" commitments and flows. Roll-back the free trade agreements completely.

Secondly, for both domestic and state-to-state economic activity, initiatives are needed to further large-scale shifts away from the so-called "services economy" model, and shift into a capital-intensive production model, for all national economies. For the U.S. economy, draft legislation has been provided to your Committee, in testimony for your Jan. 23, 2007 hearing, called the "The Economic Recovery Act of 2006."

What is involved most simply, is to take a "capital budget approach," in which the Federal government initiates low-interest credit for priority national infrastructure projects, to be carried out by private contractors. The precedents are clear from the FDR period. And today, the range of infrastructure required is also crystal clear--as described, for example, by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Dams, bridges, new health facilities, ports, water treatment and conveyance, and as the centerpiece: high-tech railroads and advanced nuclear power.

Gearing up to fulfill these infrastructure projects generates the need for millions of new skilled jobs, and for re-tooling, restoring, and expanding the U.S. machine tool/manufacturing capacity.

A detailed policy document on this process is available: "What Congress Needs to Learn: The Lost Art of the Capital Budget," Dec. 22, 2006, by Lyndon LaRouche. (Available in EIR, Vol. 34, No. 2, Jan. 12, 2007, on www.larouchepub.com).

Science Driver
In summary, the program that is now required to bury globalization can be accomplished by a "return to the kind of thinking associated with a 'fair trade,' rather than 'free trade' economy." LaRouche describes this as, "thinking about physical and financial capital as we did under Franklin Roosevelt.

"The principle on which the success of such a program depends, is the principle of fostering the increase of physical productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, through science-driven technological progress in the improvement of the productive powers of labor. This means technological progress as expressed by emphasis on a science-driver economy of the type which brought the U.S. and its allies to victory over Hitler et al. in the preparation for, and conduct of World War II.

"Against the customary carping critics of such measures, consider the following.

"Had Franklin Roosevelt lived, the freeing of the world from the imperial legacy of colonialism and the like, would have created a vast capital market for the products of a converted U.S. war production buildup, the reinvestment of the war debt margins in new capital formation, here and abroad, although it would have been associated with the combination of a temporary austerity, but a healthy accumulation of real capital..."

Now, over 50 years later, we face the severe depletion of our capital stock after three decades of globalization. But the principles of "FDR thinking" still apply. If we take the right emergency measures during the transition, we can drive the economy ahead through resuming the science associated with nuclear power--the "fourth generation" (high temperature) reactors, the R&D to harness fusion power, and the entry into an "isotope economy" of man-made "natural" elements to overcome exhausted resources. There can be life after globalization, better than ever.

Hearing on Trade and Globalization by the Ways and Means Committee
of the House of Representatives
Jan. 30, 2007

GLOBALIZATION, THE NEW IMPERIALISM
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 9, 2005
http://larouchepac.com/pages/writings_fi...istory.htm

By traditional standards, the accelerating degeneration of the U.S. military-political occupation of Iraq, has already entered the terminal phase of the currently failed war policies of the U.S. George W. Bush, Jr. Administration.The global strategic situation of the moment can be brought into focus by saying simply that the presently advanced state of degeneration of the U.S. military operations in both Iraq itself and the adjoining region, interacts with a threatened early disintegration of the world's present IMF monetary-financial system.

We have entered a time during which only the combined dumping of the policies of the current Bush Administration, and the launching of first steps toward a new world monetary-financial system akin to that of the original Bretton Woods system, could prevent the otherwise inevitable early plunge of the planet as a whole into a new dark age.

We have entered a time in world history, when any different remedy than that which I have just recommended, were the wishful dream of self-damned fools.

To rational elements among the more well-informed circles of the planet, as one month follows another, the evidence to that effect is now more and more painfully clear. Were the present majority among the leading management cadres of today's world fully rational, the wild-eyed monetarist experiment launched under the U.S. current Bush Administration would be declared a bad job, and a return to the relatively successful economic and related policies of the immediate two post-war decades, would be rapidly resumed.

For example: In the case of the U.S.A. itself, although I warned, repeatedly, during the Spring and early Summer of this year, that we must prepare for the chain-reaction-like effects of an early "crash" in the automotive sector, no significant action was taken, either in the Executive or Congress, on that specific account.

The most notable point to be made on this present occasion is, that the argument for avoiding the urgently needed precautionary measures, was that relevant circles were advised that I had been mistaken respecting the factors of timing and more deep-going issues of policy in this matter. It is typical of the conditioned state of mind among our nation's and Europe's makers and shakers, that we are met, in each recent stage of a growing national and global economic crisis, by the potentially fatal effects of a reluctance of the presently reigning political generation to "put the toothpaste back into the tube," a reluctance to tamper with those habituated, recent decades' changes in policy which have now led us to the brink of the greatest global financial-monetary and economic collapse in modern history.

Now, the consequences of that Hamlet-like kind of inaction, motivated in that Hamlet-like fashion, have brought our republic, and much of the world besides, into a situation far more deadly than existed those few months ago, when precautionary action against the principal, presently looming effects of the General Motors crisis might have been set into motion.

What Must Now Be Done

The problem which needs urgently to be corrected, is not only that the currently ruling, powerful combination of international monetary-financial interests has been ignorant and increasingly irrational. The problem is the conditioned fear of the power of the financier class, which has been spread among the political and other leading currents of our society, both in the Americas and Europe. It is the policies of those financier circles which have intentionally ruined what had been once the flourishing economies of the U.S.A. and western Europe of the period prior to the great Anglo-American financial paradigm-shift of the 1964-1972 interval.

Today, the policies of those financier interests have ruined the Americas and Europe almost irreparably, especially during the nearly sixteen years since the close of 1989, when the Soviet challenge no longer existed to prompt our maintaining our economies. Today, those financier interests which triumph over the ruin they have wreaked upon us, insist that they will never permit national economies, ever again, to reach for supremacy of the sovereign nation over the predatory lurchings of that global slime-mold-like financier oligarchy, which has looted nations down to levels of productive output which are currently actually below breakeven for the national economies of Europe and the Americas as a whole.

The generally expressed intent of practice among those financier circles, whose current majority, whatever their level of intellectual development, is typified by its mad obsession, its intent to bring about a modern caricature of the old medieval, ultramontane system in which Europe was under the tyranny of an anti-nation-state alliance of Venice's predatory financier oligarchy, with that self-styled holy league of butchers known as the Norman chivalry. Today, the mad dash for such an ultramontane form of global imperialism is called by such names as "globalization."

This intent by such financier "slime-molds," has been the underlying issue of two so-called "world wars" and the great thermonuclear conflict of the century just concluded. This intent is the key for understanding the military and related policies of the Vice President Cheney-directed U.S. Bush Administration today.

Said otherwise, the presently avowed goal of these slime-mold-like aggregations of private financier interest, is to establish a world system in which either nation-states cease to exist, or they are degraded to lackeys, begging at the footstools of financier-oligarchical power. It is that kind of a system which these oligarchical circles demand now; it is a system known popularly today as "globalization."

In effect, it could be said of some very influential circles, that the financier slime-mold of the same Synarchist International which created the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, wishes presently to have something like a nuclear "Battle of Armageddon," and to win it, soon. The purpose of launching such a horror is to clear away the residues of former nation-state institutions, including those of our Federal Constitution. Although these forces could never succeed in their attempt to establish a permanent new world empire, the intended results imply that the power they serve is perhaps the true whore of the earlier Babylons, imperial Rome and medieval Venice.

Once any intelligent person understood the present resurgence of the same policies which motivated England's Edward VII to organize what became known as "World War I," what I have just stated should also be readily and correctly understood. The financier attempt would fail, catastrophically, for both assailant and victims, alike, but the evidence of such a looming reality never convinced the victim of a true obsession.

In the meantime, the present situation is as follows.

There is the growing popular sense of things, among those of us who represent the relatively economics-literate circles of Europe and the Americas, that the strategic and economic situations of these regions of the world are now verging upon a highly explosive state of over-ripeness for a general collapse. The most menacing feature of this present crisis, is the widespread lack of competent strategic insight, even among most relevant specialists and political authorities, alike, into the causes and underlying character of the complex, general global situation which the immediately recognized crisis-developments only reflect. The true, deeper origins, causes, and probable historical outcomes of these looming catastrophes, are not yet generally understood, even among the relatively best-informed leading circles of governments in North America and Europe.

The worst aspect of this, is not that leading political and related authorities do not recognize the nature and causes of this onrushing crisis. The worst aspect is that most among them, so far, now, as on the eve of crises such as that of 1929, have not wished to know, even to hear the truth about this onrushing situation.

This is, in itself, a correct view of the immediate expression of the danger, but it, too, fails to look deep enough.

It must be fairly said, that, while more and more leading U.S. circles are reacting to the perceived reality of the symptoms this situation presents, they have yet to find in themselves the willingness to accept the more essential fact of the matter. Until this point, they have remained blinded to the existence of the actual, underlying disease which these symptoms reflect. A growing minority of the leading relevant circles in North America and Europe recognize many of the symptoms; but even all of them, so far, refuse to accept the fact of the disease itself.

It is my intention, in this present report, to correct the widespread ignorance of the deeper causes for today's actual, currently rapidly worsening world situation.

To restate the case: As a result of that discrepancy in general understanding of the problem, even among leading circles, current directions in policy thinking are fairly characterized as growing zeal for ameliorating the most obvious and immediate symptoms, without willingness to challenge the long-ranging, globally disastrous threats posed by the relevant, potentially fatal disease. They overlook the deeper, real causes of our growing tribulations, in their zeal to blind themselves to the deeper causes for the mere symptoms. The manifest intent of their practice is to reform the enemy without actually annoying him.

In the closing portion of this present report, I shall touch the core of this problem in mass political behavior; but, to be understood thus, in the end, we must proceed in the fashion of peeling away layers of the proverbial onion, turning first to the matter of recent generations' experience of major wars, and finally reaching the core of the problem, through progress in examining a series of successive, intervening, deeper layers of the problem overall.

On the first of these layers, the outer layer, so to speak, is the root of this failure of leading circles of governments of, most notably, North America and Europe, to recognize and attack the disease of recently experienced recurrence of world war itself, to attack the propensity for misunderstanding war. This is a propensity which can be traced, in its essentials, to the prevailing academic and popularized misconception of the actually primary cause of the principal wars and related crises which have afflicted globally extended European civilization since that famous Paris Treaty of February 1763, which launched the people of English-speaking North America into what became the 1776-1783 war for national liberty.

Therefore, this present report is given as a summary of that specific historic problem which underlies the mounting global, existential complex of crisis of today. I shall now preface that summary at the door of today's White House. In earlier reports, I have addressed some of the crucial, leading facts treated here. The difference is, that, in this report, I focus on the same specific, centuries-old feature of the military strategic situation which modern European governments have stubbornly, repeatedly refused to take efficiently into account, up to the present moment.

Therefore, to complete this preface, I begin now with an introduction to the matter of current threats of warfare, taking as an example, the tragic case of the present U.S. Bush Administration.

At the White House Press Conferences

Like the President George W. Bush, Jr. Administration's stubbornly lying about his seemingly endless war in Iraq, most of what has been taught about the causes of modern warfare, in our history lessons, and by notable political leaders, is conventional fraud, when it is not outright stupidity, like that of President Bush himself.

To be fair to that President, we must concede that he rarely knows the actual meaning of the words coming out of his mouth. It often appears, that he is to be seen on our television screens as gaping in wonder at the spectacle of that flow of words from that orifice. Nonetheless, he lied repeatedly, as a way of getting us into that war. That much conceded, whether he lied in the fashion of Vice-President Cheney's "Mortimer Snerd"-like wooden puppet, or otherwise, it has been just those lying words from his mouth which got us into an Iraq from which, it seems, more and more, that there is neither hope of victory, nor honorable escape, for as long as the "Bergen-Snerd" team of that Vice-President and his President remains in office.

So, it is the case, that impeachments, or a decent sort of timely resignation from office, as was used to settle the breakdown of government threatened by Nixon's continued incumbency, are on the tips of the tongues of more and more sensible political leaders of our nation today.

Under other circumstances, where decency permitted us to be more generous in our description of that poor President, we would then treat him gently, and view him charitably, as a poor fellow who could read neither a page, nor a map, nor, probably, distinguish between the two. He has, like all persons, his rightful place in the enjoyment of life, but the terrible price our nation has already paid for his mistakes in that office, shows all sentient beings that his personal right does not include the U.S. Presidency.

In any case, we must put the blame where it belongs. Those failings of that President are no excuse for the relevant behavior of the U.S.A. itself; the people of the U.S.A. can make no acceptable evasion of the fact of their own guilt, if it were only the great guilt in allowing such a wretched incompetent as poor George W. Bush, Jr., to be seriously considered by them as a contender for election as President. When the people stop blaming Washington as much as they do, and blame their own cowardly political evasion of a citizen's responsibility more, the challenge might be quickly addressed.

The fact remains, that what the U.S. public, up to very high ranks in office, have been swindled into believing about modern warfare in general, is not merely deliberately misleading hokum. What they have been told, is the proverbial big lie. These poor people of ours, in general, soaked in cheap and tawdry forms of entertainment, have recently shown little or no comprehension of the actual nature of the world in which they live. Even notable Presidents of our republic, or heads of government abroad, have often mistaken their privileged familiarity with some among the sensitive predicates of current history for the actual subject of the long-ranging dynamics of history as such.

So, today's political idiot, like a character in a script by the utterly depraved Bertolt Brecht, marks his entry on the stage of current history, by babbling his lunatic sophist's chant, "I don't believe in conspiracy-theories."

To begin to understand the dynamical, determining character of the deeper, determining, real issues of these times, especially today's pressing military issues, look at some recent history, not as a mechanical interplay of memorized events collected from a fact-stuffed illiterate's googling of the Internet, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process. Look at history not as gossip, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process, based on ideas, extended around much or all of the world, and over a span of time reaching back thousands of years. Look, first, at the origins of the two so-called "World Wars" of the just recently concluded century.

1. Two World Wars and More

To begin, take the case of what is called "World War I." On numerous earlier, public occasions, I have pointed to the facts about that war. However, the inclusion of the following crucial facts about that history, here, is a required element of the list of crucial facts to be considered in beginning to address the escalating, deadly global issues facing us now.

Without considering those often ignored facts, we can not understand modern warfare and its relevant ancient and medieval roots in the way the intelligent and worried U.S. citizen would wish to know the truth today. Until and unless the popular and kindred falsification of the history of those developments, is replaced by the true facts of the situation, it would be almost impossible to prevent existing nations from repeating follies which are, in principle, the same kinds of errors as the Senate's vote for the Iraq war: errors which carry a heavier price today than on earlier occasions.

What is called "World War I" actually began in 1890 with a series of crucial events, among which the notably sufficient instances for our present consideration are the following.

The sequence of the great blunders by relevant leading states, began with the 1888 accession of a new German Kaiser and that Kaiser's discharge of his Chancellor, the great reformer Otto von Bismarck, on March 18, 1890. The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was the biological nephew, and dupe, of the British Prince of Wales, that then future King Edward VII who bears. still today, the principal personal guilt for organizing and motivating what was to become World War I. Wilhelm II's discharge of Bismarck was the first major, preparatory step, by Germany, toward implementing that Prince of Wales' scheme for what became World War I.

The next crucial steps toward a terrible war came in France, where the underlying motive of the Prince of Wales' intent for his dupes in France, was to break Germany's close relations with Russia, and to create the foundations of an Anglo-French, anti-Germany alliance with the Russia of the Prince of Wales' other foolish nephew, Czar Nicholas II.

"All," so to speak, " 'in the family.' "

To that same end, the President of France, the scientist-grandson of Lazare Carnot, was assassinated on June 24, 1894, and, in a related development, to the same purpose, the fraudulent charges and conviction, reeking of anti-Semitism, of France's Captain Alfred Dreyfus, were perpetrated on December 22, 1894. With the 1898 defeat of France by Lord Kitchener at Sudan's Fashoda, the residual forces remaining after the assassination of President Carnot, forces represented by French Minister Hanotaux, were pushed out, and the mechanisms began to be rapidly set into place for the later formal French alliance with Britain's King Edward VII. This was the alliance which was the crucial step toward setting the intended launching of what became World War I fully into motion.

In that process of change over the course of the 1890s, the patriotic impulses of France were swamped, increasingly, by a financier-controlled coalition of Synarchists of sundry Legitimist, Bonapartist, and leftist pedigrees and dispositions, constituting that war-party of World War I France which Georges Clemenceau led to the table at the Versailles Treaty of Paris, the same banker-controlled Synarchist International which, later, gave the world Adolf Hitler and so-called "World War II."

Betwixt and between those events of 1890-1894 and war, there were several additional developments of most notable relevance, beginning with the British monarchy's personal orchestration of Japan's long-term role in the Far East, over the interval 1894-1945. The first Sino-Japanese war, the conquest of Korea, and the Russo-Japanese war, were a crucial, London-directed set of developments setting the pace for Pacific events over the entire span of 1894-1945.

The allies, Britain and France, set the Balkan wars into motion, thus ensuring the anti-Slavic alliance of the silly Austro-Hungarian Kaiser with Germany, and the role of a Turkey which had been destabilized by London's Synarchist "Young Turk" organization and the genocidal slaughters which London's "Young Turk" organization perpetrated within Turkey for the intended strategic benefit of the British Empire.

Inside the U.S.A., the British monarchy's preparations to advance the cause of Edward VII's war-party, included the opportune incident of the U.S. battleship Maine and the assassination of President William McKinley, the key among a combination of events which brought London's accomplice, the nephew and political protégé of the former head of the Confederacy's intelligence service, Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. That pair of jingoists, that Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, were chiefly responsible, politically, for establishing the Federal Reserve System and for launching the U.S.A. into playing a deciding role in shaping the outcome of World War I, thus preventing what would have been otherwise a virtually inevitable German victory, and defeat of the imperial legacy of England's Edward VII, on both fronts.

The same Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests which created World War I, by aid of such mechanisms, created the fascist movements and regimes which led Europe into a second World War. The crucial difference between this so-called world war and its predecessor, was U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The election of Franklin Roosevelt proved to be an immediate defeat for those U.S. financier circles which not only had supported the fascist Mussolini in Italy, but had joined the Bank of England's Montagu Norman in funding the insertion of Adolf Hitler into the German Chancellory, and Hitler's receipt of dictatorial powers, just weeks before the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt. The relevant affinities were made clearer in the plot for a military coup d'état against the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. President Roosevelt's leadership of the economic recovery of the United States produced, by 1940, a nation prepared for the mobilization which was to be the decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.

But, no sooner had Roosevelt died, than the same Anglo-American financier circles which had backed Hitler's rise to power earlier, rallied around the long-term perspective of bringing the Roosevelt legacy to a grinding halt, and for launching a new world war, a special kind of 1945-1989 "Third World War," as they had the preceding two. It is that continued dedication to a "Third World War of a special kind," which supplied the impulses expressed by Vice-President Cheney and Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair today.

This time, the plan launched by the foe of Franklin Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill,induced the U.S. Truman Administration to adopt the perspective later renewed by sometime U.S. Secretary of Defense and Vice-President Dick Cheney, the perspective of launching a pre-emptive nuclear war with the aim of eliminating the modern nation-state and establishing an imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world government, such as that being pushed into the world's foreground today.

The present name of that new imperialist world order, is "globalization": global "free trade." It is a system in which governments either cease to exist, the category of so-called "failed states," or, as is intended for the U.S. itself, become merely the puppets of syndicates of financier cartels, puppets which are merely pawns of international financier institutions of the type illustrated by the current European Central Bank.

Why 'World War I'?

The Prince of Wales' motive for organizing what became known as "World War I," is rooted in London's fearful reaction to the triumph of President Abraham Lincoln over both the British puppet known as the Confederate States of America (CSA), and over London's direction of the invasion and subjugation of Mexico as part of British Lord Palmerston's orchestration of an 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War, which had been intended to break up the U.S.A. into a quarrelling pack of competing tyrannies.

With the death of Palmerston, and the growing personal incapacity of a widowed Queen Victoria, the campaign to destroy the U.S. constitutional form of national government fell, increasingly, under the hand of that Palmerston-trained Prince of Wales, sometimes referred to, more or less interchangeably, as "The Prince of the Isles" and "The Lord of the Isles."

Already, from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War, the shift of the U.S. Federal government, away from the "free trade" and related dogmas which had crippled the U.S. economy's prosperity, from the Andrew Jackson through Buchanan Presidency, there was a rising trend of net development in the territories of the Union. By the time of the 1876 U.S. Centennial celebrations in Philadelphia, the superiority of what was known as the American System of political-economy of Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and the German-American Frederick List, was so evident that emulation of that American System spread throughout much of South and Central America, and in such Eurasian nations as France, Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The combination of rapid technological progress in agriculture and industrial development, interlocked with promotion of general welfare systems such as those adopted in Bismarck's Germany, and the emergence of a significant U.S. naval power, was viewed with alarm in the Prince of Wales' London, as a threat to the continued global imperial authority of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial-monetary, gold-standard system.

By the 1890s the name given by the British monarchy to the perception of that threat from the spreading influence of the American System was "geopolitics," so named by Britain's Mackinder and Germany's Haushofer. As I emphasized in my Sept. 16, 2005 Washington, D.C. international webcast,and again with relevant remarks included in my "The Shape of Empty Space,"it was the combination of the rising economic power of the nations of continental and adjoining Eurasia, with the spread of the influence of the U.S. pioneering in transcontinental railway development, which threatened to shift the predominance of global power from maritime power, to land-based economic development.

As the speed and efficiency of rail-transport was increased, not only were areas earlier economically inaccessible to efficient transport of bulk freight made competitive with water-borne transport, but transport along interior land-routes by rail had the double advantage of not merely competing effectively with ocean-borne freight, but also of developing regions of nations otherwise hampered by lack of direct access to large-scale water-borne transport. Thus, the combination of the U.S. national rail-system, the extension of the navigable river-system between the Alleghenies and Rockies, and the Great Lakes as a transport medium, defined the development of U.S. machine-tool-keyed heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania, the Buffalo, New York area, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and so on. The growth in density of agriculture and industry, per capita and per square kilometer, over the course of much of the Twentieth Century, illustrates the point, as does the devastating pattern of decline and ruin of these same regions over the course of the recent three decades. [See Figure 1 .]

As a result of the form of progress led by the post-Gettysburg U.S.A., the productivity of a national territory per square kilometer was increased in ways not possible otherwise. Thus, through these combined benefits, land-based transport was made more than competitive with sea-borne transport. This economic gain had a congruent impact upon strategic military potentials.

Only long-range strategic aerial bombardment threatened the growing advantage of rail for interior economic development, where highway transport was emphasized as a complement, and then rival to rail.

To sense the history of those times, look at the changes in the U.S.A. since the time John Quincy Adams systematized U.S. diplomacy in his role as Secretary of State under President James Monroe. Not only had the "insolent Americans" burst free of the Allegheny boundaries, which the French and British colonial powers alike had sought to enforce, but through the Louisiana Purchase and complementary developments, Secretary Adams was able to efficiently define the United States as a continental power spread from Atlantic to Pacific, with northern and southern continental borders approximately those of today.

To consolidate and develop this vast territory, the American patriot, often a West Point graduate working as an engineer, had addressed the challenge of integrated development and security of what was, by European standards, a vast territory. Although the genesis of the later transcontinental railway system was already in motion under the guidance of Frederick List, the development of the actual transcontinental system, and the matching rapid expansion of the production of grains from within the territory thus opened for development and commerce, became the model dream of the enlightened statesmen and others of continental Europe and nearby Eurasia.

As I have demonstrated by aid of my published treatments of the work of V.I. Vernadsky on the subjects of the Biosphere and Noösphere, the strategic implications of this U.S.A. transcontinental development reach far beyond the comprehension of the leading policy-shapers of that time, but the implications of what I have been able to present in my writings were already implicit.

Under the impact, and further implications of such trends, the neo-Venetian form of maritime power of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism could not be maintained into the foreseeable future. The Prince of Wales' drive for what became known as World War I ensued. The shift of the definition of strategy to British Admiral John A. Fisher's "dreadnoughts" and the complementing definitions of strategy as essentially geopolitics, were reflections of this reaction to the perceived threat posed to the British imperialists by the rise of the U.S. economy, and its influence throughout much of Eurasia and the other parts of the Americas, during and after the U.S. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

Grand strategy was now explicitly geopolitical, and had already become so implicitly before the Mackinder-Haushofer rivalry became known by that name.

The British strategic reaction to these and related implications of the threat from the influence of the rise of U.S. economic power, was twofold. First, simply crush the nations which threatened to continue economic development along the lines of the model of the American System of political-economy. Second, seek to virtually eradicate generalized scientific and technological progress in economy from the planet. Two World Wars were the expression of the first alternative. The spread of the wild-eyed cult of the so-called "environmentalist movement," has reflected the choice of the second alternative.

Both of these Anglo-Dutch Liberal reactions against the influence of the American System of political-economy, can be properly seen, in first-approximation terms, as simply strategic knee-jerk reactions of the Liberal-Imperialist interest; but, there is also a much deeper, and more deeply impassioned reflection of the ancient cult of Dionysius' legacy spilled over from ancient times into modern life, as the case of the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche illustrates that point, and as the case of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound illustrates the same connections.

2. 'Kill Even the Memory of FDR'

To understand the world's perilous situation today, we must consider the preparations and consequences of World War II in retrospect. One of the most crucial clues to understanding that process to date as a whole, is the case of Banque Worms, one of the relatively most exposed of the creatures of that fascist movement among international private bankers, which is known as the Synarchist International. Banque Worms was discreetly put away in the aftermath of that war; the network of organizations which served as a front for Banque Worms in those relevant past times, remains today. That latter cabal is among the principal threats to civilization world-wide today.

The most relevant highlights of that part of the strategic study in progress here, are as follows.

Initially, the Anglo-French imperial plan for World War II did not intend the inclusion of a U.S. war-time partner for a second time. Without taking into account the British motive for that initial intent to exclude the U.S.A. from Anglo-French intentions for a "second world war," there could be no competent understanding of modern European and world history, dating from that time to the present day. Therefore, to understand the present world situation competently, we must first consider this often-neglected, crucial feature of Twentieth-Century history as a whole.

The original intention of the British Empire's plan for a second world war, had been one more replay of the war-policy which had been used to give birth to the empire of the British East India Company at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris. It had been the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the so-called "Seven Years' War," the war which had unleashed that mutual weakening of the nations of continental Europe, through which the initial phase of imperial, maritime-based supremacy of Britain was brought into being with that Paris Treaty.

This "Seven Years' War" is a distinct phenomenon, in the respect that it generated the initial establishment of the British Empire as an empire of the British East India Company. However, to understand how and why the Anglo-Dutch Liberal interest orchestrated the particular kind of policy which produced the Seven Years' War, we must study the way the Anglo-Dutch Liberals lured France's defective, Fronde-allied "Sun King," Louis XIV, into the Dutch wars, against the warnings of Jean Baptiste Colbert. These were the wars which consolidated the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monarchy's rule over Britain.

It is, therefore, of crucial importance to recall, that it had been Cardinal Mazarin who had played the key role in bringing about the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 1492-1648 reign of Venetian-orchestrated religious warfare in Europe, and that France under Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert launched the modern economy which had a spirited development, centered in France. This benefit continued, until Louis XIV's follies ruined France by plunging into the trap of those Netherlands wars which established the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forces as a leading, maritime-based power in Europe. It was this experience which shaped Anglo-Dutch policy in the orchestration of the Seven Years' War.

Since the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' imperial triumph in the Seven Years' War, new wars based on that model had been the continuing chief source of the repeated ruin of the continent of Europe, and of Eurasia. It was this British policy and its practice. rooted in the model of the Seven Years' War, which had been the original source of the recurring mortal conflict between the future U.S.A. and the British Empire.

It had been the orchestration of the French Revolution by the British Foreign Office and the Martinist freemasonic agents, which had used both the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars to do again to continental Europe what had been tried in the Seven Years' War. British naval supremacy kept Napoleon bottled up on the continent of Europe, while the depletion of Europe by Napoleon's continental wars worked to the further enhancement of British imperial supremacy throughout the globe.

Meanwhile, these developments, beginning Summer 1789 in France, isolated the young U.S.A., an isolation which was exploited by British Foreign Office assets of Jeremy Bentham, such as agent Aaron Burr, and such Burr followers as a series of British-controlled U.S. Presidents, from Andrew Jackson through Martin van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and 1864 Democratic Party, pro-separation Presidential candidate McClellan. Up through and beyond the Union victory at Gettysburg, London had been committed to the reconquest, or destruction of its lost colonies. From 1863-1865 on, the British imperial policy adopted a relatively more realistic approach, of working for the ruin of the American System of political-economy, with the intention to subvert the young U.S.A. from within, by promoting London's New York- and Boston-centered London financier assets, with the long-term objective of bringing the U.S.A. within the embrace of the British Commonwealth.

London-linked New York bankers included such heirs-in-fact of Aaron Burr as the architect of the 1837 Land Bank Swindle of Martin van Buren, Jackson's political controller. Bankers such as van Buren and August Belmont, controlled the Democratic Party from Jackson through Woodrow Wilson, and assumed increasing degrees of control over both the Republican and Democratic Party machines of New York City, producing, thus, the Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies. The later Presidencies of Truman, Nixon, and father and son Bush, have been crafted and controlled by the same Anglo-American financier-oligarchical gang, the London-centered crowd which hated the patriot Franklin Roosevelt while he was alive, and has hated him ever more since he died.

The Nineteenth-Century, and still later wars in Europe, and related conflicts within the Americas, up through 1932, were also essentially Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's imperial exports, designed to defend and enforce the reign of the British fleet and gold standard upon the world at large. Do not be shocked! How could it have been otherwise? The British East India Company had established an empire in the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, an empire which Shelburne's ideologue Gibbon intended should make itself eternal by avoiding such alleged fatal mistakes of ancient Rome as tolerating the intrusion of Christianity into statecraft. Britain had secured a neo-Venetian financier-oligarchical empire, and intended to build and maintain it forever in one guise or another. Only a silly, Romantically sentimental goose would be shocked to hear that the British Empire acted in ways intended to be as thoroughly and effectively imperialistic as possible!

All the major wars of Eurasia's Twentieth Century, from 1894 on, belong under the same overarching category as the Seven Years' War and Napoleonic wars, as instruments crafted in nominally British imperial interest. As Lord Shelburne's Gibbon specified these long-term, Anglo-Dutch Liberal goals, these wars have been crafted and conducted in fully witting emulation of the imperialism of ancient Rome and the medieval ultramontane imperialism shared by the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its partners of the Norman chivalry. With one crucially important qualification, the three great wars, including what came to be known as "the Cold War," of 1945-1989, were no exception.

That said as preparatory remarks on background, now proceed to the early 1930s, before the British Empire decided, coincidentally, to dump King Edward VIII, and to bring Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A. into the game.

The Anglo-French, Sykes-Picot-like strategic outlook of the 1920s and early 1930s, had been premised largely on the memory of the surprising economic and military power which the U.S.A. had shown in securing the Allied victory in World War I. The fear was, that including the U.S.A. as a participant in the first World War, experience had shown that under conditions of a second world war, a United States led by Franklin Roosevelt would end up as the dominant world power, dwarfing the British Empire. It was only to the degree that France and Britain discovered that the German attack would open to the West, first, and only later against the Soviet Union, that forces of terrified London and its Paris ally came reluctantly to share Winston Churchill's view of the U.S. alliance as the lesser evil.It was not any goodness in Churchill which was responsible for his role on this account; it was his loathing of the prospect that Herr Hitler might gobble up the British Empire. Otherwise, the British establishment, including its imperial Fabian element, was largely pro-Hitler, as Averell Harriman's banking partner, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, had been in putting Hitler into power in the first place.

The relevant Twentieth-Century, British view of the U.S.A. as an adversary, had been exhibited already in the naval parity disputes of the immediate post-World War I period, when the British plan for the Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor was hatched as part of the plan for a naval alliance of Britain and Japan against the threat of U.S. naval power's development.

This Japan war plan of the 1920s, later carried out in December 1941 without the British ally of the 1920s, had been originally intended as part of a joint British-Japanese, two-front naval assault on the United States, with the intent of doing to the U.S.A. what Admiral Nelson had done to France at Trafalgar.Times and sides had changed, but the actual issue of the court-martial trial of General Billy Mitchell was, as Mitchell stated at his hearing, the issue of U.S. use of aircraft-carrier-based air power in the Pacific in defense against what U.S. intelligence had already defined, from the period of the early 1920s, in U.S. naval war plans, as the pending operational threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as a Japanese component of a British plan to demolish U.S. naval power.

From the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty, the policy of the British imperialist and France-based Synarchist International, had been to install a fascist government in Germany, using elements such as those associated with Coudenhove-Kalergi and what was later restated as a doctrine of "total war," to strike against the Soviet Union, and then to fall upon the rear of a Germany whose forces were deeply mired in Soviet territory. This was the period during which British imperialist assets inside the U.S.A. formed the America First Committee, which intended to prevent the realization of the U.S. capability for military intervention against the war for which Anglo-French allied circles were preparing at that time.

Stalin and Soviet intelligence also knew the game, and had an experienced revolutionary's fearful appreciation of the internal danger from left-wing and other assets of the Synarchist International inside the Soviet system itself. Perhaps Stalin knew, by then, that the notorious "Parvus" had been a Zubatov-linked British agent, or not, but he was convinced of something to that general effect. Essentially, therefore, Stalin approached the relevant military and related circles in Germany, putting strong emphasis on the fact of the Anglo-French intent to fall upon the rear of a Nazi thrust into the Soviet Union.

The rebuff which the British and French governments gave to the mission of visiting Soviet Marshal Tukhachevsky, was the crucial development which left Stalin no visible option but to proceed with continuing negotiation of Molotov's pact with Ribbentrop.

The fact that the turn to a German assault on the western front first, was under serious negotiation between Soviet and German back-channel and other representatives, prompted a growing portion of those, such as New York's Brown Brothers, Harriman, who had funded Hitler's coup d'état effort, to break with their former protégé Hitler. By the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, a Winston Churchill who was a backer of fascism, second, but the British Empire first, made the formal step of a pact with President Franklin Roosevelt on transfer of the British fleet to Canada should Hitler's forces land in Britain.The subsequent victory over the Axis powers at Midway and Stalingrad, already defined a continuing U.S. engagement in a two-front, global war, a prospect of global victory which Roosevelt's policies and role had, in principle, already thus snatched from the paws of Hitler's regime.

Then, even before President Roosevelt's death, during the early months of 1945, Churchill et al. had gone back to their earlier overt backing of the financier forces which had put Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. The issues of the early 1920s naval-power conflict between the U.S.A. and Britain, came to the fore in a new way.

The Banque Worms Scandal

What became known as Twentieth-Century fascism had been born in France, as part of an operation directed by London's Lord Shelburne, which was aimed to destroy the alliance between France and the newborn United States of America. The latter operation, which was set in motion during Shelburne's 1782-1783 term as Britain's Prime Minister, was coordinated by the circles under the operational boss of the political operations of the British East Company, Lord Shelburne, using agents associated with the circles of the notorious Voltaire in France. Relying upon cooperation within the section of international freemasonry violently opposed to the international networks of the influential scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, they created the London-directed freemasonic association, the Martinists, which prepared and both orchestrated the French Revolution of July 1789, and controlled the career of Robespierre asset Napoleon Bonaparte, and its outcome, through a point long after Napoleon's death, all the way into Napoleon's successor Adolf Hitler, and beyond.

The Martinist freemasonic order, which has been the most freakish of important orders of this nomenclature, was a late Eighteenth-Century spin-off of the freemasonry brought into London, from Venice, during the Sixteenth Century. On record, the Martinist freemasonry itself was founded in France about 1785 by the notorious charlatan Allessandro Cagliostro, the architect of the "Queen's Necklace" against the Bourbon monarchy, together with the also notorious Giovanni Casanova. This was the instrument used, by the British East India Company's sometime British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and the British Foreign Office, to orchestrate the French Revolution of 1789 and the ensuing Terror from which the career of the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte sprang, to dominate, and ruin continental Europe over the 1789-1815 interval. This organization continues to the present day in its incarnation as the Synarchist International which launched the pre-1914 Balkan war and the fascist movements of the 1922-1945 interval, through Martinist-Synarchist figures such as the Giuseppe di Misurata who was associated with the notorious Parvus and Jabotinsky in London's ...
Reply


Messages In This Thread
GLOBALISATION AND THE GLOBALISTS AGE - by moeenyaseen - 08-13-2006, 04:09 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)