Global War and Dying Democracy:
The Revolution of the Elites
Global Power and Global Government:
Part 5
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/,
August 19, 2009
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.
Ruling
Elites page
Banks watch
One World Government
Home Page