In the United States, there is an extensive war elite that actively seeks to initiate military conflicts in order to direct them and profit from them. Because the war economy (weapons and narcotics) is as important as the world’s oil economy, American covert forces can play a central role in calibrating the level of violence in different regions in order to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profits through arms and drug trafficking.
In some cases, the American strategy for prolonging a war is to support both sides of the conflict. But beyond the objective of making economic profits from war, this strategy also has a deeper geopolitical goal: to defend the U.S.-dominated unipolar world order against economic multipolarity and the growing influence of its major rivals. America’s superior military power and intelligence hegemony can only be transformed into real global power and influence if there are ongoing conflicts—wars and terrorist attacks—that threaten the multipolar balance of power in the global economic and political order.
The Swedish journalist Mikael Nyberg defines and describes the New World Order in much the same way as the American intellectual Noam Chomsky, arguing that the New World Order is intended to establish the role of the principal imperial powers—above all the United States—as the leading voice in world affairs, an international regime of unparalleled pressure and coercion by the most powerful capitalist states against the weakest.
Mikael Nyberg describes the New World Order as follows:
”The New World Order rests on state power. It is organized overwhelming force by strong states against weak states. Through economic blackmail, political pressure, and covert operations, assassinations, and wars, the wealthy countries under the leadership of the United States have attacked every attempt at political and economic life outside the control of Western capitalism. The battle cries have been ’free trade’ and ’human rights.'”
The American think tank CFR is, according to congressional investigations (the Reece Committee, 1952–1954), an organ within the United States government. According to this investigation, the CFR’s publications are not objective but are overwhelmingly directed toward promoting the ideology of globalization. The CFR’s objective has always been to build a global world order and a global financial dictatorship through the New World Order, as Laurence H. Shoup writes.
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Gardner, who wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in April 1974 under the title The Hard Road to World Order, provided an insight into how the world state was to be built:
The article, The Hard Road, began with CFR member Richard Gardner lamenting that like-minded internationalists had failed to achieve what he called ”instant world government.” He proposed a new, more effective path toward the establishment of an all-powerful global superstate and argued:
”In short, the ’house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ’booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’s famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that, even while nations continue to pay lip service to ’world government’ and the ’surrender of sovereignty,’ technical, economic, and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-reaching agreements to manage their interdependence.”
And in more recent times—on one level—Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of American foreign policy, adviser to several U.S. presidents, and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in The Grand Chessboard about how the powers of Eurasia must be marginalized. On another level, he wrote about how the American war machine would force the process of globalism upon defiant nations in order to standardize them within a global system, while at the same time the United States and other Western countries would be drawn into a web of international agreements forming the embryo of a world government, with the American empire ultimately paving the way for a revitalized United Nations equipped to take the lead.
In the 2011 book Bilderberg People: Elite Power and Consensus in World Affairs, Ian Richardson, Andrew Kakabadse, and Nada K. Kakabadse explain that elite policy networks have become an essential and embedded feature of modern world politics. According to the authors, elite policy networks should not be viewed as separate from the machinery of decision-making; they are a fundamental part of it.
They further write that a new global world order is being created by this power elite outside the democratic process and behind the scenes. They write:
”Since the turn of the millennium, emerging structures of global governance have been created—the foundations of a new world order, if you will—by transnational political elites who are largely unknown to us, are not accountable to us, and, above all, are invisible to us.”
Historian Dino Knudsen of the University of Copenhagen wrote the book The Trilateral Commission and Global Governance: Informal Elite Diplomacy, 1972–1982, which argues that think tanks secretly shape world politics and set agendas at their meetings that governments later implement. It further argues that these groups meet outside the public eye because they do not wish to be guided by public opinion, and therefore convene behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, where they make decisions concerning international relations and the global economy.
Knudsen’s study is consistent with what Carroll Quigley explained and testified to, based on his extensive insider knowledge, as early as the 1960s: that the elite’s undemocratic plan for world domination would be implemented in secret. President Kennedy warned about this secret control in his well-known 1961 speech, in which he promised to use every means at his disposal to break it up. That the elite operates in this secretive manner is also confirmed by several other leading contemporary researchers in addition to Knudsen, including Ian Richardson, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Janine R. Wedel, and others.
The laws of a modern democracy are never guaranteed to represent the will of the voters or the views and knowledge of leading experts and researchers. Instead, they may be laws that disregard established science and human rights, ignore what organizations such as the United Nations say—as is also the case today—and are passed by unelected politicians without proven competence, in ways that do not best serve society or individual freedoms.
Time and again, according to numerous historical examples, the decisions of small power elites have drawn democracies into illegal wars, while systematically keeping the true picture from their citizens and allowing the victors to write history. Today, laws can be influenced and written both by politicians in foreign powers within the European Union (the EU further reduces Sweden’s sovereignty) and by the globalist networks that have been created and operate outside the democratic process in secret, infiltrating government institutions around the world and functioning as an invisible world government, as explained and demonstrated by Anne-Marie Slaughter’s research. In Sweden, the government can issue laws and regulations that everyone residing in the country must follow without first submitting a proposal to Parliament. Such regulations are called ordinances and have nothing to do with democracy.
More and more people today understand that the European Union was founded by the intelligence community (the CIA) and fascists to create a bureaucratic structure in Europe that makes it easier for the elite to control the globalization of these countries and manipulate their laws. Józef Hieronim Retinger (Joseph Retinger, April 17, 1888 – June 12, 1960) was a Polish political adviser and one of the founders of the European Movement, which would eventually lead to the creation of the European Union. Retinger initiated the Bilderberg Conferences (1954) and served as their secretary until his death in 1960. Joseph Retinger’s European Movement was funded by the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), whose leaders included General Donovan, head of the OSS during the war (the predecessor of the CIA), George Marshall, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). ACUE, in turn, received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The U.S. policy was to promote a United States of Europe, and to that end the committee was used to discreetly channel CIA funds—by the mid-1950s ACUE was receiving approximately $1,000,000 per year—to European pro-federalists supporting organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defence Community.
Documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Germany were recently leaked. The meeting’s conclusion illustrates a consensus that:
”It may be better to proceed through the development of a common market by means of treaties rather than by creating new high authorities.”
This approach—implementing agreements and treaties gradually—results in the EU being fully accepted because ”only” a ”common market” is being pursued. This is called incrementalism; they implement small treaties slowly but steadily, and in the end they achieve what they originally intended.
The European Economic Community (EEC) was established in 1957 through the Treaty of Rome, which was drafted at the Bilderberg conferences and by Baron Robert Rothschild. The Treaty of Rome made Walter Hallstein, a professor of law under the Nazis, the president of the first European Commission. The European currency, the euro, was introduced in early 2002, and the agreement that implemented it, the Maastricht Treaty, was signed in 1992. The documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting, nearly 40 years earlier, show that they were already advocating its creation at that time. As documented by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 was funded by the CIA. Globalist David Rockefeller participated from the very beginning, together with individuals such as former OSS chief William J. ”Wild Bill” Donovan and former OSS officer and later CIA officer Thomas Braden. Braden played a major role in Operation Mockingbird, a CIA operation that influenced news reporting and controlled news organizations.
The Hungarian aristocrat Étienne Davignon, who was formerly president of the Bilderberg Group, was also president of Friends of Europe, a think tank for the European Union. It is also interesting to note that he worked under Paul-Henri Spaak during the 1960s, who is regarded as one of the ”founding fathers” of the EU (Spaak attended the Bilderberg meeting in 1963 and worked closely with Robert Rothschild). In 2009, Davignon boasted that it was the Bilderberg Group that introduced the policy of a single currency during the 1990s—and, according to the plans, this led to the Maastricht Treaty that created the euro.
The intentions of EU founder Jean Monnet were described by the conservative academic, theologian, author, and educator Adrian Hilton:
”Europe’s nations should be guided towards a superstate without their peoples understanding what is happening. This can be achieved by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
Former EU President Herman Van Rompuy and former senior European Union official Javier Solana have both said that they believe the EU must create a world government structure for international relations. Winston Churchill, who was an honorary president of the European Movement, which later became the EU, also spoke about this in his 1947 speech entitled The United States of Europe.
It is not widely known, but since 2002 the EU has had its own foreign policy think tank, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). On July 28, the EUISS published a comprehensive document containing predictions about what the EU’s security and defence policy might look like in 2020. The document is entitled What Ambitions for European Defence in 2020? It discusses the EU’s long-term security strategy, including concerns about a ”hierarchical class society,” with the ”global elite” on one side and the so-called ”bottom billion” on the other. To avoid the ”collapse of the global system,” the document proposes the use of ”the full spectrum of high-intensity combat” to protect so-called ”globalizers” from ”localizers.” Localizers, who make up 80 percent of the world’s population, include the ”bottom billion,” states in the Middle East, and so-called ”alienated modern states” such as North Korea and Burma, as well as Struggling Modern States (SMS), defined as ”large parts of the Arab world,” and Premodern Societies (PMS), defined as the ”bottom billion,” or, in other words, the poorest people living in countries that account for 65 percent of the world’s population.
The report discusses in detail ”barrier operations that protect the globally wealthy from tensions and problems among the poor.” It further states that ”because the proportion of the world’s population living in misery and frustration will remain very high, tensions and spillover effects between their world and that of the rich will continue to grow. Since it is unlikely that we will have solved the underlying problems by 2020—that is, by curing dysfunctional societies—we will need to strengthen our barriers. It is a morally distasteful, losing strategy, but it will become unavoidable if we cannot solve the underlying problems.”
Regarding the EU’s role in globalization, the document states, among other things:
”The strategic task of the PMCs in the coming decades will partly be to ensure the stable development of globalization, but also to act as midwife to the new political system that is emerging through the rise of new actors and new power relationships. If we act correctly, the EU can emerge as a leading partner in a new, globalized political and economic system.”
It also discusses how the ruling class needs the Earth’s resources, such as the resources of the rainforests, how it needs to control the nation-states where those resources are located, and how it must ensure that the poor do not gain uncontrolled access to those resources. A European military and police force is therefore described as necessary to build a defense against the poor. It states in black and white that they intend to enter other countries and, through military operations, take those countries’ resources from them.
Virtually no one in the world is aware that the EU has a think tank that discusses military strategy with the aim of promoting the globalization agenda of the ruling class and the acquisition of the Earth’s resources. This, according to the text, is what happens when the world is dominated by democratic states without safeguards and without the proper dissemination of information: fascist globalists can easily infiltrate the system without anyone noticing. For more background on the EU, read The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker.
Important voices warned against excessive praise of democracy as early as 1931, when the English Duke of Northumberland published a pamphlet entitled The History of World Revolution, in which he claimed:
”The introduction of democracy into all the nations of Europe is fatal to good government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and will ultimately create a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”
Modern democracy, which departed from the Greek perspective centered on the necessity of countering corruption that can arise when political parties are taken over by economic interests, is, according to all the leading historical communist thinkers, an important component of communism because modern democracy is needed in order to bring about the socialist revolution and, ultimately, the communist state.
Democracy is, by definition according to historical examples and according to the Founding Fathers of the United States—the politically most astute class in human history—an extreme ideology that leads to tyranny, violence, and death. It revolves around avoiding responsibility, takes no account of the people’s security, and bears no responsibility for misconduct by public officials, which is most often not investigated. It includes no safeguards or clear laws against corruption (as researcher Janine R. Wedel points out), nor does it guarantee economic security, guaranteed housing, or scientifically verified guarantees of toxin-free environments and safe medicines. Its central issue has always been war and the justification of economic destruction and the terrorism carried out by what researchers and economists such as Edward S. Herman call terrorist industries, which have literally killed millions of people (mostly non-white) around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has killed around 20 million people through war alone, figures that most people are unaware of.
According to the Western definition of terrorism, the West stands for democracy and civilized values. In reality, it organizes and defends primary terrorism. Allied governments in the ”free world” are also regularly involved in the fabrication and distribution of information and propaganda about ”terrorism,” and they all essentially adopt the same position on the ”free world” that Schultz described in 1984. Many of them also secretly sponsor and support terrorist industries in the private sector on their own. The ”free world’s” system for combating ”terrorism” includes many countries and authorities that are themselves prominent terrorists. South Africa, Israel, and the national security states of Latin America have all been deeply concerned with ”terrorism,” which they identify with national liberation movements and resistance to their own state terrorism.
Authoritarian regimes in Taiwan and South Korea, with the assistance of the CIA, sponsored the Asian Peoples’ Anti-Communist League and the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) in 1954 and 1966 respectively. WACL united Reverend Moon’s Unification Church (and CAUSA—the Confederation of Associations for the Unification of the Americas, a subordinate organization), Nazi and neo-Nazi elements, and right-wing extremist terrorists on a global scale. At a WACL meeting in Buenos Aires in 1980, General Suárez Mason served as chairman. He was the commander of the Argentine Army during the Dirty War. Other participants included Roberto D’Aubuisson and Sandoval Alarcón, leaders of the death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala respectively; Stefano Delle Chiaie, the Italian terrorist; Luis García Meza, the Bolivian head of state installed with Argentina’s support and leader of the drug cartel; as well as other right-wing extremists from the United States and other countries.
As the researcher in international security studies Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed points out:
”Despite the extensive documentation of the consistent history of American imperialism, terrorism, and anti-humanism, members of the academic community often continue to maintain inaccurate and benign interpretations of these interventions that stand in contradiction to the abundance of evidence. It is therefore interesting to observe the extent to which the relevant facts are rarely examined by those who adhere to the dogma of Western benevolence in their understanding of Western policy—and when they are examined, their logical implications are ignored. Most often, the question of whether Western policy is justified is considered inconceivable; analysis is framed by an underlying assumption of the legitimacy of Western intentions, and this assumption constitutes the fundamental basis of political discourse.
The attempt to dismiss ’the more familiar and malign motives’ of Western neoliberal imperialism, where policy is determined by a multitude of factors ultimately related to protecting profit and its unlimited pursuit, actually results in the disregard of a vast amount of empirical data.”
Richard Barnet, for example, argues that industrial states seek to project power and influence for security purposes. As Michael Parenti observes:
”In fact, the case studies in Barnet’s Intervention and Revolution point to the business community, rather than the national security agencies, as the primary motive behind American intervention. Anti-communism and the Soviet threat appear less to be a source of policy than a propaganda device for frightening the American public and rallying support for overseas involvement. The very motives that Barnet dismisses seem to be operative in his case studies of Greece, Iran, Lebanon, and the Dominican Republic—specifically the desire to secure access to markets and raw materials, and the need, explicitly acknowledged by various policymakers, to protect the free market throughout the world.”
Fundamentally, the theories of Barnet and analysts like him rely on simply ignoring the historical and empirical facts in which the anti-human/economic agenda behind Western policy is demonstrated not only by the reality of the policy itself but also by documented statements from policymakers. For example, in his historical study The Ambiguities of Power, the British researcher Mark Curtis shows that the Cold War was not motivated primarily by security concerns, but that its principal motive was hegemonic economic dominance, resulting in a conflict of interests; the alleged security threat scarcely existed in reality but was exaggerated to justify the pursuit of neo-imperialist economic interests.
Richard Falk, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, argues in this regard that:
”Despite defense serving as a powerful pretext, the actual course of American foreign policy has been far more contradictory in practice, seeking above all else as much room as possible for capitalist expansion.”
However, as Falk also notes:
”The principal challenges to capitalist control in recent decades have largely come from domestic pressures generated by revolutionary nationalism.”
For this reason,
”the consistent, bipartisan pattern of American anti-nationalist intervention in the Third World… is clearly ’aggression’ in its primary character… This pattern of aggression has translated into massive human suffering for many non-Western societies, often extending over many years.”
A particular example of ignoring rather obvious facts can be seen when liberal writers point out that empires actually cost more than they are worth. This is true in the sense that empires may cost more than they generate in revenue. For example, from 1950 to 1970, the U.S. government spent several billion dollars supporting a corrupt dictatorship in the Philippines in order to protect only one billion dollars’ worth of American investments in the country. It may therefore be concluded that maintaining such a global empire is harmful to American interests. Yet, as Michael Parenti sees it, this conclusion is based on ignoring another crucial fact—that although the government of an imperial nation may spend more than it takes in, those who bear the cost are the country’s general population, while those who reap the profits are an elite minority.
This point was articulated perfectly by Thorstein Veblen in The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904), where he pointed out how the profits of empire are concentrated in the hands of a privileged business elite. At the same time, the enormous costs, which may far exceed the profits, are extracted from what Veblen aptly called ”the industriousness of the rest of the people.” In other words, transnational corporations reap the profits of empire while contributing little or nothing to its overall costs.
”The expenditures required in the form of armaments and subsidies to make the world safe for General Motors, General Dynamics, General Electric, and all the other generals are paid by the American government—that is, by the taxpayers… Ultimately, there is nothing irrational about spending three dollars of public money to protect one dollar of private investment—at least not from the investors’ point of view. To protect one dollar of their money, they will spend three, four, or five dollars of our money. In fact, when it comes to protecting their money, our money is no obstacle.”
The common argument put forward to discredit an analysis in which neo-imperialist economic imperatives are identified as the overarching driving force behind policymaking does not even attempt to address the wealth of empirical evidence presented in support of that analysis. Instead, it complains about the alleged ”simplicity” of the conclusion, arguing that it supposedly ignores other variables such as geopolitics, culture, ethnicity, nationalism, ideology, and morality. In reality, this argument reveals no logical flaws in the conclusion. All it demonstrates is that the West’s agenda of economic hegemony—whose existence has already been established—is not insulated from these other variables but rather depends upon their support.
This merely points to additional areas of study where the analyst may discover the precise ways in which Western culture, ideology, and morality provide the agenda of economic hegemony with self-justification and motivation, as well as their interaction with the phenomena of geopolitics and nationalism. To refute this conclusion, one would have to demonstrate that the accumulated evidence supporting it is false—but this is never done.
As Dr. Michael Parenti points out:
”The existence of other variables such as nationalism, militarism, the pursuit of national security, and the quest for power and hegemonic dominance neither compels us to dismiss economic realities nor to treat these other variables as isolated from class interests. Thus, the desire to extend American strategic power into particular regions is driven, at least in part, by a desire to stabilize those areas along lines favorable to politico-economic elite interests—which is why those regions become the focus in the first place. In other words, the various factors operate in a circular relationship with one another. The growth of foreign investment creates a need for military protection. This, in turn, creates a need to secure bases and establish alliances with other nations. These alliances then extend the ’defense lines’ that must be maintained. Consequently, a particular country becomes not only an ’essential’ asset for our defense but must itself be defended like any other asset.”
(A Critical Review of The Objectives of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-World War II Period, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.)
Governments have also played a very important indirect role in the production of information (and disinformation) about terrorism. They have encouraged and provided crucial support to the private sector of this industry, some members of which may be regarded as quasi-governmental. The RAND Corporation, a ”private” think tank sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, has a division devoted exclusively to terrorism. At the influential Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Ray Cline served in its early years as a senior official; he was a former Deputy Director of the CIA, and the organization long maintained a revolving-door relationship with the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department.
Many other widely recognized ”private experts” have worked for military and intelligence organizations and continue to maintain close ties with them. In the United Kingdom, Brian Crozier’s Institute for the Study of Conflict was created by the CIA and the British intelligence services, and the institution functioned as a propaganda organ for both of them (as well as for the Confederation of British Industry, CBI). South Africa’s Terrorism Research Centre was established as a nominally independent research organization under the direction of Michael Morris, who had long served as an agent of South Africa’s secret police.
These institutions and experts work together with government agencies to provide the public with what is considered an appropriate perspective on, and suitable information about, terrorism. They also serve as important channels for specific government propaganda. The same applies to the relationship between the government and the media, where the government has long used selected reporters, newspapers, and magazines as channels for planting black propaganda. The government also provides secret financial support and privileged information to its favored institutes and experts by hiring them as consultants, granting them financial support, distributing their publications, and giving them publicity through government-sponsored conferences, hearings, and press briefings.
The U.S. Army Special Operations Field Manual FM 3-05.130, which was leaked in December 2008, clearly states the role of the media in advancing the objectives of U.S. national power. As recent exposés in The New York Times and other sources have documented, ”message force multipliers,” such as retired Pentagon officials and former senior military officers—often with ties to defense contractors that rely heavily on Pentagon funding—have made extensive use of their expertise to carry out illegal domestic psychological operations (PSYOPS) and information warfare, with the participation and full knowledge of major media organizations.
It is important for official agencies, including the military, to recognize the fundamental role of the media in conveying information. The USG uses Strategic Communication (SC) to provide top-down guidance regarding the use of the informational instrument of national power through coordinated information, themes, messages, and products synchronized with other instruments of national power. The military supports SC themes and messages through Information Operations (IO), Public Affairs (PA), and support to Public Diplomacy (DSPD). The military must ensure that media access to information is consistent with classification requirements, legal restrictions, and individual privacy. It must also provide the public with timely and accurate information. Success in military operations depends on acquiring and integrating critical information while preventing the adversary from gaining access to it. The military is responsible for conducting IO, protecting sensitive information from disclosure, and aggressively attacking the adversary’s information systems. IO may involve complex legal and political issues requiring approval, review, and coordination at the national level. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-2.)
As the authors state, ”because UW consists of operations conducted ’by, with, or through irregular forces,’ ’warfare in the human terrain’ is ’primarily a conflict of ideas.'” In short, the ”human terrain” explicitly includes the American public, who are also targets of the Pentagon’s propaganda-like ”information operations.”
The manual further states without qualification:
”USG-controlled specific instruments, although more limited in scope, can achieve specific and measurable results useful to the conduct of UW. ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] may work with counterparts in the DOS [Department of State] to identify and ’target’ selected TAs [target audiences] that can influence behavior within a UWOA [Unconventional Warfare Operational Area]. Such TAs may exist within the UWOA or outside it but still have the ability to influence the UWOA. The USG may then expose these TAs, directly or indirectly, to a DOS public diplomacy (PD) campaign coordinated to support the UW effort. Because UW may be a prolonged and politically sensitive undertaking, ARSOF and its DOS partners may likewise develop a PA campaign to keep the [American] domestic audience informed of the truth in a manner that supports USG objectives and enables the effective execution of UW.” (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-3.)
Also read part 1, part 2, part 4 and part 5
The struggle for the twentieth century, Part 3 – The new world order is an American strategy of overwhelming force
