..."Whatever anguish of spirit it may cause, I am willing to know the whole truth: to know the worst, and to provide for it."--Patrick Henry--
The Global Hierarchy
The Bohemian Grove: This Link is where you can find Peter Phillips's complete dissertation on the sociological history of elite culture and elite men's clubs at the Bohemian Grove. Peter Philips is professor of sociology and journalism at Sonoma State University and one of the co-founders of Project Censored.
The dictionary definition of conspiracy:
A planning and acting together secretly, especially for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason. Since this definition does not include a listing for economic conspiracies, it will be my intention to elaborate on the nature of global conspiracies to inform the public consciousness; as to how every facet of their lives is affected by the global hierarchy. I shall define the global hierarchy, the nature of its conspiracies and what effect they have on our daily lives.
In the following articles various authors define their version of the ultimate economic global conspiracy and how it has been an ongoing process since the end of World War II.
For background Context I recommend a search of Project censored.org's database.
I now recommend reading the following Article at this link:
Article You will need Adobe to view this PDF file.
Now I will define the global hierarchy, starting with the Trilateral Commission.
The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller, and Zbiginew Brezinisky. The commission was comprised of business tycoons from North America, Europe and Japan. Their goal was to create a uniformed economic policy approach in the interests of capitalism towards the emerging challenges of the third world and third world nationalism.
The Trilateral Commission came into the public eye under the administration of President Jimmy Carter. The former president hoped to use the commission to coordinate a global central banking system among its constituent members and their respective countries, as well as coordinate a comprehensive global energy supply and production policy. In going a step further Carter appointed 1/3 of the commission's american members to cabinet level posts in his administration.
Carter's Trilateralism ultimately failed. Every attempt to coordinate fuel supply deals with OPEC whiffed due to the administrations hardline mentality in requiring the Arab oil producing states to supply oil at cheap prices and still not address Arab concerns over Israeli hegemony. At the same time the American economy during this time was mired in a recession, brought on by inflation and high energy prices.
Some could argue that this was still a continuation of stagflation a phenomenon prevalent under the Ford Administration. However, as follows, the Japanese were beginning to flood the american market with japanese goods. The ensuing trade deficit that this caused brought about high inflation in the american economy. Ultimately, this and the Iran Hostage crisis brought upon the downfall of the Carter administration.
For further information on Trilateral activities check out this link: Bilderberg
My letter to the trilateral commission: To the members of the Trilateral Commission, In your upcoming symposium or forum on globalisation, how do you plan to address the effect of an eroding manufacturing base in the United States and to what effect this has on American labor and the real people that must work for a living. Also will there also be a discussion on the economic impact of the US's 80 billion dollar trade deficit with China? Could these factors along with high energy prices be contributing to the rising consumer price index and annual 4% a year inflation. Arguably this phenomenon, price increases, corporate layoffs, and the de unionization of America by the Wallmart's and Target's has decreased the standard of living for the majority of Americans, and other countries, who supply the bulk of non unionized labor, whose citizens are also victims of globalisation. I urgently await your reply, Thomas Jigme Wheat.
Think your CEO is ripping you off, you just might be right.
AFL-CIO website concerning the nature of excessive executiveSalaries.
Globalization, Militarization and US Foreign Policy By: Mark Solomon 12/8/00
1. In "Post Cold War" epoch, the US as "sole superpower" exercises its hegemony within the context of a transnational global system. The fundamental aims of its military and foreign policies are to abet, advance, protect and defend the near-total integration of the world into a global "free market" system, to assure security of the system and global and regional stability in the face of deepening North-South fissures, growing disparities in wealth and social conditions, and increasing disintegration of state structures (replete with inter and intra-regional wars and conflicts).
2. At the same time, embracing elements of continuity and change, the US clings to the continuity of the cold war infrastructure huge military budgets (276 billion in 1999), continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction, maintenance of its nuclear "deterrence," and a projected National Missile Defense (threatening nuclear nonproliferation and the ABM treaty), refusal to sign the treaty banning land mines, etc. This continuity in part represents resistance of Pentagon strategists to structural changes in military force development and planning to meet new circumstances. But principally it represents the power of the industrial-technocratic complex abetted by politicians to protect a nearly monopolistic multibillion industry which provides tens of thousands of jobs from R&D to production line labor (which in turn constitute the political base for this egregious military Keynesianism). It is unfortunate that progressive and left activists have in recent years not sustained earlier work to educate and organize around the negative consequences of military spending which drains far more jobs than it creates and cripples efforts to attain public spending on education, health care, housing, etc.
3. At the heart of changing military policy is the growing reliance on more mobile conventional forces (resisted by old line cold war strategists who advocate large, less mobile structures) to supplement primary economic pressures upon states and societies North and South. Those states are forced to bend to the will of transnational institutions (World Bank, IMF, WTO, Trilateral Commission, Group of 7+1, etc.,) to integrate into a global neoliberal order and open themselves to unimpeded penetration by transnational corporations, financial institutions and purveyors of commodified culture exported mainly by the US (followed by Europe and Japan). In sum, this constitutes a new "Global Colonial Order" based on the racist notion of "global governance." and the diminution of coherent, independent states. This objective is buttressed by military forces ready to intervene anywhere the interests and values of the global order is placed in jeopardy. The essence of this new "order" is to impose "security" and "stability" through both economic integration (at the cost of internal social payments) and the threat or actual use of interventionist military force.
4. Arguing that worldwide and US stability was founded on three pillars: US security, US prosperity, and global democracy (read political institutions that aggrandize global capital), Bill Clinton said in February 1999 that the US had to be prepared to act anywhere to preserve political stability, the principal trope of evolving US global policy. One of his most revealing remarks about the tenacity and reach of the US military was made on September 24, 2000 in the New York Times when in plugging China's entry into the WTO (which presumably would advance peace and lessen reliance on forward military forces), he said: "Finally we must maintain our military presence and our alliances in Asia. There remain enough uncertainties that we must be ready if there is a crisis. If tensions between North and South Korea decrease and if China continues to open up, we may be tempted to draw back. We must not do so. For we are not in Asia simply to respond to danger, but to be a balance wheel for stability that prevents danger from arising. We can play that role even better if adoption of PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) and China's entry into the WTO reduces mutual suspicion, while accelerating the pace of constructive change in China.." Thus, the lessening of danger, in the view of US post cold war military policy, only increases the need for forward military presence -- and the requisite force to "encourage" China to move on with so-called "constructive change" (read more movement into the neoliberal global order).
5. Such much-sought democratic "stability" is defined as parliamentary protection of foreign property and investments buttressed by a degree of citizen consent and of course, obeisance to fast-track neoliberalism. In the post cold war world, transnationalized capital and its political leaders rely less upon openly oppressive and dictatorial political regimes (but such regimes have by no means been abandoned in all cases) which at times are led by troublesome nationalistic and pseudo-populist leaders who fan instability. (Thus, Fujimori in Peru, Suharto in Indonesia, possibly Estrada in the Philippines all have to go). If they are removed through economic and political pressure and subversion, fine. But for those countries that for various reasons do not conform quickly or decisively enough to regional or global integration, the response is military action while they are defined as "rogue states" operating outside the economic, political, and cultural norms of the world system and constituting a convenient replacement for the disappeared "communist threat." Such military attacks are almost always against civilian populations (e.g., Iraq and Yugoslavia) avoiding engagement with military forces (to forestall the US public's post-Vietnam distaste for military casualties in distant wars). Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime seeks to operate within the context of the global system, but it also has regional objectives which collide with the transnational agenda. Thus, Iraq is labeled a "rogue state" that allegedly threatens regional as well as US security and is subjected to virtually permanent hi-tech bombing.
6. Another case in point: US intervention in Kosovo and its subsequent bombing of Yugoslavia was trumpeted as a humanitarian effort to halt "ethnic cleansing." But Anthony Lake (NY Times 10/8/00) adds another dimension: "Our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were not only humanitarian. They were essential to the pursuit of our vision of an undivided Europe. Our vision includes not only integration to the east, but also the embrace of southeastern Europe, including the Balkans. And Serbia must be included, because it is the region's geographic, economic, and diplomatic heart. So long as something was rotten in Belgrade, such integration was impossible. Now we can and need to push ahead not only on the futures of Kosovo and Montenegro, but also on a broader understanding on the future of the Balkans." That "understanding" requires the removal of Milosovic from political life (most effectively through arrest and trial in the Hague) not because he turned his back on regional integration he had already in the early nineties begun to chain Yugoslavia to the IMF but that under public pressure he had not acted swiftly enough to aggrandize the demands of global institutions. His government was brought down by a combination of large-scale bombing, economic isolation, which engendered widespread discontent, and lavish CIA funding of private "sports organizations" to bring down his regime.
7. Such actions are not without subtext and contradiction While the US military is now chief enforcer for the neoliberal global system, the US state reserves and pursues the right to define the contours of that system and press its own notions, based on US history and culture, of the ways it should function. (For example: the US is far less enamored of "social market capitalism" than Europe.) Thus, when US policymakers speak of "European integration." that does not preclude NATO's dominance (using Lake's words) in "reinforcing democratic structures and habits within the Central and Eastern European states." NATO, of course, is essentially a US formation and the West European industrial-technocratic states distrust its willingness to commit ground forces (with the threat of casualties) to assure "an undivided Europe." The European Union, over US-NATO objections is now moving to form its own "rapid reaction force" to pursue European interests in continental integration. Thus, globalization has by no means eliminated intra-imperial rivalries despite the fact that a military division of labor of sorts has arisen. Australia was given the role of pacifying and stabilizing East Timor; the British were assigned Sierra Leone, while the US projects its power overwhelmingly into the "big" regions: the Middle East, East Asia, and the highly unstable Pacific rim of South America. Colombia is the focus of US intervention, not only because of the threat of political disintegration under the influence of drug cartels, but to eliminate radical guerrilla movements and pressure the radical-populist Chavez government in adjacent Venezuela.
8. The clarion call of US military globalism is "humanitarianism" and human rights. No other policy has perhaps caused more confusion on the left. Such policies, of course, are rife with hypocrisy and selectivity. (Long-suffering Kurds under Turkish rule evoked no US-NATO response as did Kosovars.) "Humanitarian" interventions are always underpinned by political and strategic motives, even when the immediate impact may be positive, like food deliveries to famine-struck areas of East Africa (although we must add that such catastrophes themselves are the product of the global system). Increasingly, "humanitarian" interventions are designed to rupture state sovereignty, to create a system of "global governance" outside the United Nations, including selective removal and punishment of alleged war criminals, etc., whose continuing presence within state structures is "inconvenient" for the global economy. At the same, time, the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court, fearing that criminal activities its own military could prosecuted. (Aside: we need to expose the underlying motives of human rights interventions which not only ignore the egregious domestic human rights violations of those raising humanitarian banners, but serve distinct political objectives to build a political foundation for global economic integration.)
9. Finally: the grand contradiction in the quest for global stability. The dynamics of globalization's "casino capitalism" has engendered unspeakable instability, suffering and chaos in vast areas of the world, especially in the South. The massive imperial transfer of wealth from the South to the North has provoked violent conflict over diminishing resources (while horrible pandemics like AIDS and the ebola virus strike down millions of predominantly nonwhite peoples). Since 1989, more than 50 armed conflicts have broken out on top of 160 wars and conflicts from 1945 to 1989. Such conflicts have increasingly become intrastate rather than interstate.
Sociologist William Robinson has pointed out that "Uncertain survival and insecurities posed by global capitalism induce diverse forms of fundamentalism, localism, nationalism and transnational conflict." With all the talk of the magical benefits of global integration, Oswaldo de Rivero, former president of the UN Conference on Disarmament, has identified a major but largely unacknowledged aspect of the global system: the technological revolution, exacerbated by globalization has eliminated legions of unskilled workers and tons of raw material at a time when many Third World countries are experiencing "massive population growth." With such economic constriction, states cannot maintain control of territory and population. Whole sectors fall under warlords, drug traffickers, or mafia. Civil institutions evaporate as populations fall prey to armed groups. Such "ungovernable entities" are "helpless in a world economic system that has lost interest in competitive resources ... that once made them viable."
Many low income developing countries (mainly the whole of Africa, most of Central America, major Andean and Asian counties) are "balanced precariously on the huge fault-lines created by the present world economic disorder" with plunging per capital consumption of water, energy, and food. Most striking in all this is the selectivity of US foreign and military policy which trumpets stability but does not intervene in areas with the greatest instability, but least usefulness to the profit maximizing agenda of global capitalism. (Rwanda and Burundi are the most compelling examples.)
10. Starting with renewed efforts to expose the horrific nature and intent of continuing US military spending, to explorations and explanations of US foreign and military policies under globalized capitalism, the CofC's can and should make a valuable contribution to the progressive and left community's understanding (especially on "human rights" issues) and to effecting broadly based education and mobilization to build genuinely noninterventionist and humane foreign and military policies.
Here's a decent but brief description of the global political economy
Here's a real whacko, or is she? too much caffiene
George Bush: The Unauthorized BiographySkull and Bones Revealed!
Read the report that predicted 911 three years ago. The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism