America and the New World Order
© 1997 by Richard K. Moore
4 February 1997
As published in New Dawn, March-April 1997
First preface - What is the New World Order?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Few would disagree that the dominant trend of our day is
globalization - the elimination of trade barriers, the
downsizing of governments, a greater reliance on the private
sector, reduced regulation of business, and an increasingly
global economy. A great many people interpret this trend as
economic progress, and see it is a basically good thing. This
article will argue that globalization is first and foremost
political regression - threatening to destroy our Western
democratic institutions, and turning the clock of human progress
centuries backward to something resembling feudalism.
The role of the USA in the globalization trend is not entirely
obvious. In some ways, America seems central to the process.
It is the leading proponent of free trade; it provides the
primary military muscle to shape and maintain global order; when
the American President speaks on international issues, his words
are taken as being decisive - he is (by virtue of his office)
far-and-away the most powerful and influential world leader.
But at the same time, America seems hardly to be the primary
beneficiary of the globalization process. Other countries,
notably Germany and Japan, are faring better economically, while
America suffers increasing debt and a declining standard of
living. America, though the dominant world power, appears not
to be exploiting its advantage in the traditional fashion of
dominant powers.
The perspective of this article is that globalization is not
about competition among nations - but rather about the
increasing power of mega-corporations over nations, generally,
and their peoples. America - the hotbed of this trend - is in
effect acting as a proxy for elite corporate interests, not as a
representative of the American people, nor even of American
national interests in any traditional sense. Seen from this
perspective, America's seemingly ambivalent role becomes
understandable.
In order to get a comprehensive picture of where globalization
came from and where it is going, this article makes a whirlwind
tour of American history, showing how that feeds into what has
now become the mainstream of world history. If sovereign
national states, sometimes competing and sometimes cooperating,
have been the Familiar World Order, then globalization seems to
be leading us all inexorably toward a New World Order where
mega-corporations (and the wealthy elite who control them) reign
supreme, and nations are reduced to a vestigial, subservient,
policing role - controlling the populace on behalf of the elite
- as we see already in much of the Third World.
Second preface - What and who are the elite?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
During the era of feudalism, there were three elites. There was
the church hierarchy, there was the landed aristocracy/nobility,
and there were the royal families, who might also be seen as the
topmost layer of the aristocracy. As feudalism ended, there was
the rise of an additional elite - the business wealthy - who
gained their status and influence through trade and manufacture,
with or without benefit of inherited title. These elite groups
competed for power, and different accommodations occurred from
time to time and from place to place.
From the point of view of the general population, these elites
represented security or tyranny, depending perhaps on ones
perspective - but it was obvious to everyone that the elites ran
society - no one pretended that society was democratic. With
the advent of "democratic republics", beginning with the USA,
the older elites were removed from power, but the wealthy
business elite, which had evolved into the capitalist elite,
remained relatively undisturbed.
Did this transformation bring about democracy, in any genuine
sense, or was it merely the monopolization of power into the
hands of the single remaining elite? This is a question that
remains open - and it is a question that can be asked also of
most of today's modern "democracies", which have each to some
degree been modeled on the American precedent.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Part 1 - The Birth of Democratic Republics
- American Independence
The colonial context
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although sentiment for independence in the American colonies was
minimal prior to the latter half of the 18th century, there were
objective conditions which made independence a natural, and
comparatively non-disruptive step. The colonies were already
largely self-governing, had their own social identity, had
considerable natural resources, were mostly self-sufficient
economically, and had their own extensive trading fleet. Boston
was the third-busiest port in the British Empire.
The colonies were seen by Britain as economic investments, more
than as administered territories. Some colonies, such as
Pennsylvania, were privately-owned corporations, and in general
the colonies were expected to take care of themselves. The
colonies paid taxes to the Crown, lived under restrictions such
as a prohibition on industrialization, and received in return
the protection of the Crown and access to British markets. But
in fact the benefits of being subject to Britain were
questionable. When frontier war with French-backed natives
occurred, for example, help from Britain was slow in coming and
the colonies were then taxed for the troop expenditures.
There were many vocal advocates for independence, and there was
widespread popular resentment of certain royal measures, such as
the stamp tax. Nonetheless, until nearly the eve of revolution,
most colonists wanted to remain subjects of the Crown, and
sought reform of British policies toward the colonies, not
independence. Even with the stamp tax, it is noteworthy that
the tax burden of a typical colonist was less than that of
someone of similar circumstances living in England.
In any case, it was independence that was at issue, not a social
or political revolution. The existing colonial assemblies would
presumably continue if independence occurred, with more or less
the same people stepping forward as leaders, and with land
ownership and economic activity continuing more or less as
before (but without Royal interference).
The colonial elite - differing attitudes toward independence
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As mentioned above, independence didn't promise most colonists
that much of a change. But for the elite - who possessed a
highly-disproportionate concentration of wealth, land ownership,
and influence in local affairs - there were more compelling
economic considerations.
With independence, industrial development would be possible and
international trade wouldn't be directly limited by the vagaries
of British imperial entanglements. The resources of the new
continent could be developed without sharing the spoils with
England. For the elite, a divorce from the empire represented
profound and immediate economic opportunities.
The turning point in radical consciousness, when a majority of
the populace came to favor independence, occurred in the form of
a single earth-shaking essay: Tom Paine's "Common Sense". This
essay, written in an unprecedented popular style that anyone
could understand, broke all existing publication records and was
read aloud in villages and towns everywhere, and not only in
America.
"Common Sense" created in the popular Western mind, for the
first time, perhaps, since the early Roman republic, the notion
that government arises from the consent of the governed - that
the people are the state. It marked the beginning of the
popular concept of _nationalism_ - the notion that citizens find
their identity in their nation and its interests, rather than in
their role as subjects of a domain belonging to royalty and
nobility.
Paine was popularizing - and expanding the scope of - some of
the radical ideas that had been developed by Enlightenment
thinkers generally. He was concerned with promoting personal
freedom, popular sovereignty, and - most particularly - creating
an ironclad case for the legitimacy of a government based on the
will of the people rather than on divine right or inherited
dominion.
Paine was much less concerned with the other major thread of
Enlightenment thinking, regarding market forces, the "invisible
hand", and laissez-faire economics. Paine was so little
motivated by economic gain, in fact, that he refused to accept
royalties for his all-time best seller. He was, by personal
disposition, much more interested in ending tyranny than he was
in opening up opportunities for capitalist development.
The wealthy, and literate, elite did not need Paine to tell them
about Enlightenment thinking. Nor were they as focused as Paine
was on only the anti-tyranny ideas. They were at least as much
taken with the laissez-faire thread, which justified their
natural eagerness to pursue unfettered their economic
opportunities. Many of them, in fact, were so afraid of the
possibility of "mob rule", that they preferred that an American
monarchy be established following independence, rather than a
democracy.
Thus the War of Independence had different shades of meaning for
two different constituencies. In both cases the rallying cry
was "Freedom!" - but to the populace, this meant primarily
personal freedom and popular democratic sovereignty, while to
the business elite the emphasis was more on commercial freedom
and the ability to pursue capital investment unfettered by the
old regime's elites.
In the end, the spectrum of visions for the new nation had to be
pinned down into a single Constitution. This was a task that
fell, as one would expect, to members of the elite. The
resulting document was a compromise that included elements of
democracy, but that included sufficient buffering mechanisms to
insure that the elite, if diligent, could control the government
sufficiently for their purposes.
The rule of Crown, Nobility, and Church was definitely ended,
and the principle of popular sovereignty was definitely
established - as an ideal. But, to repeat our earlier question,
had the old tyrants been in effect traded for new tyrants,
namely the capitalist elite?
In partial answer to the question, it seems fair to say that the
new constitutional regime provided a forum in which the elite
and the people could peacefully vie for control, and in which
checks and balances attempted to prevent either side from fully
dominating the other. And all would agree, presumably, that the
new regime offered better opportunities for genuine democracy
than the one it superceded.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Part 2 - Capitalism Unleashed
- The American Experience
The elite vs. the people - an ongoing struggle
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whatever one might think about the intentions of the (mostly
elite) Founding Fathers - or of the theory of the Constitution -
the actual fact is that American history has been characterized
by a see-saw battle for control between the people and the
capitalist elite.
At times, as in the late nineteenth century robber-baron era,
the elite have brazenly ruled - J. D. Rockefeller bragged about
how many government officials were "in his pocket". At other
times, as during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt,
government policy seemed more responsive, instead, to the needs
and wishes of the general population.
One can debate whether the elite exert influence through secret
conspiracies, or whether they simply act straightforwardly in
their own perceived interest. The answer, surely, is that both
mechanisms are and have always have been at work. Numerous
conspiratorial "scandals" can be found throughout American
history, but few would argue that without those episodes the
elite would have been without major influence.
Propaganda & credulity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Propaganda played a pivotal role in the birth of America and has
been part of the American scene ever since. It was the elite,
in pursuit of commercial self-interest, who were the vanguard of
the revolutionary movement, while the populace was stirred up by
high-sounding democratic principles and sensationalized rabble-
rousing around the issues of Royal oppression and taxation.
Propaganda is by no means unique to the American experience -
all governments and elites employ propaganda - but propaganda
has played a uniquely intimate role in the American experience.
Because America is endowed with democratic mechanisms - the
government is elected, after all - such propaganda has been
essential from the beginning in order for the elite to exert the
influence to which it feels entitled. Propaganda is one of the
elite's primary antidotes to the dreaded disease of actual
democracy.
America is the land of Hollywood, advertising, public relations,
sugar-coated fairy tails, cult religions, the "Defense"
Department, Disneyland, and "progress". It was of Americans
that it was said "A fool is born every minute", "You can fool
all the people some of the time", and "You can never
underestimate the intelligence of the public". Certainly not
all Americans can be so characterized, but in a land where
majority rules, the effect is not much different.
The rhetoric of liberation and democracy captured the
imagination not only of Americans, but of the whole world.
America became an almost mystical symbol, spoken of in fable-
like imagery: "the land of freedom", "the land of opportunity",
"the American Dream", "streets paved with gold", "bastion of
democracy". America was something people everywhere yearned to
believe in - it seemed (and claimed) to be the fairy tale
kingdom of everyone's childhood dreams.
The war culture & expansionism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
America was born out of a war it initiated and it has achieved
its growth through periodic warfare ever since. There has been
a significant war approximately every thirty years, often
initiated (overtly or covertly) by America and more often than
not achieving a new stage in the growth of American power and
the expansion of American-based elite interests. Such
aggressiveness is not particularly unusual among nations; what
is unusual is the propaganda mythology that would have America
acting always in "self defense", and in defense of "freedom and
democracy".
A common scenario typically underlies American involvement in
wars: there is usually an incident which is perceived as an
outrage against America, and the populace then rallies to the
common defense with a characteristic ferocity and self-
righteousness. America's contribution to causing a war is
seldom acknowledged.
The incidents may be provoked, as with the Mexican War,
arranged, as with the Lusitania, or fabricated, as in the Gulf
of Tonkin - but they are always deftly exploited and enable the
elite expansionist agenda to be further advanced, under cover of
yet another crusade for "freedom and democracy". The elite is
always well-prepared for the incident, has a plan ready for
execution and its propaganda machinery goes into full gear as
the incident unfolds.
The use of outrage-incidents to launch elite-planned military
campaigns accomplishes several objectives. It triggers the in-
built American war spirit, and channels the resulting righteous
wrath toward the nominated enemy. It also concentrates power in
the executive branch, where elite control is usually most
undiluted by popular influence. Congress - where popular will
is most likely to find expression - is then relegated to the
role of loyal stores-supplier for the duration of the crusade.
This process is exemplified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident,
which enabled full-scale U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.
The incident itself was faked, but Congress promptly issued its
usual knee-jerk Resolution, authorizing the President to "act in
defense". The "authorized actions" were then incrementally
escalated into a full-scale war, with Congress having minimal
additional influence and popular will finding expression only in
the streets.
The eventual scope of the war was completely beyond anything
authorized by the original Congressional Resolution, but once
America is on the warpath, its war-culture ethic does not
include room for official dissent or reconsideration - it would
be "betraying the boys at the front". Even when the fake
incident was exposed, it was too late to put the war genie back
in the bottle.
Immigration and the Melting Pot
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While immigration to America has been heralded as "welcoming the
huddled masses" - inspired presumably by humanitarian concern -
the effect was to provide a constantly renewed pool of
exploitable cheap labor. Instead of Britain's static class
system of tiered exploitation, America evolved a dynamic class
ladder system (the Melting Pot), where new (ethnically
identifiable) lower classes were continually placed on the
bottom rung, willingly trading their home-country cultural
identify to struggle for acceptance as bona fide Americans.
Ethnic rivalries helped divide-and-conquer the masses,
preventing democratic solidarity. Each segment of the American
socioeconomic ladder seemed willing to see lower rungs
suppressed, while it viewed higher rungs as its future
opportunity. Thus the prisoners of the class ladder system were
motivated to embrace their own exploitation and the elite was
spared the development of a general popular socioeconomic
consciousness.
The Horatio Alger myth was born, of the poor immigrant who
achieves immense wealth in one lifetime. Thus was fostered a
"lottery" mentality regarding economics - attention is focused
on the rare individuals who win big, distracting attention from
the overall pattern of systematic subjugation and exploitation.
The victim takes the blame for his own predicament: if he isn't
well-off, it's only because he's not clever enough. The
question of why most things are owned or controlled by the elite
goes unasked.
Capitalism, development and "progress"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Capitalism has only one goal: the increasing of a pot of gold
into a larger pot of gold. National economic development, back
when such was typical government policy, had the touted goal of
providing general prosperity, but it also facilitated the growth
of elite capitalist wealth. Now that the elite prefers global
investment as a way to grow wealth, national economic
development seems, significantly, no longer to be an objective
of governmental programs.
Progress, says the myth, is about improving the quality of
people's lives. But from a capitalist perspective, progress is
about continually scrapping one infrastructure (or product
portfolio) for another - thereby allowing capital to go through
another cycle of re-investment and profit-taking. Thus rail is
superseded by highways, coal by oil and electricity, home-made
by store-bought clothes, ovens by microwaves, main streets by
shopping centers, small farms by agribusiness, family doctors by
medical corporations, home remedies by high-priced
pharmaceuticals, etc.
In most cases, people willingly go along with such "progress"
because of perceived or actual advantage. In some cases,
however, implementation of "progress" requires covert elite
intervention. Functioning intra-city light rail systems, for
example, were purchased (in Los Angeles and other urban areas)
and dismantled, by automobile-related interests, to be replaced
by far less efficient, more polluting, oil-hungry bus and auto
traffic.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Part 3 - World War Two
- America Gains Global Dominance
Background of the war
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The rise of communist and socialist movements, following World
War One, created considerable fear in elite capitalist circles.
Marxist ideology emphasized the tyrannical aspects of the
capitalist elite, and issued a strident call for solidarity
among common workers, who Marx credited with creating all real
wealth. This ideology, which was simplistic and one-sided, had
nonetheless taken firm root in Russia and seemed poised to
spread further.
In German, Italy, and Spain, in particular, anti-elite movements
gained popular strength under the banners of socialism,
communism, or anarchism. It is not surprising that the elite in
those and other countries welcomed and encouraged the rise of
fascist movements. Fascism was virulently anti-communist, pro-
capitalist, and fully willing to brutally suppress any who
opposed its agenda.
Hitler began his political career as an operative of German
military intelligence and received funding and support from
elite Western industrialists. While in prison, writing Mein
Kampf, he kept a portrait of Henry Ford on his desk. During the
Spanish Civil War, the Western elite kept the anti-fascist
opposition disarmed, while it approvingly observed the
efficiency of Hitler's growing war machine. American volunteers
who fought against Franco found their patriotism questioned when
they returned home.
Mein Kampf made it unambiguous that the primary strategic
objective in Hitler's mind was the subjugation and economic
exploitation of Russia. By ignoring their own prohibition on
German re-armament, and providing loans, the Western elite were
in fact collaborating with Hitler in the development of an
invasion force targeted on Russia - socialism's bastion.
Meanwhile, the West was watching with discomfort Japan's growing
economic power and imperial scope. Japan was building a
formidable Asian economic zone backed up by a large, modern
navy.
This was a significant threat to Western, and especially
American, elite interests and designs. Not only would markets
and investment opportunities in populous Asia be highly
curtailed, but Japan would be dislodging the West from its
accustomed role as collective master of the seas and arbiter of
global imperial arrangements. And who knew what would be the
bounds of this Asian empire? The aggressive expansionism of
Japan seemed destined to force a war with the West, sooner or
later.
America handled this complex situation with all the finesse and
subtlety of a skilled martial-arts expert, guided by a strategic
vision unsurpassed by the imperial masterminds of any previous
age.
America orchestrates global domination
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the prewar years, Japan and Germany enjoyed credit and trade
with the West, while their aggressive designs and military
machines were allowed to develop. They were being given enough
rope to hang themselves with. Then, as was completely
predictable, Hitler became embroiled in a war with Russia and
Japan became similarly entangled in China and Southeast Asia.
It was only after this anticipated scenario had unfolded that
Uncle Sam unholstered his guns and prepared to take charge of
the sequel. The traditional war-popularizing incident, in this
case, was the inevitable Japanese strike on America's Pacific
fleet. The incident-facilitating provocation, in this case, was
the cutoff of Japanese oil supplies, which America convinced
Holland to undertake.
When the anticipated incident occurred, President Roosevelt
feigned surprise and outrage, and the most formidable, popularly
supported military crusade of all time was launched. The well-
funded and well-armed G.I. was loose on the world, and because
of the eagerness with which Germany and Japan had hung
themselves in world opinion, he was welcomed as a hero wherever
he went.
While Japan was contained by rear-guard actions, peripheral
pressure was applied against the Nazis. The full-scale landing
in Europe was carefully withheld, to enable Germany to keep most
of its troops on the Russian front, so that Hitler and Stalin
could decimate one another to the maximum extent possible. Only
when Stalin turned the Nazis around, and began to advance toward
Berlin, was the landing carried out. D-Day, it would seem, was
timed to minimize the Russian advance more than to hasten the
demise of Nazism.
At the end of the war, America had managed to put itself in a
position which was very close to total global hegemony. It had
the run of the seven seas, an intact military machine and
national infrastructure, a monopoly on nuclear weapons, greatly
expanded influence in the oil-rich Middle East, and the lion's
share of the world's disposable wealth and industrial capacity.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world was in shambles, in
deep debt and/or under occupation. America had the prestige,
power, and resources to guide the construction of post-war
arrangements largely according to its own designs.
Hitler had threatened to conquer the world and lost a generation
of his men instead; Uncle Sam lost a comparatively minuscule
number of troops, with no proclaimed territorial ambitions, and
yet world domination seemed to fall into his lap.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Part 4 - The New World Order
- The Global Consolidation of Elite Power
under Neo-Feudalism
The "Free World" - a global playground for capital
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Following the war, the Western elite, led by America, drew a
line on the globe, separating the part they dominated from the
part they didn't. The "free world" (doublespeak for "elite-
controlled zone") was organized into a new kind of global
capital investment realm. While capital investment was afforded
a new kind of global commercial freedom, much of the "free"
population was systematically subjected to military
dictatorships responsive to elite interests. The doublespeak
usage of "freedom", originating during American independence,
had now been globalized.
Meanwhile the "communist block" (doublespeak for "beyond elite
control") was contained: ostracized, pestered around its
periphery by provocative military deployments, and subjected to
chronic economic destabilization by means of the "arms race",
expensive brushfire engagements, and trade restrictions.
America could have used its position of strength to establish a
traditional American-centered imperial system in the "free"
world, relegating Europe to a secondary position, keeping Japan
underdeveloped, etc. Instead America implemented a bold new
global scheme. The elite had grander plans for capital growth
than simply a larger American economy. The old European empires
were disbanded and a seemingly democratic United Nations was set
up, promising to maintain orderly international relations.
The "free" world seemed to be entering an era of national self-
determination and democratic renaissance - a bright new day
following the fascist nightmare. But the reality - as elite
designs unfolded - turned out to be quite different from that.
Instead of an end to imperialism, as the propaganda myth would
have it, what was introduced was a collective imperialism.
Under a pax-americana military umbrella, an international
economic infrastructure was established (IMF, World Bank, et
al). Investment and trade were free to flow, increasingly,
around the "free" world at will, without the territorial
partitions traditionally imposed by a competitive European
imperial system.
The result for the ex-colonies (soon to be dubbed the "Third
World"), was that they found themselves dominated by the capital
elite generally, rather than by the business interests of a
single national power.
Megacorps - the elite's Frankenstein monster
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This semi-homogenized, semi-pacified, investment environment
enabled large corporations (elite-controlled money-multiplying
machines) to develop orderly operations on a global scale. Thus
arose the era of megacorps (aka: multinationals, transnationals)
- mammoth corporations with wealth and influence on a scale
comparable to nations.
While Third-World peoples were acutely aware that megacorps were
becoming the overlords of the "free" world, the First World did
everything it could to encourage their growth - they were seen
as the agents of First-World economic domination and necessary
to maintaining "home-country" prosperity.
Megacorps are much more than simply giant units of economic
enterprise, capable of executing large-scale business
transactions. They are also significant political and economic
powers in their own right on the world stage. They increasingly
have outgrown any sense of home-nation loyalty, view regulations
and trade barriers as provincial interference, and see
themselves as autonomous masters of the globe. Their needs and
demands are more often than not the hidden agenda behind the
policies of the Western powers.
The rise of megacorps must be viewed as an historically
momentous development: the emergence of a new species of
political entity, a species in direct competition with its
ancestor species, the modern nation state. Born out of limited-
liability laws, nurtured in a capitalist culture, and lacking
any natural bounds to growth or restraints on behavior,
megacorps extend themselves as would cancer cells, poisoning and
strangling their host planet in the process.
Megacorps, in the end, are capitalist investments, and their
motivation, pure and simple, is to increase their own market
value on behalf of their absentee owners. This means that the
primary "drive" of the megacorp species is growth. Unlike
natural species, where individuals grow only to a certain size
and mating habits typically limit population to what the
environment will support, megacorps are driven to grow without
limit and have no natural concern with whatever stands in their
way.
What would be the nature of a megacorp-governed world? There is
no need to speculate or theorize about such a future - we can
simply look at Third-World countries, many of which have been
dominated by megacorps for some time now. What we see there are
minimal regulation and taxation of megacorp activities, along
with repressive regimes which are subsidized, armed, and
otherwise bolstered by outside elite interests.
The Neoliberal Revolution - the elite changes horses
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For thirty-five years megacorps continued to spread their
tentacles in the "free" world. Pressure was kept up on the
"communist" hold-outs and the elite-controlled regions were
increasingly consolidated into a tightening noose of
international financial arrangements and dependence on megacorp
operations.
Then in 1980 a new phase of elite power-consolidation was
launched simultaneously in America and Britain, under the stage-
management of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, respectively.
This new phase was the "neoliberal revolution" and its platform
was lower corporate taxes, reduced corporate regulation,
privatization of public services, elimination of international
trade barriers, and the self-demonization of democratic
political institutions - "The only good government is less
government" became the official kamikaze agenda in both
countries.
What the neoliberal (no relation to "liberal") agenda amounts to
is a wholesale transference of power, assets and sovereignty
into megacorp hands. The thrust of government activity under
neoliberalism is embezzlement on the grandest scale ever before
attempted. Public lands, rights, responsibilities and assets
are being given into private elite hands at undervalued prices
and without effective public oversight. Government itself is
being dismantled, defunded and prepared for the scrap heap. By
rights, neoliberal government leaders should be indicted for
conspiracy and high treason against the state.
The neoliberal revolution represents a declaration by the elite
that nation states are no longer their chosen tools of power,
and that megacorps are to become their primary vehicle not only
of wealth accumulation, but also of organizing global society.
The elite are now making it clear, under the rhetoric of
neoliberalism, that First-World nations and their populations
are no longer to be privileged partners in the elite game - they
are scheduled to come under the same kind of corporate
domination that the Third-World has long been accustomed to.
To this end, international arrangements such as the WTO, IMF,
World Bank, NAFTA and GATT have been set up so that economic,
and increasingly social and political, polices can be dictated
on a global scale by corporate-dominated commissions. Megacorps
and their commissions are controlled directly by the elite -
they include no democratic mechanisms and no pretense that they
represent the "will of the people".
Neoliberal globalism, in all fairness, deserves the label neo-
feudalism - with the corporate elite ruling in place of the
three elites which dominated classical feudalism. Having served
their purpose in dethroning the previous elites, and no longer
needed by the corporate elite, these nation states and their
populations are being betrayed and abandoned. "Democracy", the
scam which unleashed capitalism, has now become a hindrance to
elite hegemony.
Global propaganda - exporting the American model
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are striking parallels between the propaganda techniques
ushering in globalism and those which heralded American
independence. On the one hand there is a propaganda cover story
- modernization, competitiveness, greater efficiency, universal
prosperity, reduced corruption - just as the earlier cover story
proclaimed personal freedom and an end to tyranny. On the other
hand there is the unspoken elite agenda - dismantlement of
democratic institutions, firmer elite control, expanded
exploitation opportunities - just as the earlier elite agenda
unleashed capitalism from the shackles of earlier elites.
As happened in America, the myth-fantasy unfolds in the elite-
controlled media, while the hidden agenda is being
systematically implemented behind the scenes. The promise is to
make the whole world a "land of opportunity", but that
opportunity is to be for elite investments, not popular freedom
or prosperity.
The globalization of American-style propaganda was critical to
the orchestration of this scenario, and thus Milton Friedman and
his Chicago conjurers were dispatched to Downing Street to help
sell the package in the UK. Neoliberal mythology became a
global media phenomenon, with CNN, Hollywood, Murdoch, et al,
deftly spreading the phony gospel of free-trade, government
inadequacy, deregulation and, as always, the American Dream.
The film Independence Day, in which the world's people are shown
to embrace American mythology, perfectly exemplifies this
propaganda genre.
A significant difference between the neoliberal and American
revolutions, is the lack of propaganda emphasis on democracy and
freedom. Today's promises are related to "land of opportunity"
much more than "land of freedom". The propaganda intent, here,
is to portray neoliberalism as an economic movement, and to keep
its political agenda hidden. Citizens are encouraged to assume
that democracy is a fact of life, an unshakable institution,
secure from any fatal dangers.
People are also, with mind-boggling irony, encouraged to
perceive capital exploitation itself as a sign of democracy,
particularly in formerly socialist states. As we watch those
populations suffering under intentionally destabilized
economies, while megacorps organize their own exploitive
infrastructures, we are told that the locals are "slow to adopt
to democracy".
The police state - public order under neoliberalism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Traditionally in "democracies", police forces have been small
and order has arisen from the spirit of citizenship - "This is
our country", "We are benefiting from its existence", and order
comes out of "following our own rules". Under neoliberalism,
maintenance of public welfare is being abandoned - undermining
public satisfaction - and nationalist ideology is being de-
emphasized - undermining civic identity and voluntary
compliance.
The elite is well aware that massive economic suffering and
political discontent are an inevitable part of the megacorp
future, with its obeisance to the religion of market forces and
its abandonment of citizen motivation via democratic processes,
as once-prosperous nations decline toward Third-World status.
Not surprisingly then, what we see growing up, in tandem with
the neoliberal revolution, are police-state systems and an
intense propaganda-myth campaign regarding crime, its causes and
its cures. More police, longer sentences, and more prisons are
the elite's answer to the question of public order.
Third-World countries show where this leads: military
dictatorships, systematic torture and killings, and suppression
of unions, political parties, and non-compliant publications.
In America, the First-World's most fully developed neoliberal
state, we can see clearly how such regimes are to incrementally
imposed on the First World.
The media plays its part by ignoring the obvious fact that
planned high unemployment and the abandonment of national hope
are primary causes of crime and the erosion of civic compliance.
In place of this obvious truth, is offered a mythology which
blames the victims: they lack "family values", they are lazy,
they have a genetic predisposition to crime, they are habitual
offenders - the only solution is to lock them up. How one can
follow "family values", when one has insufficient family income,
is strangely absent from "public debate".
The nature of the penal system is rapidly changing in America,
reflecting the anticipated further increase in social unrest. A
formidable prison capacity is being built - prison construction
is the largest growth industry at present in the U.S. - and the
concept of who the prisons are for is undergoing radical change.
It was formerly the case that punishment was a response to a
crime, and when the debt to society was repaid, the offender was
expected to join the ranks of the responsible citizenry.
Increasingly, prisons are being seen as a place to permanently
house certain segments of the population: those who can't or
won't fit into the corporate system. That's what "three strike"
laws, mandatory sentencing, and soon, preventive detention, are
all about.
In a very literal sense, prisons are to be the concentration
camps of the neoliberal regime - a place to isolate and control
those redundant to corporate needs. Never wanting to waste an
exploitable resource, the elite in America are now developing an
extensive prison-labor system, renting out inmates to fill
lower-rung corporate labor needs. Thus, in the "land of the
free", we see the development of a network of slave-labor
concentration camps, without the fact seeming to reach public
awareness.
In terms of America's traditional "class ladder" system, what's
happened is that the lower rungs of the ladder have been shoved
down into the mud. As feudalistic social arrangements are being
re-introduced by neoliberalism, there comes also a re-
introduction of slavery, with, as it turns out, a not unfamiliar
ethnic bias. It is disproportionately blacks and latinos who
are confined to crime-likely life scenarios by corporatization
and it is largely blacks and latinos who seem destined to
populate America's slave-labor prisons.
The Gulf "War " - America becomes the official elite enforcer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With megacorps evolving into the world's dominant political-
economic-social institutions, and with their open grab for
political power being reflected in the neoliberal revolution,
the question remains as to how order in the world is to be
maintained.
If nations are to be weakened - and especially if identification
with nationalism is to be de-emphasized - then where are the
armies to come from to maintain the elite-architected system?
Nationalist spirit - with a feeling of everyone pulling together
- has been central to modern war efforts. How can a
disenfranchised, betrayed populace be expected to rally "to the
defense" when the elite need their support?
And if strong nation-states are to be dismantled, whence will
come the infrastructure to maintain systems of weapons and
delivery? What will be the command structure and on behalf of
what political entity will military operations be carried out?
And what about public opinion? Even though the police state
will have the capability to suppress troublesome dissent, the
myth of continued democracy requires that some degree of popular
sentiment be roused for dramatic military interventions.
The Gulf "War" and its aftermath demonstrate clearly how the
elite has chosen to deal with these problems. This episode was
a major historic precedent on several levels. It established
new paradigms for global propaganda, weapons technology,
blitzkrieg tactics, and international law. It established in
the global public mind the principle that America has a
justifiable global policing role, and it exported to the global
stage America's traditional war-incident scenario.
Technologically, the war was in fact a field test of significant
new blitzkrieg weapons systems. Precise night operations,
stealth defenses, guided weapons, satellite navigation, cruise
missiles, bulldozers as mass-murder devices, air-fuel
explosives, uranium-weighted shells, anti-nerve gas vaccinations
- an entire new generation of weaponry - were tested on a
modern, supposedly well-armed, industrial nation. With almost
no loss of life in the elite forces, it was demonstrated that
Iraq's infrastructures could be systematically destroyed and
that her population could be subjected to relentless terrorism
from the skies.
This suite of technology and operating procedures solves the
problem posed by the demise of strong nationalism, which
formerly provided massive, motivated armies willing to risk
their lives for "freedom". By emphasizing hi-tech weapons,
operated from safe havens - and by using blitzkrieg tactics -
the duration of an intervention is minimized, the number of
casualties (on the elite side) is kept low, and the need for a
large, non-professional army is eliminated.
The elite no longer needs public support for its military
ventures, it only needs acquiescence. A gulf-style approach
minimizes negative public responses, making acquiescence easier
to achieve. But acquiescence is too important to leave to
chance, and so the Gulf War also served as field test for a new
generation of propaganda techniques.
Starting with the source of information itself, the propaganda
was characterized by a complete lack of information regarding
the objectives of the intervention, the targets of attack, the
morale of the troops, the type of operations being carried out,
and the behavior of the enemy. From this base vacuum of actual
war information, an intensive PR campaign constituted the fare
from which war entertainment could be constructed.
The propaganda campaign was launched by an arranged war-
provoking incident - a direct exportation of the proven American
scenario. The incident (Iraq's invasion of Kuwait) was brought
about by an economically provocative oil-dumping policy by
Kuwait, followed by a "go signal" from the U.S. Secretary of
State regarding the invasion. Once the incident occurred,
outrage and surprise were feigned, and a world-wide
media/lobbying campaign was launched to achieve UN approval of
U.S. military action.
Once the approval was obtained, the U.S. then launched on a
military campaign of its own design (the destruction of Iraq),
and - as with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - the UN approval
turned out to amount to a blank check, to be interpreted however
the elite war-leaders wished.
This Gulf-War precedent has established itself very firmly on
the media-managed "world stage". When the Bosnia situation
advanced to the point where the U.S. wanted to jump in and
manage events directly, it was able to get its way with very
little fuss. The U.S. has all but been handed the official
title of "Judge Dredd" - judge, jury and executioner of
international law - and U.S. intervention, certainly not a new
phenomenon, seems no longer to be viewed as imperialism.
The New World Order (NWO)
- global feudalism & corporate overlords
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These then are the essential elements of what amounts to an
historic New World Order. Overall policies are to be set by
non-elected, corporate-dominated commissions; the world's
economy, information and working conditions are to be managed
directly by megacorps; governmental function is to shrink down
to administrative matters and police-management of the populace.
All this to be enforced globally by an elite-dominated strike
force built around the U.S. military and NATO.
America clearly has a unique role in this scenario. Partly this
is because America has the dominant military power. But it also
reflects the fact that America, compared to other First-World
countries, is the most thoroughly captured by megacorp interests
(recall Eisenhower's speech re/ military-industrial complex),
and that the American people, in their habitual credulity, are
the most effectively mesmerized by the media mythology they are
fed via television. America is a kind of "safe house" for NWO
operations.
Humanity on the precipice - is a second Dark Ages inevitable?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is now a brief window of opportunity in which First-World
populations could rise up and reclaim their paper democracies
through intensive political organizing and the creation of broad
coalition movements. Soon their governments will be
disempowered and that opportunity will be lost.
Such an unprecedented peaceful revolution will only become
possible if people generally wake up to the true nature of the
threat facing them. Helping them wake up becomes a duty of
citizenship for anyone who's managed to grasp the situation.
Given the dire consequences of globalization, one wonders why
there seems to be such global acclaim for its steady progress.
The answer, of course, is the sophistication and pervasiveness
of the accompanying propaganda campaign, and the absence of any
effective forum for the expression of alternate perspectives.
If a Big Lie is repeated often enough, as the Nazis proved,
people believe it.
Perhaps the single most telling observation, in countering the
globalization rhetoric, regards the corruption of governments
and politicians. Although we are reminded daily of such
corruption, and invited to abandon our democratic processes in
order to "solve the problem", it is never mentioned that what
political corruption amounts to is the illegal intrusion of the
corporate elite into the political process.
If people were to realize that government corruption is just
another name for corporate influence, it would be difficult for
global corporatization to pose as a "solution" to the problem.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Bibliography
Greider, William, Who will tell the People - The Betrayal of
American Democracy (New York: Touchstone, 1993).
Keane, John, Tom Paine - A Political Life (Little, Brown, and
Company, Canada, Limited, 1995).
Lederer, William J, A Nation of Sheep (New York: Crest Books,
Fawcett World Library, 1962).
Parenti, Michael, Make-Believe Media - The Politics of
Entertainment (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992).
Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar - Imperialism,
Revolution, and the Arms Race (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989).
Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States (New York:
Harper & Row, 1980).
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
|