This week’s bipartisan Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act not only seeks to pump US$10 million to Venezuela as part of a “humanitarian assistance” package but also looks to provide millions to efforts to undermine the government of President Nicolas Maduro.
The bill also allots an additional US$10 million for ‘democracy promotion,’ including “US$500,000 to carry out the activities … with the Organization of American States to ensure credible international observation that contributes to free, fair, and transparent democratic electoral processes in Venezuela” and “US$9,500,000 to carry out the activities … directly, or through nongovernmental organizations to defend internationally recognized human rights … support the efforts of independent media outlets … facilitate open and uncensored access to the Internet … and to combat corruption.”
As part of the 11 section plan, the legislation aims to support the move by the head of the Organization of American States, OAS, Luis Almagro, to invoke the “Democratic Charter” against the country. The bill states that Maduro’s government and Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice have “carried out systematic efforts to undermine, block, and circumvent the authorities and responsibilities of the Venezuelan National Assembly as mandated by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
President Nicolas Maduro
The bill, introduced by U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD), also plans to instruct the U.S. Secretary of State to use the U.S. Permanent Mission to the OAS to “take additional steps” to help Almagro, who has had a hostile obsession with the Maduro government while turning a blind eye to human rights violation by right-wing regimes in the region, continue with his attempts to throw out Venezuela from the organization.
In April, Venezuela announced that it would become the first country to officially withdraw from OAS, because of what it claimed were continued attacks against its government.
A deadline of 180 days would be given to the secretary of state to hand down a report to show the involvement of senior Venezuelan government officials for their alleged involvement in corruption and the illicit drugs trade, a witch hunt that has already been used by the Trump to target them with sanctions.
Venezuela’s Vice President Tareck El Aissami, accused by the U.S. government of aiding drug traffickers and Middle Eastern terrorists, has his assets frozen by the United State. El Aissami however, has denied the allegations as slander.
Other parts of the bill, focus on U.S. economic interests, particularly in regard to Venezuela’s role as a regional energy power. As part of a wider international effort, the U.S. would leverage the Caribbean to respond to the crisis, where many Caribbean countries “which depend largely on high cost imported fuel for electricity generation, and many of which have benefited from preferential treatment by Venezuela.”
The bill plans to strengthen the U.S.-backed Caribbean Energy Security Initiative, as well as financially support regional investment energy diversification across the Caribbean and Central America.
The legislation also evokes Russia fear mongering, detailing concerns over Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA and its transactions with Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company. Fearful that PDVSA could default on its US$4 and US$5 billion loans from Rosneft, regardless of Venezuela steadfast debt repayments, the bill warned that Rosneft could come into control of PDVSA’s U.S. subsidiary, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, which “controls critical energy infrastructure in 19 States in the United States.”
The bill states that therefore U.S. President Donald Trump “should take all necessary four steps to prevent Rosneft from gaining control of five critical United States interstate energy infrastructure.”
The bill so far has the backing of Republican Senators John McCain, Dick Durbin, John Cornyn, and their Democratic colleagues Bob Menendez, Bill Nelson, Tim Kaine and Chris Van Hollen.
Despite repeated calls by the Venezuelan government for peaceful dialogue and negotiations with the opposition, large protests have continued in the streets, with more radical elements employing violence in efforts to force an ouster of Maduro.
U.S. Attempts at Destabilization: The Peace Movement Stands in Solidarity with Venezuela
The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) have issued a strong statement calling for the U.S. government to stop its attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro. The statement serves notice that the U.S. antiwar movement will oppose any attempts on the part of the U.S. government at “regime change” in Venezuela, whether by economic pressure, coup attempts, or military intervention.
According to Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace,
“The U.S. led destabilization project in Venezuela is an attack on all progressive peoples and movements in the Americas, including the over 150 million Black people in the region. The Black Alliance for Peace understands that there can no peace without justice, and so we stand in solidarity with the people of Venezuela who are defending their project for social justice, self-determination and national sovereignty. In our joint statement with UNAC, we are calling on the Trump Administration to immediately cease its subversive activities in Venezuela.”
Joe Lombardo, Co-coordinator of UNAC, stated,
“Today the U.S. has military bases in over 130 countries. It has around 20 times the number of military bases as all other countries in the world combined. Through military force, economic sabotage and other means, it seeks to impose Wall Street’s will on all countries. The brave people of Venezuela have resisted these attempts in their country, and so UNAC and BAP stand with them.”
UNAC will use its upcoming national conference (http://UNACconference2017) to express support for Venezuela.
Statement on Venezuela by the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and the Black Alliance for Peace
The United States has been conducting a brutal, 20-year-long campaign of destabilization against Venezuela in an attempt to cause “regime change” in that country. This has taken the form of economic sabotage and financial manipulation as well as support for the mobilization of right-wing forces in increasingly violent demonstrations.
This is not a recent policy but one that has also been carried out under the Obama and Bush administrations as well as the present Trump administration. In 2002, right-wing forces inside Venezuela attempted a coup against then-President Hugo Chavez. Many sources have confirmed that the U.S. gave the go-ahead to the opposition to orchestrate the coup and promised support. Soon after the coup, the people of Venezuela turned out in the streets in massive numbers and restored Chavez to the presidency.
Barack Obama continued the assault on the Venezuelan revolution by imposing crippling sanctions and asserting that Venezuela was a “security threat” to the United States. These attacks from the U.S. exemplify attempts to realize full-spectrum dominance, the epitome of imperialist intervention which has brought so much suffering to the world.
Some of the very same opposition leaders who were involved in the 2002 coup attempt are today behind the present unrest, which has seen well-financed opposition forces leading violent protests against the government of Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. corporate media has reported on these actions but has blamed the violence on the Venezuelan government and has not reported the huge mobilizations in defense of the Maduro government.
Now a bipartisan bill has been submitted in the Senate (S.1018) with the intention of further destabilizing Venezuela. For more information on this bill and some actions you can take to oppose it, please go to http://afgj.org/take-action-today-to-support-venezuelas-democracy.
The economic crises in Venezuela is severe. The Venezuelan economy is dependent on its large oil resources. The oil has been nationalized since 1976, but there has been a continual push from U.S. interests as well as wealthy Venezuelans to privatize it. Though the oil remains nationalized, the refining, transportation, and markets are all private and have been used to undercut the ability of the oil industry to support the economy. Additionally, in the past few years, with the encouragement of Wall Street, oil production around the world has been kept high, driving down the price, which hurts oil-dependent economies, including those of countries that the U.S. opposes, such as Russia and Iran, in addition to Venezuela.
The U.S. media also has been full of stories of Venezuelan supermarkets with near-empty shelves and long lines of people seeking basic necessities. What hasn’t been reported is that the privately owned food corporations are deliberately hoarding supplies intended for working-class neighborhoods while making sure that food and other goods are readily available in the wealthier areas.
The Bolivarian Revolution has always endeavored to be an ally of the people of United States and to extend a hand of friendship and solidarity. When the U.S. government turned its back on the people of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Venezuelan government offered humanitarian aid but was rebuffed. Venezuela provided fuel assistance to low-income Black and Brown people when the U.S. government would not.
These acts reinforced the strong support that many in the Black community had for the process in Venezuela and deepened the commitment of Black activists to stand in solidarity with the people of Venezuela and their process. This support is in line with the long-standing Black radical tradition of defending nations under imperialist attack by the U.S. government.
The defeat of the Bolivarian Revolution at the hands of U.S. imperialism and its reactionary right-wing allies in Venezuela would be a defeat for progressive forces all over the world and a disaster for the people of Venezuela and its people, as it has been in Libya and Ukraine and Haiti and every nation that has lost its sovereignty to the two-party commitment to imperialist intervention.
UNAC and the Black Alliance for Peace demand:
End US interference in the affairs of Venezuela!
Self-determination for the Venezuelan people!
End the sanctions and economic warfare now!
A Multipolar World?: “Full Spectrum Superiority”, The Deep State and Global Financial Control
Various sources have accused the U.S. of trying to enforce the model of a unitary world where it alone dictates to all other nations. The following essay develops the idea that seeing the world as multipolar instead is much more in consonance with reality.
Ability to tolerate the diversity implied by a multipolar world should be seen as a sign not of weakness but of maturity. Such maturity is urgently needed in today’s world, where humanity is sliding down a slippery slope to oblivion. This maturity can only be found if we stay rooted in our spiritual center.
While the argument is a philosophical one, it has life or death application to today’s geopolitical conflicts. Nothing could be more dangerous than the growing threats and conflicts among nuclear-armed powers that have lost the ability for self-examination and mutual respect. It’s as though we are seeing the Cuban missile crisis playing out on a daily basis.
In the forefront is what seems increasingly obvious—the agenda of the U.S. “deep state” is world conquest. This objective is confirmed through the open declaration by the U.S. military of its intention to attain “full spectrum dominance,” also known as “full spectrum superiority.”
The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, dated March 2017, defines “full spectrum superiority” as,
“The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains, electromagnetic spectrum, and information environment (which includes cyberspace) that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.” (p.97)
What a world view! If a patient came into a psychiatrist’s office uttering such thoughts he would be recognized immediately as delusional, paranoid, and possibly psychotic. He would be considered an imminent danger to himself and society. In the workplace he would be viewed as a maniac, possibly escorted by security to the front door and told never to come back.
Yet the people who think and talk this way have been given an arsenal sufficient to destroy all life on earth and are stationed on hair-trigger alert in approximately 150 nations, with actual military installations in 30. On the high seas, the U.S. Navy has 273 major “battle force” ships in active service ready for war at any time. Meanwhile, our supposed “adversaries” have made it clear that they are not backing down.
The U.S. quest for “full spectrum superiority” becomes even more bizarre when we realize that it must include, above all, nuclear superiority. The official doctrine therefore abandons any pretense of maintaining a balance-of-power or mutual deterrence, which, before the fall of the Soviet Union, sane people had credited with preventing all-out nuclear war.
The concept of deterrence began to be abandoned during the Reagan administration with President Ronald Reagan’s proposal of his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derided by its critics as “Star Wars.” While Reagan touted the system as “defensive,” in that its aim was to shoot down incoming enemy missiles, everyone recognized that it would be grossly destabilizing by removing the fear of retaliation against the U.S. by the Soviets if the U.S. decided to launch a nuclear first strike.
One name for deterrence is “MAD”—Mutually Assured Destruction. Critics referred to SDI as “Madder than MAD.” But ever since, nuclear superiority has not meant just bigger and better bombs, even as the U.S. now plans to spend a trillion dollars upgrading its aging nuclear arsenal. Since several nations, including Israel, now possess an arsenal sufficient to destroy human life, the search for a decisive edge has meant the building of defensive systems like those conceived of by SDI planners.
This is why today’s “full spectrum superiority” involved tearing up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as did the George W. Bush administration, and now ringing Russia with batteries of surface-to-air missiles able to knock Russian nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at Europe or the U.S. out of the skies.
It is easy to see how a study just released by the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research concludes that,
“The threat of a nuclear weapon detonation event in 2017 is arguably at its highest in the 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.” Such a conclusion is easy to draw as the U.S. moves its forces in Eastern Europe to a combat-ready status, according to recent testimony by U.S. generals before Congress.
Obviously, “full spectrum superiority” cannot be attained and maintained without the use of force against anyone who dares to stand in the way. It can’t be done by treaty. How, other than by force, can people who do not trust the benevolence of the U.S. military be persuaded to go along?
THE “DEEP STATE”
But who is in control of the U.S. “Deep State” that lies behind these intentions, and by whom, how, and why are decisions made to deploy military force? Especially, who controls the nukes? For three-fourths of a century this has been recognized as the premier political question of our time.
Two things are clear:
1) it is not the president of the United States who is in control. Rather he is presented with decisions that have already been made by someone else and handed to him by the national security establishment.
2) The goal of U.S. military action is not to achieve the stability of a multipolar world. Rather it is to enforce the will of an entity or entities that want to bring the world under the control of a unitary political/economic regime.
This is why every military action carried out by the U.S. focuses, first and foremost, on “regime change.”
So what really is going on here?
Let’s go back in history. Until World War II, the nations of the world had fought many wars. But after armies and navies had been mobilized and a war fought to its conclusion, the world went back to its peaceful ways. Whatever changes the war had wrought may have persisted, but usually the weapons were put away and life went on.
This has changed with the creation of standing, permanent armed forces. One of the big changes had already taken place by the late 19th century with the construction of a British Navy large enough to “protect” and control a worldwide empire.
But even after World War I the land armies that remained were largely demobilized. After World War II, however, the fighting went on. In the 1950s came the Korean War, then the Vietnam War in the 1960s-70s.
Over the next half-century, the situation gradually worsened. As indicated above, the danger escalated when Ronald Reagan was elected president. Many of his controllers came from an organization called The Committee on the Present Danger that argued that the power of the Soviet Union required that the U.S. be placed on a permanent wartime footing.
This was new. Then, after the first Iraq war under President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, today’s doctrine of endless active warfare was implemented.
Thus, after President Bill Clinton’s attacks on Yugoslavia and 9/11 under President George W. Bush, came the “War on Terror.” What this meant in practice was that any nation the U.S. identified as an “adversary” could justifiably be conquered and subjected to regime change as a matter of our national right.
Obviously there can be no multipolar world under such conditions. There can only be one rule and one law anywhere in the world at any time—whatever the U.S. Deep State decides and enforces through military action.
Meanwhile, as might have been foreseen, the U.S. military machine has become the nation’s chief economic sinkhole. The Department of Defense budget in 2015 was $598 billion. The U.S. is also the world’s leading exporter Millions of people work for this system, including the uniformed services, civilian employees, contractors, and lobbyists. Then there are the dependents and pensioners. We can add in the millions of employees in the service and manufacturing industries who work directly or indirectly in meeting the needs of everyday living for all the people employed by the military machine. This includes the nationals of other countries who service the U.S. military abroad.
We might call the system “corporate welfare,” but it can just as well be termed “military communism,” as all the managers, employees, and hangers-on get their livelihood from federal government spending. These people claim to be defending the “free-enterprise system,” though they themselves are effectively on the government payroll for their entire careers.
The system is leading the U.S. into bankruptcy. It can only be financed by more government debt through the T-bond bubble and quantitative easing, both managed by the Federal Reserve.
Meanwhile, as other nations mature economically, the U.S. is steadily losing its profit margins from utilization of the dollar as the international reserve currency. This utilization is based on the petrodollar as the denominator of worldwide trade in oil, but that too is declining in international markets.
In the early 1970s the U.S. abandoned the gold standard as a medium of international exchange. The petrodollar became the backing for the dollar, enforced by military might. Now this house of cards has begun to crumble. Panic has set in as the U.S. comes to resemble in its top-heavy inefficiency the Soviet Union just before that empire collapsed.
This is the soft underbelly of “full-spectrum superiority.” The shakiness of the system creates an urgency to complete its mission of total global control before it comes crashing down or is defeated by one or more adversaries.
To approach these matters comprehensively requires us to dig deeply into the human psyche. No other species on earth could even begin to act according to such blind assumptions as does the U.S. military machine. In contrast, Nature always seeks balance and limits in the midst of diversity. When dinosaurs get too big or voracious they die off. How can Americans think they are exempt from natural law?
The only other phenomenon in nature that acts in a similar manner to “full spectrum superiority” is cancer cells. If left unchecked, such cells very quickly kill their host and die themselves.
This doctrine of the U.S. military, and hence that of the U.S. government which stands behind it, does in fact resemble cancer.
So indeed does any doctrine that seeks to base its own survival on the destruction or enslavement of other human beings. “Full spectrum superiority” requires worldwide slavery. By extension that means enslavement to the system the U.S. military is protecting and extending. This system is that of international finance capitalism—the full power of money over human life and values.
Among those who espouse this worldview are some who view themselves as “chosen people.” So it doesn’t take long to discover in their cultural mythology many references to their supposed religious, racial, cultural, and historical superiority to others. Nor is there an absence of instances where they have been slighted, abused, persecuted, etc., thereby justifying revenge.
Such an ideology is professed most emphatically and openly by the leaders of the state of Israel. The rise of the U.S. military doctrine of “full spectrum superiority” coincides with the rise of Israel to power on the world stage and the extension of its influence over U.S. politics through institutions such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
In the 1990s, PNAC laid out the doctrine whereby the U.S military would engage in ongoing warfare for regime change in the countries surrounding Israel in the Middle East and Central Asia. The U.S. has been doing this ever since, with the dismantlement of Yugoslavia by U.S. bombing of Serbia providing a prelude. Next came Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya.
PNAC said that for its aims to be achieved a “new Pearl Harbor” was needed. Curiously, 9/11 took place soon afterwards.
PNAC assumed that with the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, U.S. military hegemony involving nations close to or adjacent with the Russian state that remained after the collapse would not meet any serious opposition.
A MULTIPOLAR WORLD?
Russian president Vladimir Putin has now appeared, however, and proposes something radical—that we are in fact living in a “multipolar world.” This is a world conceived as having more than one power center, one where the views and interests of many different players must be taken into account. Naturally, to the proponents of “full spectrum superiority,” Putin is seen as the devil himself.
But can it be that this perception—so compellingly real to those who hold it—is a projection? Can it be that the aims of “full spectrum superiority” are themselves diabolical and that unable to face such a prospect its proponents see what they hate and fear not in themselves but in what psychology calls “the Other”? Let’s at least entertain that possibility.
I would like to suggest that the perspective of a “multipolar world” is more aligned with reality than that of “full spectrum superiority.”
Humanity is composed of 7.5 billion individuals, a number that continues to grow. We don’t know why there are so many, though it no longer surprises us to hear that a single human body, according to the late Dr. Linus Pauling, consists of some 10 trillion cells.
We tend to panic at the size of the human population. Yet somehow the intelligence of the normal human body has the ability to nourish and coordinate the activity of its trillions of cells without getting into a big worry over it. Why can’t earth do the same with its human family?
Maybe instead of panicking we should stand in amazement at the incredible genius of Nature and its ability to engage in such infinite profusion of life and its bounty.
What if we saw the earth as a living being that itself possessed so much energy and intelligence that it could sustain life for the very long period of time that planetary creatures have been in existence? I don’t think earth believes it has to go out and kill a bunch of other planets out of fear that it will not have enough to support everything living on it.
Each human individual is a distinct piece of creation with its own intelligence and spirit. The most enlightened spiritual teachings have been telling us for thousands of years that these individuals—of which we are one—have been created by a Higher Being, that we live for a time on earth to do certain work and attain some degree of spiritual maturity, and that at death our spirit goes off to our next rendezvous elsewhere.
According to such teachings—and earth has witnessed many both past and present—we are here for a purpose. And obviously this purpose must be sought and found in coexistence with all other created beings. Clearly this purpose is not to attain “full spectrum superiority” over everyone and everything else.
Jesus Christ said the two great commandments were to love God and our neighbor. The existence of a neighbor that we should love and respect and whom we must view as having rights equal to our own points in fact to a multipolar world.
The idea of equality is stated clearly in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal.” This is the foundation principle of America and has been replicated in the constitutions of most of the nations of the world. This principle also postulates a multipolar world.
These concepts must apply collectively as well as individually in order to be consistent. It is normal and natural for each individual to view his own existence as more important than others, simply because his own is the only one he is directly conscious of. In order to fully sense and appreciate the existence of others he needs either an obvious connection—as part of a family, for instance—or he needs consciously to extend himself to take others into account.
THE UNITED NATIONS
Thus people of wisdom have created social mechanisms for individuals to come together to share their views, coordinate their activities, and compromise their aims for the sake of social harmony. One such mechanism is the United Nations, created at the end of World War II. Contrary to the fears of some within the U.S., the U.N. does not represent a plot to take away their nation’s sovereignty as much as it is a forum to adjudicate differences among nations that arise in a multipolar world.
The need for orderly world government has long been recognized by people with vision. This need became more urgent with the Industrial Revolution, given the huge changes in transportation and communication technologies.
The enormous diversity of humanity became ever more apparent as people of different races, religions, and geographic locations came into contact. Technology applied to weapons, however, along with increased ability to extract resources, created great temptations for some nations to lord it over others. By the time of World War II, the potential for world cataclysm had become clear to everyone, especially after the U.S. dropped the A-bomb on Japan.
Nuclear weapons created an emergency. In this emergency, the people who set up the United Nations recognized the importance of a multipolar world by establishing a Security Council to be the chief forum for discussing and then taking action on matters of worldwide importance.
No one expected the Security Council to be a daily love fest. But it is there for a purpose. Yet the U.S. believes that it can take unilateral action, as with its recent attack on Syria, without reference to the United Nations or without even a discussion with other members of the Security Council. Indeed, the primary function of the U.S. representative to the U.N., Nikki Haley, seems to be to utter threats, as when she says, “I don’t think anything is off the table” in using military force in Syria.
Nor was PNAC ever discussed by the United Nations.
Now, with the resurgence of Russia, a major obstacle to PNAC exists. The backers of PNAC, both in the U.S. and Israel, have been trying to arouse fear of Russia in the minds of the American electorate, similar to the Cold War. Perhaps an even greater threat to PNAC is China, which clearly has time on its side in becoming the world’s greatest threat to U.S. hegemony.
A showdown is clearly looming. To get ready for the showdown, the U.S. strategy seems to be to complete the conquest of Syria, which has begun with the arming of ISIS and other “rebel” groups by the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East—Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. An attack against Iran is in the planning stages. North Korea is on the agenda for elimination as a threat. And preparations are probably underway for a nuclear first strike against both Russia and China when the time is right and sufficient defenses against retaliation have been deployed.
What would it take to walk back from the brink?
Clearly it would require recognition of the multipolar world that Putin and many others speak of. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc., do not show signs of wanting to conquer the U.S. With the benefit of wise statesmanship, the U.S., Israel and other nations could at least attempt to co-exist with these nations as part of the world community.
The only way to world community lies along the path of peace, not war and conquest. Trade and scientific partnership, as with the International Space Station, have long been recognized as aids to world peace.
THE TESTIMONY OF LANGUAGE
These things require communication. So those who would unite the world have been talking for a long time about coming up with a common language. That’s why Esperanto was invented. Reviving ancient Greek has been talked about.
But not too many years ago the head of NASA said—not as a joke—that his motivation for the U.S. taking the lead in interplanetary travel was so that “my language” would be spoken on the moon, Mars, and other planets. Of course English (including “American” and “tourist” English) is a long way from “full spectrum superiority” even on earth.
While English is spoken in many countries, and has become a language of convenience for world trade, only a fraction of humanity converses in it. According to nationsonline.org, the following languages are the most used in the world as a first or second language: Chinese (including Mandarin or Standard Chinese): 1.34 billion; English: 508 million; Hindi: 487 million; Spanish: 417 million; Arabic 280 million; Russian: 277 million; Bengali: 211 million; Portuguese: 191 million; German: 128 million; French: 128 million; Japanese: 126 million; Thai: 100 million; Korean: 78 million. Among language families, 180 million speak Niger-Congo languages in Africa and 145 million speak Dravidian languages, mainly in southern India. Altogether there are over 5,000 languages currently being spoken on the planet.
It’s probably an ethnocentric illusion that causes the British and Americans to think English is so important anyway. In fact, with Brexit looming, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says he it going to stop speaking English. He says,
“Slowly, but surely, English is losing importance.”
It won’t be Anglo-American military might that causes Juncker to change his mind, even though global unity is our most urgent need in the nuclear age. But again, not on the basis of war, control, slavery, and conquest, and certainly not by demanding that others give up cultural diversity.
Thus we are a long way from one language, one religion, one race, indeed if they will ever happen, or if it is even desirable they happen. But we can still work together.
After all, diversity keeps the gene pool fluid and allows discovery and innovation. Competition will always exist and is both necessary and desirable, including competition of ideas. The bland uniformity of the U.S. controlled media, for instance, where ideas that conflict with the prevailing war-based ideology is not just unhealthy—it is deadly. Thank God for the internet.
THE REAL ENEMY: GLOBAL FINANCIAL CONTROL THROUGH USURY
Whatever movement we take in the direction of world unity, there is still a requirement for all parties to recognize that we are in a multipolar world and will remain so if there is to be a world at all.
Not only does the idea of one world under military conquest have to be abandoned, so too does that of one world under global financial control.
The international banking system seeks to unite the world under a suffocating blanket of usury that diverts all of the world’s cash flow into the hands of the monetary controllers. This is what globalism and the New World Order are all about—worldwide slavery to materialism and money. It’s a system of totalitarian control based on violence and greed, but it also uses tools like entertainment, drugs, and pornography to corrupt, exhaust, and control the population.
The financial system is even more insidious than outright military aggression, but it is just as deadly. “Full spectrum superiority” of international finance is leading to massive species extinction, drastic climate change, and a threat to the survival of humanity itself.
Alternatives to the system have been increasingly researched and discussed. Turning economic power back to the level of autonomous localities which are yet part of the worldwide marketplace is urgently needed. So is the kind of spirituality whereby humans don’t just escape into their own personal cloud but take responsibility for the consequences of their presence on earth.
I believe that creating and facilitating a vibrant multipolar world that supports a healthy human freedom is our spiritual duty. Let’s tell that to the politicians, the militarists, and the financiers. And let’s ask them to donate their skills and resources to help bring it about before they destroy us all.
These ideas will be discussed in greater detail in future articles.
Richard C. Cook is a retired U.S. federal government analyst and the author of numerous articles for Global Research and other venues. He may be reached at email@example.com.