Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World

From: richard-at-cyberjournal.org

Date: 21 Sep 2005

Subject: Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World

To: newslog-at-cyberjournal.org

The Four Horsemen of this Apocalypse:

    * Collapse

    * Genocide

    * War

    * Fascism

We are now on the cusp of one the momentous historical

episodes of all time - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are

about to ride. Peak oil is the primary underlying condition

forcing change, and Apocalypse is the action plan ruling

elites have chosen as their response to that condition. Not

only does this response make a great deal of sense, from their

Machiavellian perspective, but by their recent actions they

have clearly signalled the scope and direction of their

intentions. Furthermore, their planned response is in complete

alignment with earlier responses to similar situations in the

past - by these same people or by their direct predecessors.

* Historical background

          "History teaches by analogy, not identity. The historical

            experience is not one of staying in the present and looking

            back; rather, it is one of going back into the past and

            returning to the present with a wider and more intense

            consciousness."

            -Daniel Estulin, investigative journalist

Peak oil is real. That is to say, we have reached the point

where our annual consumption of oil is considerably greater

than  our annual ability to develop new sources. While global

consumption continues to increase, potential sources can only

decrease. No matter what anyone does, our oil-based global

economy cannot continue for much longer in its current form -

at current population levels. At the same time, we must

remember that the remaining reserves are vast - perhaps the

same amount remains as has ever been pumped, although it will

become increasingly expensive to extract.

The fact of peak oil, in itself, does not necessarily imply

that apocalypse is inevitable. If humanity were to face this

problem in a sensible way, there is much that could be done to

alleviate the crisis, re-organize our societies and economies,

localize our production and consumption, reduce our wasteful

practices, move to appropriate technologies, develop

alternative energy sources and transport methods, etc. But it

is not 'humanity' that is in the driver's seat.

As we have watched the arrogant and radical behavior of the

Bush administration over the past five years, it has become

apparent to all that the neocon clique that dominates the

White House is pursuing an agenda of their own, an agenda that

is partially described in their PNAC document, "Rebuilding

America's Defenses", which they proudly display on their

website - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ - under the

button, "Defense and National Security". This is not an agenda

that 'humanity' has chosen, nor have the American people

chosen it. In fact, people and nations all over the world are

resisting and protesting this agenda, Bush's popularity is at

an all-time low in America, and none of this makes any

difference to the pursuit of the agenda.

For the moment at least, we can all see that a clique is

setting the world's course, a clique that acts in its own

self-interest, following an agenda that in no way has any kind

of democratic legitimacy.  Many people assume, however, that

this situation is an aberration from our normal political

process, something unique to Bush and his crowd. Some see the

sinister hand of a Zionist plot, and some point to the Bush

family history of collaboration with the Nazi regime. If only

we can get Bush out of office, such people think, we can

return to some kind of sanity. If only it were so simple.

If we want to understand what we are facing, we need to be a

bit more careful in identifying who are the ultimate movers

and shakers behind world events. In fact, we are not looking

at a Zionist plot, and we are not looking at a recent

aberration. A careful examination of history over the past

century reveals that a very specific elite clique has come to

totally dominate and control world affairs. The neocons are

not that clique; they are its agents, eagerly pursuing their

assignment because of the looting opportunities thereby made

available to themselves and their corporate cronies.

              "Let me issue and control a nation's money

                and I care not who writes the laws."

                - Amshall Rothschild

                The elite clique I refer to are the top financial circles in

New York and London - the people who control financial

institutions like like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, HSBC,

Rothschilds, and Lloyds TSB. We're talking about a handful of

people, blessed with inherited wealth, and operating mostly

behind the scenes. The Rockefeller brothers are the most

obvious members of this clique, due to their

uncharacteristically high profile in public affairs. As with

the Rockefellers, whose wealth came from the 19th Century

exploits of oil-baron J.D. Rockefeller, this clique exhibits

considerable continuity through the decades, both in terms of

its approach to maintaining its power, and in terms of the

family trees and connections that characterize its membership.

I won't repeat here the story of how this particular elite

gained its power. Suffice it to say that the financing of

wars, when governments are desperate for funding, has been one

of the primary vehicles by which this clique has gained its

wealth and power. It would be a gross understatement to say

that this clique "influences governments". It would closer to

the truth to say that the U.S. and British governments are

owned, lock stock and barrel, by this clique, a fact which is

symbolized by this thing we call 'national debt'. The Federal

Reserve Bank, the Bank of England, the IMF, and the World Bank

are all directly controlled by this clique and its agents and

banks. Presidents and Prime Ministers are groomed in their

careers, and selected for their turn in office, based on which

particular agendas are being pursued at any given time.

The Bilderberger meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations,

and a network of think tanks and foundations serve to

rationalize and promulgate the agendas of this clique among

lower-level echelons and officials. Through ownership,

investment, and other means of influence, this clique controls

the mainstream global media and the spin that is applied to

the important stories. With their ability to set interest

rates and credit availability, and their domination of

exchange markets, they exercise decisive control over global

finance generally. Their power is extended still further by

their close fraternal relationships with key players in the

Anglo-American oil cartel and in American and British

Intelligence circles.

It is important to make a distinction between ordinary

corporations and banks, between corporate power and the power

of finance. Ordinary corporations are in the business of

making money, and they favor policies which generate economic

growth and development. Apart from weapons manufacturers,

corporations tend to favor peace and stability in world

affairs, as that's when they can grow and develop their

markets. When recession hits, corporations suffer, or even go

under.

The situation for the big banks is quite different. Banks gain

in both good times and bad. In all conditions banks make loans

of money they don't really have, and then collect both the

principal and interest. In good times, they also make money on

their investments in productive enterprises. In bad times,

even though the paper value of their assets may temporarily

decline, they are able to foreclose on failing enterprises,

pick up bargains by buying faltering enterprises, and they can

make money by selling assets short before a crash, based on

their insider knowledge and ability to manipulate markets.

Economic cycles are like a two-phase pump, and both phases

benefit the banks. The banks understand that money is simply

an accounting system. For them money is not so much an end in

itself, as it is for ordinary corporations, but is more a

vehicle of ownership and power. Wars and economic collapses

have been intentionally engineered by this elite

Anglo-American banking clique throughout the past century, as

this elite has systematically sought to maintain and

consolidate its power.

The reason why the Anglo-American bankers in particular are

running things, as opposed to other financial elites

elsewhere, has to do with the immense wealth and influence

that was accumulated during the heyday of the British Empire,

the close fraternal relationships between London and New York

banking circles, and a particular strategy of financial

dominance. That strategy has very much do with oil, but oil

profits are not the main issue. The main issue is that every

nation, since the early 20th Century, must have oil to

operate.

The strategy is very simple and very effective. If you can

control the sources of oil, and if you also control the

currency in which oil is traded, and the price of oil, then

you have your hand on Archimedes lever:  "Give me a lever long

enough, and a fulcrum, then I can move the world". Yes the

profits from oil are considerable, but control over oil is

much more important - it gives you control over every nation's

economy, their ability to wage war, etc. This strategy was

adopted by British elites prior to Word War 1, was also

adopted by American elites, and has been the core geopolitical

strategy of the dominant Anglo-American alliance to this day.

We are not talking here about a gross mechanism, where elites

say, "Do what I want or I'll withhold oil from you." The game

is more subtle, having to do with the price of oil, and the

kind of loans a nation can get to deal with its development

needs, etc. Ultimate power is financial power, and

oil-dominance, in today's world, is the key to financial

power. Through intrigue and pressure from this clique, OPEC

nations accept payments for oil only in dollars. Every nation

must therefore accumulate dollars, making dollars artificially

valuable, and thereby financing U.S. deficits. This influx of

capital is called "petrodollar recycling". This petrodollar

wealth then finds its way to London and enters the 'Eurodollar

market', where funds can be recycled into unregulated global

investments. Thus both New York and London banks are able to

grab their share of the profits from the the oil-dominance

strategy. Oil company profits are simply one more source of

funds that end up being invested in banker-controlled

investment portfolios. Ordinary corporations are powerful, but

they play within the game whose rules are set by the banking

elite.

This is the context in which we need to examine current

events. It is this historical context which leads me to

interpret current events in terms of the Four Horses.

* Collapse

Let us consider the first Horseman: Collapse. In this regard

there are two primary things to consider. The first is peak

oil, and the second is the oil shock of 1973.

Up until 1973, oil was treated as an inexhaustible commodity -

the game was to pump as much as possible, sell it a relatively

low price, get everyone addicted to oil and automobiles, and

make money on volume - lots of money. This strategy fit in

perfectly with the post-World War 2 economic regime, which was

based on economic growth and development. This was the era in

which suburbia was invented, and rail systems were dismantled

in the USA and Britain. This was a major growth phase of the

economic pump, enriching banks and corporations alike. But in

the early 70s the bloom was off the growth cycle, Japan and

Germany were gaining economic power, and our Anglo-American

banking elites decided the time had come for an adjustment.

Using the diplomatic talents of Rockefeller protege Henry

Kissinger, our banking elites were able to stir up a war

between Israel and the Arab states, engineer an oil boycott,

and raise the price of oil nearly overnight by 400%. Here we

can see demonstrated the power of finance, and the efficacy of

the oil-dominance strategy. As intended, economic growth in

Europe and Japan was sharply curtailed, and as intended, third

world nations were forced to dedicate their budgets to oil

imports and debt repayments, rather than to developing their

own economies. We know these things were intended, because the

program was discussed in some detail at a Bilderberger meeting

several months before the Yom Kippur war broke out.

The price increase made exploitation of the North Sea oil

sources economically viable, much to the benefit of the London

banks that had invested in that project. In addition, the

price increase created the petrodollar phenomenon. All in all,

the oil shock of 1973 was a very successful, and well masked,

coup. It ushered in an era where growth was no longer the

dominant paradigm. There has been relatively little real

growth in the global economy since that time, as regards

industrial production and trade in goods. The banks began

focusing more on debt collections, and developing the

speculative global markets.

From another perspective, we can view the 1973 oil shock as

being an early-warning sign of peak oil. That is to say, oil

has always been a finite resource, and the oil companies have

been aware of that more than anyone else. By the early 70s

everyone was adequately addicted to oil, and it was about time

to hike up the price of the remaining reserves. In this regard

the dynamics are the a bit like with drug pushers: the first

hit's free and after that you pay. Cheap oil got you hooked,

and now you can dig a bit deeper for your next fix.

We are told that 'market forces' are responsible for all price

increases, but that is a gross oversimplification. The

Anglo-American oil cartel, in covert collaboration with the

Saudis and other 'friendly' OPEC states, decides how much oil

will be pumped, and at what price it will be made available.

'Market forces', so called, are themselves manipulated by the

banks - that's what financial power is all about. 'Market

forces' are simply the current rules of the game, sometimes

protectionist, and sometimes free-trade oriented, depending on

current elite agendas. More relevant than 'market forces', to

the price of oil, is the principle of 'all the traffic will

bear'.

A major economic adjustment must occur at some point, due to

peak oil, and there are clear signs that now is the time that

has been chosen. We have seen sharp increases, even before

Hurricane Katrina. And now, with the well-publicized damage to

oil rigs and refineries in the Louisiana region, further

increases are fully expected and being 'predicted' in the

mainstream media. Already trucking companies are complaining

that they will be forced out of business by the rises that

have already occurred. In addition, we read that interest

rates are 'expected' to go up.

We are now much further along on the oil-peak curve than we

were in 1973, oil addiction is as strong as ever, China is

threatening to become the world's largest economy, and the

global economy is greatly over-extended with speculative

investments - including over-leveraged home mortgages. An oil

shock at this time, combined with an interest rate hike, would

once again transform the global economy, much to the advantage

of the Anglo-American alliance.

This oil shock will be much more dramatic in its consequences

than the shock of '73. That's why this Horseman is called

Collapse. The global economy is much more volatile now than

it was in the '70s, indeed it is a speculative house of cards,

reminiscent of 1929. It cannot stand a major oil shock,

combined with an interest rate hike. Stock markets will

tumble, recessions will hit the West, and the third world will

dive even deeper into poverty - if that can be imagined. China

will be hit hard by the oil rises, but more important its

export markets will be sharply curtailed by recessions in the

West, particularly in the U.S.  Unemployment will rise

globally, many mortgage holders won't be able to pay their

increased variable-rate payments, and the housing bubble will

burst. One thing will lead to another, bringing global

economic collapse, reminiscent of the Great Depression. This

will bring a feeding frenzy for the big banks, like the one they

enjoyed during the 1930s, and bad news for the rest of us.

If we consider these consequences along with the implications

of the PNAC agenda, we are beginning to see the outline of the

elite clique's 'Final Solution' to the problem of peak oil.

Peak oil implies , sooner or later, a desperate global

struggle for the remaining reserves: the PNAC agenda is

largely about grabbing control of as many reserves as possible

- now rather than later. Peak oil, in the absence of what the

rest of us would call a sensible strategy, implies a general

collapse of the global economy, sooner or later: this Shock of

2005 will begin that process now, while vast oil reserves

still remain, so that the banking clique can manage the

collapse to its own advantage. Our oil-based economy can be

compared to a condemned building, and a controlled demolition

makes more sense than simply letting the building rot of its

own accord: this enables the owner to develop something else

on the site. Similarly, if the economic collapse is brought

about early, then the vast remaining oil reserves will be

available for the construction of some kind of

post-Apocalyptic, elite-friendly, world order.

* Genocide

          "Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy

            towards the third world, because the US economy will require

            large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad,

            especially from less developed countries."

            - attributed to Henry Kissinger, "National Security Study

            Memorandum 200 : Implications of Worldwide Population Growth

            for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests", April 24, 1974

A search on google reveals hundreds of hits citing the above

quotation. However, on downloading and reading the memo, NSSM

200, I was unable to find that particular passage. Perhaps the

quote is a hoax, or perhaps it was deleted before the memo was

declassified and made public. I've nonetheless featured the

alleged quote, because genuine or not it serves as a very good

summary of what NSSM 200 is actually about, if you read

between the lines. Here, for example, is a passage that does

appear in the full NSSM 200 document:

          "All readers are urged to read the detailed main body of the

            report which is presented in full in Appendix Two . This will

            give the reader a better appreciation of the gravity of this

            new threat to U.S. and global security and the actions the

            many departments of our government felt were necessary in

            order to address this grave new threat - a threat greater

            than nuclear war."

Let's review some of the developments 'on the ground', that

show how this foreign policy priority is being implemented. In

his book, "The Globalization of Poverty", economics insider

Michel Chossudovsky describes how IMF policies intentionally

devastate third world economies, leading in Africa to massive

famine and genocidal civil wars. The recently announced plans for

"third-world debt forgiveness" are a sham: what they are

really about is reimbursing the banks for their uncollectible

loans to the third world. These reimbursements will then be

subtracted from foreign aid budgets, so that the third world

will actually be worse off than before the "forgiveness"

program. And in order to 'benefit' from this 'forgiveness'

program, the third-world nations must agree to still further,

extremely harmful, IMF privatization programs. The genocidal

civil wars we read about in Africa are partly a result of this

intentional impoverishment program, partly a result of arms

sales to African warlords, and partly the result of covert CIA

operations. The West's counter-productive responses to the

AIDS epidemic, and the massive use of depleted uranium

munitions by U.S. and British forces in former Yugoslavia and

Iraq also contribute to depopulation, both among the local

populations and among the Western cannon-fodder troops.

Within the context of peak oil, and from the perspective of

our callous banking elite, it is easy to understand why a

sharp decrease in world population would be highly desirable.

I've seen several reports that a target of "80% reduction by

2020" has been adopted in elite circles, but I haven't been

able to track down that particular claim to any reliable

source. Nonetheless, such a program would certainly change the

parameters of the peak oil phenomenon, and pave the way for

constructing some kind of new, post-Apocalyptic system. In any

case, based on what they say and what they do, I think it is

impossible to escape the conclusion that population reduction,

a euphemism for genocide, is indeed a primary elite priority

If systematic genocidal depopulation is an elite agenda, as it

seems to be, then we must recognize the obvious fact that

nuclear war would be one of the most efficient ways to pursue

that agenda. This brings us to the next Horseman.

* War

By their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons have

made it clear that they are totally serious about their PNAC

agenda - but Afghanistan and Iraq represent only the beginning

of that agenda. The agenda is about global, 'full-spectrum'

dominance. The agenda explicitly declares that the U.S. must

prevent the rise of any power that could challenge U.S.

hegemony, even if only regionally. China and Europe are

specifically mentioned as powers that must be kept down. The

PNAC document does not refer to the time-honored

Anglo-American strategy of oil-based dominance, but we need to

take that strategy into account here as well.

China is clearly the power most threatening to the PNAC agenda

at this time. China is moving effectively to establish itself

as 'the' regional power in Asia with a wide-range of

alliances, and Russia is selling its most advanced weapons

systems to China. The two nations have conducted joint

military exercises and they are making arrangements to trade

Russian oil and gas for Chinese cash and investments. Although

China is making use of the free-trade global economy for its

own economic benefit, it does this within the context of its

own nationalist goals, and keeps tight control over its

internal economy and currency. China is rapidly upgrading its

military forces, and has adopted an 'asymmetric strategy',

whereby it aims to deter U.S. power without the expense of

competing in every category of weaponry. The Pentagon,

meanwhile, is spending billions on missile defense systems and

space-based weaponry, and these costly initiatives only make

sense in the context of an eventual military confrontation

between the U.S. and China. All of this is in addition to the

fact that China is rapidly gaining on the U.S. economically,

and at current rates will soon become the world's largest

economy.

If China is not confronted, one way or another, the PNAC

agenda will be thwarted. The longer China is allowed to

increase its military, economic, and geopolitical power, the

more difficult such a confrontation will become. This scenario

is highly reminiscent of the pre-World War 1 scenario, where a

rapidly growing Germany was threatening British financial and

military hegemony. Britain dealt with this crisis by

surrounding Germany with secret alliances, ensuring the

outbreak of war, and to its own advantage. Washington, with

its overwhelming military power, can act unilaterally without

such alliances, but its strategic outlook toward China cannot

be much different than Britain's was toward Germany in that

earlier scenario.

Both China and America are clearly preparing for a war between

them, although China would presumably prefer that mutual

deterrence be the result of these military build-ups rather

than actual warfare. The neocons, on the other hand, must take

China down, one way or another, or else give up their plans

for total global dominance. When we consider the elite's

'population reduction' agenda, we must suspect that an actual

nuclear war with China may be their preferred 'takeout'

option. Before that option can be viable however, the Pentagon

must be able to ensure that such a war could be managed so as

not to annihilate the world's entire population from radiation

fallout. The esoteric space-based weapon systems currently

being developed - and to some extent already deployed - by the

Pentagon are intended to provide the kind of 'full spectrum

theater dominance' that would be needed for that kind of 'war

management'. In addition, neutron bombs offer the advantage of

killing populations without causing property damage or undue

fallout.

We cannot be sure whether or not the Pentagon considers itself

adequately prepared as yet for this possible war, but we can

imagine the preferred Pentagon scenario when the preparations

are complete: a surprise first strike, begun with a

high-altitude burst that disables all electronic devices in

China, followed up by a massive nuclear strike with neutron

bombs, and accompanied by the use of space-based and other

esoteric systems to minimize China's strategic response from

any submarines or long-range missiles that might survive the

first strike. A depopulated China, with intact infrastructure,

would dramatically advance elite Anglo-American objectives, as

regards both hegemony and population reduction. And clearly

the U.S. would take possession of China, and its resources, in

the aftermath.

The situation becomes more complex when we take into account

as well the currently-developing oil shock, and the likely

collapse that will follow. These measures go a long ways

toward stopping China's advance without the need for outright

warfare. China is of course well aware of all of these

scenarios, and is endeavoring to defend itself as best it can

on all fronts. It is in this broad context that we need to

consider the situation vis a vis Iran. Iran is of central

strategic importance in all of these considerations.

China's defense against the oil shock - and against the

Anglo-American oil-dominance strategy generally - takes the

form of an aggressive campaign to secure sources of oil that

are independent of the Anglo-American Seven Sisters cartel. In

this regard we might recall China's recent bid to acquire

Unocal, which Washington quickly quashed. The oil and gas

arrangements with Russia are an important part of China's

oil-acquisition campaign, and so are the deals China has

developed with Iran and Venezuela. There's not much Washington

can do about the arrangements with Russia, short of a

large-scale military confrontation. On the other hand

Washington could easily prevent oil shipments from Venezuela,

by either blockade or intervention, whenever it chooses to do

so. Iran, with its immense reserves, is the 'hot spot' in this

struggle over oil sources. That is where the neocons can do

something to thwart China's oil-acquisition campaign, and

where doing something will be a non-trivial operation.

Iran today is like the Balkans prior to World War 1 - it is

the place where the designs of the two protagonists 'meet on

the ground', where armed confrontation is most likely to

begin, and where the potential for escalation is very high.

China, in cooperation with its newly reconciled Russian ally,

has been supplying Iran with advanced missile systems, in an

attempt to deter an American invasion. America meanwhile is

beating the war drums, announcing a policy of 'first use' of

nuclear weapons, and attempting to stir up support for its

fantasy that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite the

egg Washington still has on its face from its fictitious Iraqi

WMDs.

Iran may indeed already have nuclear weapons - in the

warheads supplied by China and Russia with their advanced

missiles. But this possibility, and the Chinese-Iranian

alliance generally, are never mentioned in Washington's

anti-Iranian propaganda campaign - because Washington does not

want to draw attention to the actual geopolitical situation.

Similarly Washington never discusses the obvious fact that the

PNAC agenda and oil were primary in its decision to invade

Iraq. WMD fantasies provide both an excuse and a cover story

for invasion, as regards both Iraq and Iran.

There can be little doubt that an American invasion of Iran is

imminent. Such an invasion is the obvious next step in the

PNAC-oil-dominance agenda, and if that agenda is abandoned

Washington would be giving up on its drive for total global

domination. I think it is safe to assume that the neocons, and

their elite backers, are not prepared to throw in the towel.

The question as regards an invasion of Iran is not if, but

rather when and by what scenario.

As regards when, the evidence indicates very soon. Israel has

already been supplied with 'bunker buster' bombs, which would

presumably be used in a first-wave assault. Covert terrorist

operatives are already conducting sabotage in Iran, and an

arrangement has been worked out with the Turks and the Kurds

by which Kurdish separatist fighters will be concentrating

their operations in Iran, with American financial support.

America's new forward bases in Iraq provide a very convenient

launching platform for an aerial assault. The various

necessary preparations for invasion seem to be well advanced.

With Washington's announcement of a 'first use' policy for

nukes, the U.S. is in some sense 'telegraphing its punches' as

regards an invasion, and this is something we would expect

them to have delayed until near the intended time of invasion,

so as to minimize the political fallout in the interim. There

have been numerous reports that U.S. military leaves have been

cancelled, which if true would also indicate that the time is

nigh. Bush's declining popularity, and the quagmire situation

in Iraq, would also be reasons to undertake the invasion now

rather than later, thus shifting all attention to other

matters.

The planned scenario for the invasion seems to be very clear:

a phony terrorist event will be staged in the U.S., Iran will

be blamed, and the invasion will follow immediately, with no

nonsense about the UN, sanctions, or diplomatic channels.

Homeland Security has announced repeatedly that it 'knows from

intelligence sources' that a major terrorist event in the U.S.

is 'expected soon', most likely involving some American

nuclear facility. Credible reports have circulated indicating

that Cheney has put in place specific battle plans for an

invasion of Iran in the event of such an incident, regardless

of whether Iranian complicity can be established.

'Establishing complicity' will in any case not be a problem,

as Washington will simply blame Iran based on 'intelligence

information that we cannot disclose due to security

considerations', or else they will produce an Iranian

passport 'discovered' in the vicinity of the incident. Just as

with 911, all attention will be on the 'terrible attack on

America' and there will be negligible political or diplomatic

resistance to whatever 'retaliatory' action Washington might

'deem necessary' to 'fight terrorism'. I think it is clear

that Washington has signalled this scenario, and it is a

scenario that makes a great deal of sense.

The scenario becomes less clear once the invasion begins. We

can be sure the invasion will be nuclear (neutron bombs to

preserve the oil fields), partly because of the new U.S.

first-use policy announcement, and partly because of the

quagmire in Iraq: there is no way the U.S. could manage any

kind of extended campaign in Iran. What is unclear is how

widely the conflict will escalate. Iran has made it very

clear that in the event of any attack, it would retaliate with

all means available. We can assume that Iran has scattered and

hid its advanced missiles around its territory so that they

would be unlikely to all be disabled before they could be

launched. The obvious targets would be Israeli cities, U.S.

carriers, and U.S. forces in Iraq - all of which would be easy

targets for Iran's advanced missiles. In addition, Iran would

be able to sink shipping in the Gulf and create a global oil

crisis by making tanker operations impossible until after the

mess had been cleared away.

This much escalation is clear. But would it stop there? Would

the U.S. want it to stop there? Would Israel want it to stop

there? Would Russia and China allow it to stop there? We

cannot be sure how any of these questions are likely to be

answered. If the Pentagon feels it is adequately prepared for

a confrontation with China (and by necessity Russia), then

Washington might choose to go the whole hog at once, blame

China and Russia as well as Iran for the staged terrorist

incident, and launch its first-strike plan against China and

Russia at the same time as the attack on Iran.

Israel, although it usually is kept on an American leash,

might nonetheless follow its own lead and escalate at least to

Syria. Once one of its cities has been struck by Iranian

missiles, it is difficult to predict how Israel might respond,

perhaps intentionally forcing Washington into a larger war

than the neocons had in mind at this time.

From Russia and China's point of view, the question would be

about appeasement. Just as with Nazi expansionism, where

Britain and France had to draw the line somewhere, Russia and

China know they will need to resist the PNAC agenda of

aggression sooner or later. Could Iran, as was Poland in 1939,

be the line they have drawn in the sand? By supplying Iran

with advanced missiles, they at least suggest the possibility

that this might be so. I have seen one report, not confirmed,

that Putin has told Washington that any attack on Syria or

Iran would lead to the total destruction of Israel by Russian

nuclear missiles. We do know that China has said it would

initiate nuclear action against the U.S. if Washington

interferes in any conflict between China and Taiwan. This

proves that China has the balls to draw a nuclear line

somewhere, making it difficult put limits on how China might

respond to an attack on Iran. Iran is, after all, 'vital to

China's strategic interests' - to cite a phrase that

Washington uses routinely to justify its own interventionist

policies. None of us know what secret warnings and

counter-warnings might already have been exchanged between

Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.

If the neocons do 'get by' with their attack on Iran, without

immediate large-scale nuclear conflict, tensions between

Washington, Moscow, and Beijing will certainly not be reduced.

The neocons will be even more confident in pursuing their PNAC

agenda, and Russia and China will be under even more pressure

to take a hard line, the alternative being eventual

capitulation to total American hegemony.

If for any of these reasons the conflict escalates, perhaps

with a delay, into a full nuclear confrontation, then we are

clearly in a truly Apocalyptic scenario.  For now, let's

consider the 'lesser' scenario, where the conflict is confined

to the Middle East. With shipping in the Gulf blocked - and

with Iranian oil production brought to a halt - the oil shock

already in progress would be greatly accentuated. Indeed, the

invasion of Iran, besides moving the PNAC agenda one giant

step forward, would also, in retrospect, be seen as the cause

of Collapse.  The attack would contribute as well to the

depopulation agenda, with the people of Iran being sacrificed

at the altar of the elite clique's designs.

* Fascism

          "It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to

            be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power,

            especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never

            before has a populist democracy attained international

            supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that

            commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden

            threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic

            well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense

            spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among

            professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial

            to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial

            mobilization."

            - Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard", p.35

In the event of a major domestic 'terrorist' incident, and

particularly with a nuclear war underway in Iran, and a major

oil crisis in the works, there can be little doubt that

martial law would be declared in the U.S., with normal

political processes suspended, and the nation put under the

control of some combination of the Pentagon and Homeland

Security. Such a takeover is explicitly called out as the

mission of Homeland Security in the event of a 'Red Alert',

which would clearly be in effect under the circumstances we

are considering. And such a takeover would be very easy to

justify, and would by most Americans probably be welcomed (at

first), under these very frightening circumstances. Under such

a takeover, Homeland Security is explicitly empowered to take

control of all food, transport, fuel, and communications, to

forcibly relocate and detain citizens, and to basically do

whatever it might want to do with no kind of legal

restrictions or due process.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security apparatus amount to

a very clear recipe for a fascist takeover. Only in the shadow

of the dramatic events of 911 was it possible for such

measures to be justified under the smoke screen of 'fighting

terrorism'. What do these measures in fact have to do with

terrorism? Britain, which suffered under a very real terrorist

campaign during the Northern Ireland 'troubles', saw no need

for such extreme measures, despite outrageous bombings of

innocent civilians in London - and the assassinations of

public figures - by a secretive terrorist organization (the

IRA).

Britain then, and the U.S. without the Patriot Act, already

had sufficient police power to undertake whatever surveillance

or detainment that might be helpful in curbing terrorist

plots. No judge would refuse, even on the flimsiest evidence,

to order the incarceration of anyone who seemed to pose a real

terrorist threat. The problem with terrorist organizations is

that they are highly secretive and compartmentalized.

Infiltration and covert surveillance are helpful tools in

fighting such groups, much more so than the power to

indefinitely detain citizens against whom no evidence can be

found. These Patriot Act powers have in fact produced no

breakthroughs in terms of stopping terrorism, but they have

served excellently to create precedents for fascist police

powers.

Such a 'fascist solution' is nothing new to our ruling elite

clique. When Mussolini took over in Italy, and assured the

banks in London and New York that he would make sure that war

reparations would be paid in full, J.P. Morgan & Co. promptly

solidified his regime by loaning him $100 million. Similarly,

the Nazi regime was maneuvered into power in Germany by

funding from the Anglo-American banking clique, and by

financial manipulations that ensured the collapse of the

Weimar Republic. Not only did Hitler pay up on Germany's

reparations obligations, and not only did Nazi

remilitarization provide very profitable investment

opportunities for the banks and American corporations, but the

European World War 2 theater - which was primarily a conflict

between Germany and the USSR, despite what we might assume from

U.S. and British war films - served Anglo-American interests

very well indeed.

It is from this perspective that we need to view the recent

events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the fate of New

Orleans and its poorer residents. The threat posed to New

Orleans by a major hurricane was very well known, indeed this

was the specific subject of a major FEMA exercise carried out

several months before the actual Katrina event. Nonetheless,

when the category-5 hurricane began to approach New Orleans,

FEMA made no attempt to assist residents to evacuate, nor did

it bring in supplies and personnel to help with the

predictable aftermath. Instead, after Katrina struck, FEMA

turned away help that was offered by the Red Cross, the Coast

Guard, the Navy, and many volunteer organizations and

individuals - just when it was most needed - leaving unknown

numbers to die unnecessarily. In addition, many local

residents claim that they heard explosions just before the

17th Street levee collapsed, and that it was intentionally

breached - long after the storm had passed - ensuring that the

poorest neighborhoods would be flooded while assistance was

being withheld.

When Federal 'assistance' finally did arrive, it arrived in

the form of heavily armed troops, who brought no supplies with

them to assist the victims, and who treated the survivors more

like criminals than victims. While the wealthier residents had

been able to evacuate on their own, most of those left behind

were loaded onto busses and shipped off to heavily guarded

detainment centers. This has not been reported in the

mainstream media; instead we are treated to the success

stories of the relatively few who were allowed to relocate

into civil society. Weeks after all of these events, a more

humane policy was adopted, and we now read about how those who

managed to remain in New Orleans are being helped to rebuild

their lives.

While media reports invite us to interpret these events as

resulting from 'incompetence', such an interpretation is not

credible. One might suppose that the lack of timely Federal

assistance could be chalked up to incompetence, although this

seems unlikely given the preceding FEMA exercise. But

incompetence can hardly be an excuse for the intentional

spurning of assistance from other organizations, when

thousands of lives obviously hung in the balance. Nor is

incompetence involved in the forced detainment of the

survivors, and the cover-up of this program in the

elite-controlled mainstream media. Far more likely, what we

have seen in New Orleans is a test exercise of Homeland

Security's protocols for dealing with the War and Collapse

scenarios.

A little-publicized fact is that prior to the hurricane, FEMA

had been moved under Homeland Security, and stripped of its

primary role: disaster response. FEMA was told that disaster

response would become the responsibility of some other agency,

yet to be established. Recently, after Katrina, President Bush

announced that military troops would in future have primary

responsibility for disaster response. In fact, that shift of

responsibility had occurred prior to Katrina, as was evident

in the actual response events. What seems clear is that the

main priority of this militarized disaster-response regime

will be to manage the survivors, rather than minimizing the

casualties in the first place. While such a policy was not

actually necessary with Katrina, it will become necessary in

the larger scale disasters that can be expected as a result of

War and Collapse, where preventing casualties will be either

impossible or impractical. By intentionally creating large

numbers of casualties in New Orleans, Homeland Security, with

military forces under its command, was enabled to practice its

new response protocols in a 'live exercise'.

Another little-publicized item is the role of foreign troops

in the aftermath of Katrina. I've seen reports of German

troops, Mexican troops, and others, positioned at various

places in the U.S., ready to be called up by Homeland Security

when needed. I found these reports hard to believe myself

until I read an article in an Irish newspaper about an Irish

relief organization, where it was mentioned as an aside that

500 Irish troops were being dispatched to New Orleans. The

idea of America, the most powerful military nation in the

world, inviting in foreign troops to help with domestic

disasters seems bizarre, to say the least. These words of

Henry Kissinger shed some light on this development:

          "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los

            Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This

            is especially true if they were told there was an outside

            threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that

            threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of

            the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from

            this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When

            presented with this scenario, individual rights will be

            willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being

            granted to them by their world government."

            - Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992

            Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech

            was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

For years, right-wing conspiracy buffs have been claiming that

UN troops were going to be the agents of a military takeover

in America, and that this represents a conspiracy by the

"liberal establishment" to create a "socialist world

government". I always dismissed these theories, partly because

of the actual nature of the UN, and partly because of the

actual nature of the ruling elite clique, which is anything

but liberal or socialist in its outlook. But behind the

fantasies and disinformation in these right-wing conspiracy

theories, there seems after all to be an element of truth.

One development we should note in this regard is the changing

role of the UN, a development being actively pushed by

Washington. As recently as the conflicts in the former

Yugoslavia, the role of UN troops had always been a passive

one, with relatively light armaments, whereby their mere

presence was intended to calm tempers and minimize conflict.

But since the events in Yugoslavia, and particularly recently,

UN troops have been taking an increasingly aggressive role, so

that today their actions can no longer be distinguished from

those traditionally carried out by Western troops in their

role of imperialist domination. As the nature of the UN has

dramatically changed in this way, as the result of U.S.

initiatives, the right-wing conspiracy theories, or at least

parts of them, begin to make a little more sense.

Whenever tyrants have violently suppressed populations with

troops, one of the problems that has arisen has been the

tendency of troops to refuse to fire on their fellow citizens.

When the Soviet Union was suppressing the Hungarian uprising

in the 1950s, for example, the Soviets found that even their

own Russian troops were responding in this way as regards the

Hungarian people. So the Soviets brought in troops from remote

Siberia, and these troops didn't give the Soviets any trouble.

The less related the troops are to the population, the easier

it is to deploy those troops against the population. In

suppressing the Iraqi people, American troops serve very well.

In suppressing the American people, non-American troops can be

expected to perform more reliably.

In addition to foreign troops, we need also to consider the

role of hardened mercenaries. Among the security forces now

deployed in New Orleans, for example, can be found mercenaries

from Blackwater USA, many of whom were flown in from Iraq.

These forces were selected for this first-response duty rather

than elements of Louisiana's own National Guard who are

stationed in Iraq, many of whom had been demanding to be

returned home to help out, as is the traditional role of the

National Guard. Blackwater mercenaries are some of the most

feared professional killers in the world and they are

accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences. Elements of the Louisiana Guard have subsequently been called

home, now that the live test has been completed.

U.S troop levels are being stressed in Iraq, and to fill the

gap unprecedented numbers of National Guard troops have been

deployed in combat operations, greatly depleting domestic

National Guard resources. With the quagmire in Iraq continuing

without sign of let up, and with the neocons intent on

pursuing their PNAC agenda, there is no reason to expect this

domestic force depletion situation to improve, indeed it can

only get worse. And as we enter into the War and Collapse

scenarios, the need for domestic security forces will increase

dramatically. As we see foreign and mercenary troops being

used domestically in preference to bringing home the National

Guard, we can see that Kissinger's predictions, or perhaps we

should call them advanced policy announcements, are beginning

to be realized.

Fascism doesn't necessarily imply cult-nationalism or appeals

to racial superiority - those themes just happened to

harmonize with the fears and sentiments of downtrodden Germans

in the terrible 1930s. What fascism is really about is an

acceptance, on the part of the population, that the state is

all powerful and can do anything it wants. Hitler accomplished

that in one way, but we can see it being accomplished in our

own time by different means. With the Patriot Act firmly in

place, with Homeland Security and the military in charge of

disaster response, with what we have seen of Homeland

Security's response protocols - with the forced detention of

disaster survivors from Katrina,  and with the deployment of

foreign and mercenary troops domestically - there seems to be

little doubt that a neo-fascist regime - in all but name and

rhetoric - will be established in America as the Collapse and

War scenarios unfold.

* The Final Solution to Peak Oil

Even if the initial nuclear conflict is confined to the Middle

East - with oil tanker shipping and Iranian oil production out

of commission - we can assume that an oil-shock-driven global

economic collapse will follow promptly. With America under

Homeland Security regimentation, and with all communication

systems - including telephone, media, and the Internet -

either closed down or tightly controlled, the neocons, on

behalf of their elite sponsors, will be in a position to

proceed with their plans for the aftermath, totally

unconstrained by any domestic political considerations. In

America, politics will be suspended, as will any concept of

freedom or civil liberties.

The situation in the third world is difficult to predict. With

so many people already living in poverty, and many on the edge

of starvation, the effects of collapse, and most likely a

total lack of fuel, will be devastating. We can assume that

any nations blessed with domestic oil supplies, such as

Venezuela and West Africa, will see those supplies seized by

American forces very early on. If the third world is simply

left alone at that point, the elite depopulation agenda will

proceed of its own accord. If the elite clique decides to help

that process along, with outright genocidal actions, the rest

of the world would most likely be unaware of the fact. A few

neutron bombs here and there could cheaply and efficiently

eliminate millions overnight, leaving infrastructures intact

for future uses.

Conditions in Europe and the rest of the West are unlikely to

be very different from those in the U.S. Even though these

political climates are currently quite unlike the

proto-fascist climate in America, an oil shock and general

collapse will create crisis conditions very quickly. With

massive unemployment, transport and electricity grids largely

non-functional, and food distribution disrupted, some form of

marital law will be necessary if only to enable survival of

the populations. There is of course the additional possibility

that nuclear war might have affected parts of Europe,

depending on how the conflict between Washington-Tel Aviv and

Moscow-Beijing proceeds.

In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that

Patriot Act-like 'anti-terrorism' measures have already been

enacted throughout most of the West,  at the urging of

Washington, and enabled by various unprecedented 'terrorist'

incidents (e.g. Madrid and London bombings), all of which

could easily have been arranged by Anglo-American intelligence

operatives. In this regard we must keep in mind that Al Qaeda

was created by the CIA, and has been used repeatedly since by

the CIA to assist in destabilization operations, including in

Kosovo and Macedonia, and presumably currently in Iran.

As in America, Europe's 'anti-terrorist' measures have little

to do with terrorism, and everything to do with facilitating a

regimented society. How this scenarios develops is likely to

depend more on the chain of command in NATO than it will on

the sentiments of Europe's current political leaders. With

American forces in command of all European oil supplies, it is

unlikely that NATO or European leaders would attempt to resist

any demands made on them by Washington. In this scenario, as

in the post-911 scenario, America will appear to be the

victim, responding to events, rather than the perpetrator of

those events.

By employing a combination of famine, stirred-up civil wars,

biological warfare, and nuclear annihilation, the clique will

be able to reduce global population levels arbitrarily and

relatively quickly. An 80% reduction, well in advance of 2020,

would be very easy to arrange, particularly during the final

confrontation with China and Russia. Presumably Western

populations will be largely preserved, apart from cities lost

to nuclear attack - and selective culling of 'undesirable

minorities' is very likely. In this regard Katrina serves as a

kind of prototype, where it was mostly poor blacks who bore

the brunt of the disaster and who were then carted off to

tightly-guarded concentration camps - excuse me, detainment

centers -  to meet whatever fate might be in store for them

there. They've been told they'll be forced to remain there for

the next five months, by which time we'll be fully into the

era of apocalypse.

* The Brave New World

With vast oil reserves still untapped, the Anglo-American

financial clique will then be in a position to establish the

framework of their own design for a post-apocalyptic world

order. As Kissinger and right-wing conspiracy buffs have

predicted, we will most likely see a centralized world

government, perhaps using the name 'United Nations', but fully

under the control of the clique. We can also expect a single

global currency, a single global militarized police force, and

some kind of regime of enforced birth control, depending on

elite plans for future population distributions.

As outrageous as these scenarios may seem, even more amazing

is how these developments are likely to be perceived by the

survivors, and by future generations. Just as with Word Wars 1

and 2 - both of which were planned and arranged by the

Anglo-America clique - the perception of Westerners, and the

story told in history books, will be that of a heroic West,

bravely resisting aggression by terrorists and by the

Sino-Russian axis of evil. And as in those previous wars,

little attention will be paid the fates that were suffered by

third world populations. With all the hundreds of films we've

seen about these earlier wars, how many have examined the

events from any perspective other than that of victorious

populations and troops - apart from those that have been aimed

at demonizing the defeated evil enemy?

The period of harsh military rule in the West will not last

long, and memories of that interval will be soon replaced, as

in New Orleans, by images of troops helping people rebuild

their lives - under the guardianship of their new world order

masters. Rather than perceiving a fascist takeover, people

will be grateful, as Kissinger predicted, that the military

'maintained order', and they will see the new world government

as a wonderful advance for civilization, finally eliminating

international warfare. The ruling clique, as usual, will

remain behind the scenes, and people will believe that

'democracy' still prevails, as most believe it prevails today,

despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The political process will appear to have changed only

slightly in the West, with one more level of government added,

as the EU level was added earlier in Europe. All important

decisions, such as those regarding finance, policing, budgets,

taxation, environmental policy, corporate regulations,

migration of populations, the use of genetic-engineering and

nuclear technologies, etc., will be made by the remote world

government. People will feel totally detached from this

centralized process, just as today's Europeans feel detached

from the decisions made in Brussels. People will be encouraged

to focus their attention on their disempowered local

governments, as in the EU today, and as in Britain, with its

pseudo-devolution regime. Whatever suffering the centralized

government might impose on Westerners will be blamed, as it is

today in the EU and Britain, on mismanagement by these

disempowered local governments.

Although the political process will seem to have proceeded

with considerable continuity, we can be sure that the elite

clique will take full advantage of the transition process in

order to take the remaining populist bugs out of their

pseudo-democratic system. Trial by jury is sure to go, as it

gives ordinary people far too much power. Continuing the

propaganda regime that is already exemplified by the popular

CSI and courtroom television dramas, people will come to

understand that 'incorruptible investigators' and 'impartial

judges', can provide more reliable justice than that delivered

by 'error-prone juries' and 'self-serving lawyers'. Elections

will of course be carried out by means of electronic voting

machines, whose software will be unavailable for independent

audit, and whose results will be pre-determined centrally.

Most likely, all citizens will be implanted by chips at birth,

and this will be justified on the basis of protecting your

children from abduction. Any objectors will obviously be

'unfit parents', and their children will be taken away from

them and put into 'responsible', chip-friendly families.

The mass media will continue more or less as it is, carefully

managed by elites. The Internet will be tamed, and will be

used mostly for commerce and entertainment, with government

licenses required for websites and mailing lists, as they are

currently required for television and radio broadcasters. All

private communications will be openly subject to surveillance

- as they in fact already are. Private use of encrypted

communications will be a terrorist crime, equivalent to

bringing a gun on an airliner. Any attempt at popular activism

will be considered a form of terrorism, as it in fact already

is in the fine print of most of our 'anti-terrorist'

legislation. All of these political refinements will be

accepted without much fuss, because they will all be carefully

sold as 'democratic and humanitarian reforms', aimed at making

our lives safer and more convenient. With the Internet tamed,

those who understand what's really going on will have no

effective venue in which to voice their views, and will assume

they are alone in their convictions, as most of us did prior

to the Internet.

Despite this grim picture, let me emphasize once more that the

general public perception is likely to be far from grim.

Survivors will welcome this brave new world, free at last from

warfare, particularly after the harrowing times they've

recently lived through. Vast territories, depleted of

population by the intervening holocaust, but with many

infrastructures intact, will be available for colonization and

reconstruction, leading to a glorious period of adventurous

migration, development, and economic growth - making the

post-World War 2 boom pale by comparison. As with the

Victorians in the age of the British empire, and the

off-worlders in Blade Runner, there will be ample

opportunities to go off to new lands and begin prosperous new

lives in uncrowded surroundings.

With greatly reduced world population, peak oil will no longer

be such a pressing issue. Nonetheless, since the strategy of

oil-based dominance will no longer be required by the elite

clique to maintain its power, it is likely that we will be

permitted to enjoy an ecologically enlightened new era, where

sustainability is embraced, global warming is recognized, and

amazing new forms of energy - currently  kept hidden - will be

'discovered'. It is really absolute power that the elite

clique is after, and once they have that, they will have

little incentive to continue destroying the world that they

too must live in.

Even capitalism itself is likely to be tamed of its excesses,

or eliminated, since it is inherently incompatible with

sustainability in its current form. Society is likely to

evolve toward a structure reminiscent of land-based

aristocracies of the past, which is a more stable arrangement

than capitalism. The ancient Greeks experimented with

aristocracy, democracy, and dictatorship as forms of

government. Their conclusion was that aristocracy is the most

stable, and that democracy and dictatorship tend to oscillate

between one another - with democracy being undone by coups,

and dictatorships being undone by popular revolts. Our

elite-sponsored brave new world is likely to have the

political trappings of democracy, and the economic dynamics of

a land-based, but centrally governed, aristocratic system.

After a few generations, all popular memory of previous

systems will be gone, and we will have only propaganda

histories to tell us about how bad everything was before the

new enlightened age emerged out of the nuclear holocaust

caused by our earlier primitive societies. Only among those at

the top of the aristocratic pyramid, which will of course be

headed by the descendents of the current elite clique, will

stories be told to new generations of how the current system

came to be, so that the next elite generation can appreciate

the historical significance of its own privileged position,

and not be tempted to get sentimental and consider making

democratic changes. In that regard, nothing will have changed.

--

======================If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website

(http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to:

      cj-subscribe-at-cyberjournal.org

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,

provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and

this disclaimer.

Richard Moore (rkm)

Wexford, Ireland

blog: http://harmonization.blogspot.com/

"Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft:

    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html

_____________________________

    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the

      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the

      Reichstag fire."        - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.

    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.

_____________________________

cj list archives:

    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj

newslog list archives:

    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog

_____________________________

Informative links:

    http://www.indymedia.org/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/

    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/

    http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm

    http://www.MiddleEast.org

    http://www.rachel.org

    http://www.truthout.org

    http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/

    http://www.zmag.org

    http://www.co-intelligence.org

======================