Cultural Change is Needed for US Transportation, Energy, and Foreign Policy - We Need Conservation and Efficiency #peakoil #energy

great article.

Amplify’d from culturechange.org

Culture Change e-Letter #32

Ration oil during war  — Or is this a War on Conservation?

by Jan Lundberg

If the U.S. is waging a "War on Terrorism," federal energy policy would reflect that the war is not a "war for oil."  Even if what we've had is a war of terror (nothing new, if you ask Indo-Chinese victims of U.S. shock-n-awe), that's not exactly a war for oil.

As oil is a strategic commodity essential to the present economy and military, then policies should be geared toward conserving oil.  Everyone knows they are not; little conservation has happened since Jimmy Carter's tentative efforts.  A national paving moratorium was proposed in 1990 in part to stop the lengthening of the nation's (oil) supply lines in time of war (Operation Desert Storm).

If the U.S. is truly not in Iraq and Afghanistan mainly for petroleum, and petroleum in that part of the world is meant for those countries and the whole world, then Gosh, the U.S. has to start rationing oil now.  (Forget for a moment the main reason to cut back: global warming is caused in large part from petroleum emissions.)  One could point out that U.S. trade partners need oil too, or else the U.S. goes down the tubes economically.  But the U.S. felt a domestic and world crisis, to insist on war on Iraq.  Some say it was to keep Iraq from accepting Euros instead of dollars for oil.

Approximately 20 million barrels a day of oil and refined products are being sucked unsustainably from the finite Earth just for the USA's burning and spilling the stuff.  Neither the oil industry nor its White House acknowledges the impossibility of maintaining this rate.  Because of free-market economists' ideology about the "creation" of supply, the future is never more than ten years off in their practical planning.  As for an oil crisis hitting hard in the first decade of this century, this is not real to the oil fraternity because (1) it implies great change in an industry that's not generally about energy; petroleum is unique and specialized, and (2) it's the next quarterly report that really counts in big business.

World War II was a war for oil, in large measure, considering Axis and Allied aims and strategies.  And the Axis - which happened to ultimately lose the war - was finally cut off from sufficient supplies of oil.  But the U.S. had to ration oil and other products so that it would not run out during war.  What have we learned from our history?

Critical oil stats The number of days of supply of immediately marketable crude oil for the nation is only about 17 (seventeen), in terms of total supply already pumped out in the U.S. and having been imported.  This is a typical level.  That statistic is derived from knowing there are about 278 million barrels of crude now on hand, out of the ground, and almost 16 million barrels are used per day.   There is also about a month's worth of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which could be brought to surface, refined and distributed.  All the SPR oil cannot be brought to market at once; the idea is that an orderly drawdown could keep supply and demand in balance for several months.  (The commonly assumed SPR scenario does not solve a serious long-term shortage such as from declining global reserves.)  As for petroleum products, mostly gasoline and diesel, there is only about a week and a half supply in the U.S.

Add the maximum available crude and refined products together, and you have a little over two months of oil supply for driving, some heating, and a few lesser energy uses in the U.S., if we assume the crude is refined into fuels (over half of it is).

The bigger assumption is that domestic pumping and especially importing will keep going "forever."  Fifty-eight percent is the level of oil importation today - another reason for the attack on Iraq?

U.S. gasoline consumption is well over 9 million barrels (or over 400 million gallons) per day in summer.  Almost nothing is currently being done to decrease this.  To the contrary, conservation is anathema to the "conservatives" in control of the government. (See San Francisco Chronicle op-ed "And when cheap oil runs out... Enter the Age of Conservation" by Jan Lundberg, May 6, 2001.)

Vice President Cheney's and George Bush's opposition to the environmental form of conservation is the key to understanding why rationing is unthinkable to them today.  But if conservation were thought of as war-oriented, it might have a chance to fly.  This way the White House could also meet popular goals such as cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing smog.  They can save face by saying the rationing is just because of the never-ending war "on terrorism."  Emergencies are also attractive to besieged rulers.  Not primarily because of petty politics, Nixon put in oil price controls, and Bush could respond that way to today's record gasoline prices.  Voila, never-ending rationing?

WWII rationing The rationing system that worked in World War II was sensible: an "A" sticker on most cars allowed only three or four gallons to the driver per week.  Privileged and critically needed drivers such as doctors got other stickers and more gasoline coupons.  Feds busted people wasting fuel, such as nailing them at concerts or night clubs.  There was black market abuse of the system, but rationing worked to a large degree.  Speed limits were lowered to 30 miles per hour on highways.  Rubber was suddenly unavailable from plantations in Southeast Asia, so the U.S. was rushing to refine petroleum into synthetic rubber before completely running out; hence, make those tires last.

The nation during World War II had some sensible leadership in regard to oil policy, assuming the whole system of government and industry was legitimate and evolving to something sustainable and compassionate.  (That assumption runs up against realities such as the oil-facilitated U.S. killing of 5 million Indo-Chinese.)  How does WWII policy compare with today?  The flag waving leaders today certainly have the flag - and the weapons of mass destruction, the big money, and all the oil they want (us) to guzzle.

What else was a hallmark of successful, patriotic conservation in WWII?  Victory Gardens and recycling!  New urban gardens enabled depaved and ex-lawn spaces to become food production zones.  Waste reduction featured reusing materials and parts instead of trashing them.  Things could be fixed more easily than today, due to encroaching computerization in cars, for example.

These conservation measures went in and stuck for the duration of the war because of the threat to the nation.  Well, supposedly we are threatened now!  So where's the conservation?  If there's no conservation, what does that imply?

Why is the modern "conservative" - and even the liberal - usually against conservation?  The main factor is individual "need," for not just consuming all the oil that's convenient, but for profiteering on oil-related, oil-fueled business.  Somebody wants a big motor vehicle regardless of fuel economy, and the powers-that-be want that car-buyer to succeed in that want!  The world almost has a gun to its head to buy new motor vehicles.  In the U.S., this has by now translated to more operable vehicles than drivers - a ratio of 1.9 personal cars in the average household of 1.75 drivers.  Most consumers will not face the fact that propaganda, brainwashing and employment policies do much to rob us of free will and independent thinking.

On the other hand, if the Iraq War is really for oil and the "right" to guzzle oil to no end, then it makes sense that the proponents of today's war for oil would be in denial over any need for conservation.  With no conservation or rationing, even though the White House and "intelligence community" know the global peak in oil production is upon us, we can with certainty say we are in a war for oil gluttony.  What a noble purpose!  But lest we be too hard on them, these folk - counting any of your neighbors too - can't imagine living simply and creating love and peace, in their fearful and aggressive mind-set in the dominant materialist culture.

When WWII rationing and speed reduction kicked in, highway crash deaths dropped by about two-thirds!  This kind of life-saving opportunity, that President Bush doesn't yet seem to be aware of, could save 25,000 lives a year on U.S. roads today.  Does this not compare favorably with the 3,000 American citizens killed on Sept. 11, 2001.  Hello?  Are we about reducing casualties of the oil war or not?  Iraqi civilians deaths this year have hit just over 37,000 (Village Voice Sept. 3-9, 2003).  That's almost as many U.S. citizens who die in highway crashes every year.  Those Iraqis can't be brought back, but future U.S. and other peoples' deaths can be avoided.

With some significant energy conservation in the U.S., many people around the world wouldn't hate the U.S. and its citizens so much.  Oil use is equated to wealth.  The more oil we use the more the impoverished of the world have violent feelings for U.S. citizens and targets of U.S. corporate and military property.  These feelings are strongest among those deprived of their ancestral lands in part because of U.S. interventions.

But the response by a George Bush (either one) and his supporters is, in effect, "Never!  Gimme more oil!"  With this kind of honesty (unlike the Democrats), and such absence of sense and equity, shall we try something else than muttering intellectual logic that calls for peace and driving higher-tech cars (the sell-out enviros' big solution)?  Talk is cheap.

It is time for grassroots action to conserve.  Almost as much as advocating car-free or minimized-car living, rationing would not be popular.  But a one-term or lame-duck president could try rationing as an Emergency measure.  At the rate George Bush is going, he could be on his way to becoming a lame duck.  Despite his Enron scandal-taint, he got a boost in popularity after 9-11 and attacked two countries with devastating force which included depleted uranium.   However, what with the growing backlash against the White House's/EPA's suppressing toxic exposure-risk data in the Twin Towers' debris; what with the Iraq guerrilla war; the record budget deficit of half a trillion dollars next year; mistreatment of soldiers regarding their pay and occupation conditions, constitutional rights being infringed, etc., Bush could lose the 2004 election, assuming he is not impeached first.

If President Bush and his executive colleagues can keep being as audacious and brazen as they have been - and they have gotten pretty far with it - rationing of oil is on the same order of audacity and extreme action.  Yet, saving lives and the atmosphere is admittedly a bit radical to come of out Washington D.C. - DC stands for District of Crooks, but anything's possible.  Only a lame duck or one-termer would try serious conservation in times of plenty - plenty of oil, for now, and plenty of oil-related death in both hemispheres.  Will oil profligacy only stop when oil gets really tight in supply?  Judge for yourself as to timing:

It is a world on the dawn of an historic oil crisis, perhaps the greatest and final one.  The oil industry's M. King Hubbert bequeathed to us all the oilfield extraction curve named after him.  We're at the global peak, and the downhill slide will not be like the easy climb: when the market reacts and goes berserk, not even radical rationing will work.  So, let's slash petroleum dependence beginning now, if the modern world is to transition to the future of a lot less energy.

Energy alternatives are not ready and won't be, as long as oil is still quite subsidized to be priced low.  Also, alternatives don't compare to petroleum's energy punch and molecular flexibility.  (To understand peak oil and how new oil discoveries and improved renewable energy technology won't change basic trends that these conclusions are based on, see Sustainable Energy Institute's webpages such as The Fall of Petroleum Civilization and alternative energy.)

It's unlikely that the average north American, here in oil pig-out heaven, will realize on his or her own that the oil war has been taking place in our own homeland.  But, a few more of us can heed the call to Can the car.  Let's also unplug our energy-wasting luxuries and go outside into the natural world.  If it's not there, take the asphalt up and plant some fruit trees.  And please watch the cat population which is decimating the vanishing songbirds.  Peace!

The author formerly provided the U.S. Defense Fuel Supply Center, the biggest oil consumer in the world, price information for its purchasing.  Jan Lundberg formerly ran Lundberg Survey Incorporated which once published "the bible of the oil industry."  He has run the Sustainable Energy Institute since 1988.  It can use your assistance and generous help. Read more at culturechange.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1kfed

In depth look at Inflation and Why We Need a NEW Economic Model

CPI, PPI, Oh my! The Austrians appear to be on to something that the Americans and Brits continue to ignore.

Amplify’d from globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Inflation: What the heck is it? Inflation has at least 8 distinctly different definitions that I can readily find, and probably a whole lot more that I have not yet found. Commonly Used Definitions Decline in purchasing power of the currency held Rising prices in general (essentially the same as #1 although some might disagree) Rising consumer prices (CPI) Rising producer prices (PPI) Rising prices due to expansion of money supply Rising prices due to expansion of money supply and credit Expansion of money supply Expansion of money supply and credit Four of those definitions refer to money supply. That brings up another issue. When one refers to "money supply" are they talking about M1, M2, MZM, Money AMS (Austrian Money Supply), or simply the amount of money they have in their bank account or wallet at the time of the conversation? Definitions 5 and 6 refer to "rising prices" yet fail to distinguish between consumer prices, producer prices, or simply prices in general. It seems we could easily add a lot more definitions. Furthermore, some people make no distinction between money and credit but others do as noted by choices 5 thru 8. Still others insist than in the fiat world we are in, the web is so tangled between money and credit that this mess is not even worth bothering to figure out. Those folks simply hold gold and wait for "The Crash". The thing is, it is simply impossible to argue about inflation (or anything else) unless one can agree on a definition. Like it or not, we live in a fiat world. Therefore we must attempt to have sound definitions that best describe the fiat world we are in. A Dictionary Definition Dictionary.com defines inflation as: A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services. One might commend dictionary.com for making the distinction between money and credit, but others might take exception to "consumer prices" vs. "prices in general", and still others might argue endlessly about what "purchasing power" means. The real problem with the definition however, is that it puts the cart before the horse. The Cart before the Horse The problem with definitions that have a "because of" clause is that it impossible to know exactly why prices are rising or falling. Should rising oil prices due to peak oil, geopolitical concerns, hurricanes, or other supply disruptions really constitute inflation? More to the point: Is there any possible way to decide what % of the increase in the price of oil (or anything else) was "caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services"? The answer to that latter question is easy: of course not. Furthermore, the natural state of affairs is decreasing prices because of increasing productivity (more goods produced by less labor) thereby causing a drop in prices over time. One farmer today produces as much wheat or corn as did 20 or even 100 farmers not that long ago. Unions strive to protect jobs even though one worker today produces more cars than several workers a decade ago. Dictionary.com thus proposes a definition of inflation that simply can not be measured. The problem is the "because of" clause that puts the cart before the horse. Is Price all that Matters? Of course those in the "price is all that matters" camp have no such problems. To them, prices of a basket of goods and services rose, therefore inflation rose. A big problem for those in this camp is that rising asset prices (such as stock market equities) are not properly accounted for in any known basket of goods and services. Some might argue that that problem can be solved by including stock market prices in the basket of goods and services. Unfortunately that further compounds the problem by orders of magnitude. How does one decide which stocks to include in the basket as well as the relative weighting of those stocks? Furthermore, is it really valid to call genuine improvements in business conditions "inflation"? Even without the problem of equity assets, there is a huge problem of selecting a basket of goods and services that works for both consumers and producers. Not only is it impossible to accurately pick a representative basket of goods an services that properly measures "purchasing power", it is also impossible to make accurate quality judgments about the prices of goods in that basket. For example: double pane insulated argon gas filled windows are now common. How does one measure the price of those windows with windows thirty years ago when such a thing did not even exist? How does one accurately measure the relative values of such windows vs. the windows of yesteryear? It simply can not be done! Practically speaking, the price drop is 100% because one could not get those windows at any price if you go back far enough. How long ago was it that PCs, Gore-Tex, and Teflon did not exist? How does one accurately account for that? Backward price measurement comparisons are simply hopeless because of a continuous array of new product and service offerings. Some even look at such quality improvements to make a claim that the CPI is actually overstated! The ranges for overstatement that I have seen are generally 1-2% and understatement by as much as 6-7%. Can a definition of inflation that includes enormously subjective measures possibly be of use to anyone? Is a basket that relies solely on producer prices (PPI) the answer? If so how does one properly account for rising consumer prices but not producer prices and vice versa? Obviously this line of reasoning is hopeless. The problem of accounting for stock market fluctuations is even worse for those in the "price increases caused by an increase in available currency and credit" camp because they have to decide if stock market prices are rising or falling because of general business conditions or because of expansion of money supply, risk taking, speculation, or time preferences. A Look Back at the New Economy Let's take a step back from all this madness and consider the decade of the 1990's. In the mid to late 1990's money supply rose dramatically by any commonly used measure yet the folks in the "price is all that matters" and "purchasing power" camps were not alarmed because the price of oil and gold and copper and computers were falling as Greenspan became a cheerleader for the "New Economy". Can a definition of inflation that ignores such problems possibly be right? The fatal flaw made by Greenspan and the "price is all that matters" camp is that productivity improvements led by an internet revolution, along with global wage arbitrage and outsourcing to China and India, lowered costs on manufactured goods and kept the lid on wage increases in the manufacturing sector. Those factors all helped mask rampant inflation in money supply. The Greenspan FED further compounded the problem by injecting massive amounts of money to fight a mythical Y2K dragon that simply did not exist. Those monetary injections helped fuel a massive bubble in the stock market in 2000. Everyone in the "price is all that matters/purchasing power" camp either has to ignore equity distortions or account for them by adding equity prices to the basket of goods and services. Either way is problematic. The Role of Government Those in the "because of" camp also need to take account of the fact that rising prices in a basket of goods and services as well as rising equity prices often happen because of "government imposed solutions to nonexistent problems". One can even logically argue that government itself is the primary cause of rising prices. Look no further than Y2K, a Medicaid Bill that legislates against mass purchases of drugs, congressional action that impose tariffs on crops and lumber, congressional actions that prevents drug imports from Canada, builds bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and other such nonsense. There are now more than 200 governmental bills designed to make housing affordable. The worst of the lot were bills authorizing creation of the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Lenders eventually figured out how easy it is to dump the riskiest loans onto those quasi government agencies. Credit standards then went downhill and home prices sky rocketed. As reported in the Washington Post article FHA Alternatives To Subprime Loans Alphonso Jackson, Housing and Urban Development Secretary actually went so far as to send this message to private sub-prime lenders: "We need to reach out to African-American, Hispanic and other first-time buyers with better loan concepts, more flexible guidelines and quicker service. I am absolutely emphatic about winning back our share of the market that has slipped away to subprime lenders." A government desire to win back market share from private lenders is most assuredly pure insanity. Indeed, promotion of the ownership society itself is at the very heart of this mess. Supposedly the government wants "affordable housing" yet it puts into practice anti-free market policies that absolutely ensure the opposite. Let's briefly discuss Medicare/Medicaid. Government policies prohibit negotiation of bulk discounts. Those policies also prohibit imports from Canada and other nations willing to provide drugs at a cheaper cost. The most recent boondoggle is a process whereby recipients can only change providers once a year while providers can add or drop coverage with a mere 60 days notice. Someone signing up for benefits specifically because a needed drug was covered may find out after 60 days they have to eat the entire cost. What kind of sense does any of that make? Somehow entitlement programs always have enormous cost overruns. The Medicare/Medicaid bill is no exception. Before the bill was even passed, its costs were known to be understated by at least $139 billion dollars. The Washington Post article White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data notes that Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs was threatened with firing if he disclosed the true costs of the bill to Congress. The bill passed by an extremely slim margin. Had the true costs been disclosed it is doubtful the bill would have passed. If you are looking for a source of inflation, there is no doubt that Greenspan, the FED, and government policies are all a huge part of the problem. What is interesting is that Greenspan is now finally starting to make sense for the first time in his entire career with his recent warnings about Fannie Mae, government spending, and trade deficits. For 18 years everyone listened to "The Maestro" even though most of what he said was totally unintelligible. Now the ultimate irony is that no one is paying attention just as he is finally starting to make some sense. We will leave this matter for another time except to point out the following: The government and the FED are both always fighting some sort of mythical dragon. That is a huge problem over time. A Use for the CPI Let's now return to a question I asked earlier: Can a definition of inflation that includes enormously subjective measures such as the CPI possibly be of use to anyone? Actually it can, but not to any private citizen's benefit. The basket of goods and services as well as subjective measures of quality improvements can indeed be used by the government to underpay holders of inflation protected securities like TIPS, as well as understate cost of living adjustments to social security recipients. How many believe the government's basket of goods and services is overweight computers and appliances and underweight heating bills, medical expenses, gasoline, insurance, and housing? Even if one believes the government was honest about the makeup of the basket, is the government biased about subjective measures of quality improvement of items in that basket? The problem of baskets and weightings is simply impossible to solve. The cynical will propose it is impossible to solve on purpose. Money vs. Credit Because of cart before the horse problems, basket selection problems, PPI vs. CPI problems, asset price problems, and government manipulation problems, we can easily discard the first 6 widely used definitions of inflation. That leaves us with a choice between the following: A net expansion of money supply A net expansion of money supply and credit Given the current government policies that allow tremendous leverage via the fractional reserve lending, the most logical conclusion is that it is indeed necessary to distinguish between money and credit. Fortunately the work in this area has already been accomplished by Austrian economist Frank Shostak. In The Mystery of the Money Supply Definition Shostak makes note of the difference between money supply and credit, while making a solid case that Money Supply (elsewhere called Austrian Money Supply or Money AMS) is Cash+demand deposits with commercial banks and thrift institutions+government deposits with banks and the central bank. The difference between Money AMS and other published "money supply" figures such as M1, M2, M3, or MZM is therefore either credit, over-counting, or pure nonsense. Before making a final decision between the two remaining definitions let's first consider a real world example: Japan 1982-2004. Some argue that Japan never went through deflation. One basis for that argument is that "money supply" as measured by M1 never contracted over a sustained period. The other argument is that prices as measured by the CPI never fell much. Once again we have a flawed argument about consumer prices and a flawed argument that only looks at money and not credit. Although Japan was rapidly printing money, a destruction of credit was happening at a far greater pace. There was an overall contraction of credit in Japan for close to 5 consecutive years. Property values plunged for 18 consecutive years. The stock market plunged from 40,000 to 7,000. Cash was hoarded and the velocity of money collapsed. Those are classic symptoms of deflation that a proper definition incorporating both money supply and credit would readily catch. Those looking at consumer prices or monetary injections by the bank of Japan were far off the mark. Frank Shostak nicely describes the end of such economic booms in Making Sense of Money Supply Data: As prices of financial assets begin to rise, in order to keep their growth momentum intact the money supply rate of growth must expand. Any slowdown in the money supply rate of growth will slow the growth momentum of financial assets' prices. Once the rate of growth slows down false activities encounter trouble. Since the diversion of real resources toward these activities slows down, a fall in the money rate of growth strangles them. It follows then that rising growth momentum of money leads to an expansion in nonwealth generating activities (also known as an economic "boom") while a fall in growth momentum undermines false activities and results in an economic bust. Note that it was a continued collapse in credit as opposed to a collapse in government monetary printing that eventually sealed the fate in Japan. The lesson to be learned from Japan is that once the ability and/or desire of consumers and corporations to take on more debt is reached, the party is over barring and out and out hyperinflationary expansion of money. For a discussion of Ben Bernanke's hyperinflationary "helicopter drop" solution to deflation, please see Robert Blumen's article Bernanke: Foreign Savings Glut Harms the US. In practice, a helicopter drop of money would bail out consumers at the expense of the FED. Furthermore such actions would eventually destroy the FED's own power and wealth. Logic would therefore dictate that the helicopter drop threat would not be carried out in actual practice. No doubt there will be further endless debate on this subject, one way or another, until the final collapse is at hand. Conclusions The logical outcome of the above discussion is that a proper definition of inflation or deflation must be built on the foundation of a sound definition of money supply that distinguishes between money itself and credit. The definition should also ensure that the horse and the cart are in their proper places. With the above in mind: Inflation is best described as a net expansion of money supply and credit. Deflation is logically the opposite, a net contraction of money supply and credit. Government mandated solutions to problems best left to the free market is the root cause of money supply expansion. With no enforcement mechanism such as a gold standard to keep things honest, and with no desire to raise taxes, governments simply approve programs with no way to fund them. The FED has been all too willing to play along by printing the money needed for those government programs. To make matters worse, the fractional reserve lending policies of the FED allows an even greater expansion of credit on top of the money printed. Eventually those actions result in a crack-up-boom and debasement of currency. Changes in "Purchasing power" required to buy a basket of goods and services can not be accurately measured because of the need to continuously add new products to the basket, because the measurement of quality improvements on existing products is too subjective, and because it is impossible to pick a representative and properly weighted basket of goods, services, and assets in the first place. Furthermore, such measurements are highly prone to governmental manipulation at private citizen expense. Endless bickering over the CPI numbers every month should be proof enough of these allegations. Measurement of equity price fluctuations poses a particularly difficult problem for those bound and determined to put the cart before the horse as well as those that think such assets belong in any sort of basket. Price targeting by the FED is doomed to failure because a representative basket of goods and services can not be created, because prices can not properly be measured, and because price targeting puts the cart before the horse. Expansion of money supply (typically to accommodate unfunded government spending) and expansion of credit (via GSEs, fractional reserve lending, and other unsecured debt issuance) are two of the biggest problems. Targeting the outcome (prices) can not possibly be the solution. Ludwig von Mises describes the endgame brought on by reckless expansion of credit: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." The FED should have been listening to Mises all along. Instead they have put their faith in "productivity miracles", "new paradigms", and their own hubris. Those actions have accomplished nothing other than delay the eventual day of reckoning. Mike Shedlock / Mish http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1k9o1

Humanity Controlled and Enslaved by Network of US Military and the American Global Empire

Can anyone argue with these maps, this data? This has the British Empire beat hands down. We have taken colonialism well beyond the capacities of the European settlers who just over 200 years ago fought for independence. This is what American looked like in 1776.



http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us1776.pdf

Amplify’d from www.globalresearch.ca

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

by Prof. Jules Dufour

The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.

Where is the Threat? The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined "the State of the World" by focussing on so-called  "level of threats" which might negatively influence or undermine US interests. Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualised the greatest fraud in US history, namely "the Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the "free market" has unfolded.    Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:  1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets, 2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations. Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.   Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.   The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities. In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.   I. The Military Bases Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories : a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2); b) Army or Land Bases; c) Navy Bases and d) Communication and Spy Bases.     Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean     Reference : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diego_Garcia_%28satellite%29.jpg       Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135       Reference : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-ims7.jpg      II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations   The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.   In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.  The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.  In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).   Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data     Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884     Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)   Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm        Source : http://www.nobases.org   Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3  The Map of the World Network "No Bases" (Map 3) reveals the following: Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases. The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General. The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.   Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure       Source : http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/   Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).   Map 5. The Southern Command       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm   NATO Military Bases   The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe: Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford, Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom, Eindhoven in Netherlands, Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany, Istres and Avord in France. Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain, Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy, Tirana in Albania, Incirlik in Turkey, Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.htm )     III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel   There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).  Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories. Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:  800 in Africa, 97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia), 40,258 in South Korea, 40,045 in Japan, 491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean, 100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore, 113 in Thailand, 200 in Australia, and 16,601 Afloat.   In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany. In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers. In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain. In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.   Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.   IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network   US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008. (Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ). These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).     Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998       Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp   According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget. Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars. (http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml),    (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 ).   Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars. (http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html ) Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the "Global World on Terrorism" (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget.  A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic: "Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service"  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html ).     V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources   In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington's directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention. Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. . (http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)   The same braod approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC): "The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality." (http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).   The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call "VICTORY". According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The "Enduring Freedom" Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored "Mission". About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).   Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia       Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003      Map 7. American Bases Located in Central Asia       Source : http://www.heartland.it/map_centro_asia_ring.html     Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources   US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).   In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf. It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia. The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France. Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).    Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America     Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm       Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     VII. Resistance Movements The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists. Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.   The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.   Such networks' objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries.  The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.    These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.   The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that "much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other" (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )   "The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace» (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )   The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries: "At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).   Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled (nousbases@lists.riseup.net  and nousbases-info@lists.riseup.net ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World. http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en   In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005. One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign. Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network's activities.   It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.   .     Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007   A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007 (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).   The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following: -           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment; -           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World; -           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and -            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.   Conclusion   This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power.  The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality. Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .   The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World. This militarisation process is charactersied by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called "cooperation agreements". The latter reaffirmed America's economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particuarly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire's structures and functions.   The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituant resistence movements are a positive element, which is ultmately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level. The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament. .  (http://www.csotan.org/textes/texte.php?type=divers&art_id=267 ).   Read more at www.globalresearch.ca

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzug

Do the 1% Have Their Own #ShadowGovt? Is #TechnocracyRising?

Obama's adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller founded this group and it is most likely partly responsible for the economic collapse of the European Union and the coming war for energy in Eurasia.

The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, non-partisan discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973 to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan.

The Trilateral Commission Founder(s) David Rockefeller Type Annual conference Founded 1973 Location Washington, DC; Paris; Tokyo Key people Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (North American chairman) Mario Monti (European chairman) Yotaro Kobayashi (Pacific Asian chairman) Members More than 390 Website http://www.trilateral.org/

[edit] History

Sensing a profound discord between the nations of North America, Europe and Japan, the Trilateral Commission was founded to foster substantive political and economic dialogue across the world. To quote its founding declaration:

"Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems...While it is important to develop greater cooperation among all the countries of the world, Japan, Western Europe, and North America, in view of their great weight in the world economy and their massive relations with one another, bear a special responsibility for developing effective cooperation, both in their own interests and in those of the rest of the world."

"To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests...refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions... [and] take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role."

"The Commission hopes to play a creative role as a channel of free exchange of opinions with other countries and regions. Further progress of the developing countries and greater improvement of East-West relations will be a major concern."[1]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor at Columbia University and a Rockefeller advisor who was a specialist on international affairs, left his post to organize the group along with:

Henry D. Owen (a Foreign Policy Studies Director with the Brookings Institution)

George S. Franklin

Robert R. Bowie (of the Foreign Policy Association and Director of the Harvard Center for International Affairs)

Gerard C. Smith (Salt I negotiator, Rockefeller in-law, and its first North American Chairman)

Marshall Hornblower (former partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering)

William Scranton (former Governor of Pennsylvania)

Edwin Reischauer (a professor at Harvard)

Max Kohnstamm (European Policy Centre)

Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both later heads of the Federal Reserve system.

The Trilateral Commission initiated its biannual meetings schedule in October 1973 in Tokyo. In May 1976, the first plenary meeting of all of the Commission's regional groups took place in Kyoto. It was through these early meetings that the group affected its most profound influence, the integration of Japan into the global political conversation. Before these exchanges, the country was much more isolated on the international stage.[1] Since its founding, the discussion group has produced an official journal called Trialogue.

[edit] Membership

Membership is divided into numbers proportionate to each of the think tank's three regional areas. The North American continent is represented by 120 members (20 Canadian, 13 Mexican and 87 U.S. citizens). The European group has reached its limit of 170 members from almost every country on the continent; the ceilings for individual countries are 20 for Germany, 18 for France, Italy and the United Kingdom, 12 for Spain and 1–6 for the rest. At first, Asia and Oceania were represented only by Japan. However, in 2000 the Japanese group of 85 members expanded itself, becoming the Pacific Asia group, composed of 117 members: 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Australian and New Zealand citizens, and 15 members from the ASEAN nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The Pacific Asia group also included 9 members from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Currently, the Trilateral Commission claims "more than 100" Pacific Asian members.[1]

While Trilateral Commission bylaws exclude persons holding public office from membership,[2] the think tank draws its participants from political, business, and academic worlds. The group is chaired by three individuals, one from each of the regions represented. The current chairmen are former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph S. Nye, Jr., President of Bocconi University, Milan, Mario Monti, and Chief Corporate Adviser, Fuji Xerox Company, Ltd. Yotaro Kobayashi.[3]

[edit] Criticisms

Not unlike reactions to the United Nations or other organizations created to foster international cooperation, a number of prominent thinkers and politicians have criticized the Trilateral Commission as encroaching on national sovereignty. On the right, in his book With No Apologies, former conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater lambasted the discussion group by suggesting it was "a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical...[in] the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved."[4] On the left, linguist Noam Chomsky criticized a report issued by the Commission called The Crisis of Democracy for suggesting that there was an "excess of democracy" in the 1960s and defending "the ideology of the liberal wing of the state capitalist ruling elite". Chomsky also argues that the group had an undue influence in the administration of Jimmy Carter.[5]

[edit] Conspiracy theories

While the Trilateral Commission is only one of many similar think tanks on the right and left, many notable conspiracy theorists believe the organization to be a central plotter of a world government or synarchy. As documented by journalist Jonathan Kay, 9/11 conspiracy theorist Luke Rudkowski gained notoriety in April 2007 by interrupting a lecture by former Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski and accusing the organization and a few others of having orchestrated the attacks of September 11th to initiate a new world order.[6] Conservative and right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and conspiracy theorists such as American paleoconservative Alex Jones also regularly tout this idea.[7][8] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzhb