|
Filmmakers notebook #106
CONTEMPORARY SLAVERY: A PART OF THE GLOBAL EUGENICS PROGRAM
KEVIN BALES (Human Trafficking Conference, Erie PA,
April 19, 2005) There are more than 27 million slaves in the world
today, and more in the making, and rapidly. Kevin Bales, PhD, the
world’s leading expert on contemporary slavery, author of the exp,
Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, and
president of Free The Slaves. In a
series of public lectures and class talks, Bales distinguishes the
“old” slavery versus the new where there is no investment necessary
in the easily acquired property. A slave can be bought for as cheap
as $50, discarded when no longer useful (or dead), and another
bought. Close to a million people are trafficked
across international borders every year, 70 percent are female and
50 percent are children, Bales reveals. Event
sponsored Gannon University, Edinboro University, Mercyhurst
College, and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Northwestern Pennsylvania.
(58 min.) (MORE)
CONTEMPORARY SLAVERY: A PART OF THE GLOBAL EUGENICS PROGRAM
Filmmakers Notebook #106
We’d read Kevin Bales’ important expose in 1999 when it was first
published, attracted by the strong cover photo as much as anything.
And when we were asked, six years later, if we’d like to film
any part of Bales’ three-day marathon of speaking engagements in
western Pennsylvania – and do an interview with him -- we jumped at
the opportunity, and so spent a day chasing him around several
campuses in Erie. When he sat down for an
outdoor interview with me, I’d filmed him at two events.
By this time it had sunk in that Bales, though he saw new
slavery to be a consequence of globalism, it wasn’t an inevitable
let alone an intended consequence, but rather a grotesque phenomenon
that could be addressed and corrected (over many years) within the
context of globalism. Further, Bales was
reluctant to draw political conclusions from his research because,
as he stated, it might jeopardize the 501c3 status of his
organization as well as the NGO status of Free The Slaves.
From the nature of our questions it became clear to Bales that we
thought his approach was flawed, in part because it failed to look
at the clear criminality of the Bush administration and its
aggressive pursuit of the ongoing neo-liberal globalist agenda.
And our couple of questions about 9-11, given his acceptance
of the “official story,” convinced him to proceed with caution and
clipped answers during the rest of our subsequently brief interview.
After filming Bales’ evening lecture (the questions to him were for
the most part excellent), I had over seven hours of video from four
separate events. Karen edited it down to an hour
to play for cable access television (Chautauqua County, Channel 5,
Mayville) and we sent a copy out to the Erie sisters.
They never responded, and we promptly forgot about all,
chalking their silence off as one more instance anti-war activists’
(religious or secular) fear of those associated with “conspiracy
theory.”
A year later, while working on a vid that touches on a couple of
chapters of Barrie Zwicker’s forthcoming book,
Towers of Deception:
The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, I came across a U. of
Pennsylvania lecture by Noam Chomsky of Oct. 3, 2002.
Chomsky’s overview of globalism brought to mind Bales’
lecture. I had made no attempt to put his talk
of a year ago into perspective, letting it drop and rushing off to
the next project.
Putting globalism in context has been readily done by Michel
Chossudovsky in his book The Globalization
of Poverty and the New World Order:
“Humanity is undergoing, in the
post-Cold War era, an economic and social crisis of unprecedented
scale leading to the rapid impoverishment of large sectors of the
world population…The New World Order feeds on human poverty and the
destruction of the natural environment.”
Prof Chossudovsky’s book is an explication of the IMF/World Bank New
World Order program of “Economic Genocide.” (note 1)
Of course, mass extermination is a frightful project, apt to get
messy when the victims find out. So here we turn
to Prof Chomsky in his “Masters of the World” (see below) talk,
October 3, 2002, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
He begins:
“Looking forward, what’s likely to happen in the years ahead, I think
a good place to start is with expectations of the masters of the
world, the expectations of the powerful: what do they anticipate?”
Chomsky
calls attention to two plans that outline the “masters of the world”
strategy: Global Trends 2015 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/globaltrends2015/index.html)
which projects “chronic
financial volatility and a widening economic divide” as globalism
continues. Those are the euphemistic words of mass murderers,
eugenicists. As Chomsky notes, the paper was produced “the US National
Intelligence Council, that’s the CIA and the other intelligence
agencies. The publication was put together jointly with
representatives of the business world and the academic profession.”
Chomsky
then discusses a 2nd
document: Vision For 2020 produced by the Space
Command (which Chomsky points out speaks for the “masters of the
world” during the “Clinton era.” How do
the “masters of the world” intend to cope with their mass killing?
Vision For 2020, parallels Global
Trends 2015 in its description of the protracted
consequences of the globalist agenda: the “growing number of have-nots
as the globalization proceeds with deepening stagnation and a widening
economic divide which is going to foster extremism, violence” which
will be addressed by the weapons in space program that will “…provide
the United States with absolute freedom in using or threatening to use
force in international relations, cementing US hegemony and making
Americans the masters of the world.”
In his
next breath, Chomsky says of the plan, in his dismissive way, “It’s
not going to work, but that’s another story.”
Chomsky’s a blue-pill sort of guy. For are more
insightful look at the Space Command document, see Bruce Gagnon (http://www.space4peace.org).
It’s
becoming more evident that the elites’ program is one of aggressive
eugenics, as Webster Tarpley and Leonard Horowitz outline in their
books,
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, and Horowitz’s
Death In The Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare,
respectively. And meanwhile, we continued to be
sprayed from 40,000 feet or so, like bugs.
R.
Harvey
April 7, 2006
Chautauqua, NY
Note one: And remember, genocidal war planner and flunky for the
New World Order gang installed Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World
Bank, a reward for doing such a good job in launching the program that
has destroyed Iraq and will help destroy the US.
Note two: As I found no transcript of Chomsky’s U of Penn remarks,
Oct. 3, 2002, I’ve transcribed the first 15 min. of it, Chomsky’s
“Masters of the World” speech [my title].
MASTERS OF THE WORLD
[Noam Chomsky, Oct. 3, 2002, U. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia]
Looking forward, what’s likely to happen in the years ahead, I think a
good place to start is with expectations of the masters of the world,
the expectations of the powerful: what do they anticipate? And I think
the Middle East should be viewed within that context.
Actually, they’ve helped us out on that. There is an interesting study
which I urge you to read if you haven’t, published by the US National
Intelligence Council, that’s the CIA and the other intelligence
agencies. The publication was put together jointly with
representatives of the business world and the academic profession. It
came out pre-September 11th so it’s….nothing much has changed in that
respect. It’s called Global Trends 2015 so they’re projecting what the
expect to happen the next 15 years. The main prediction is that what
they call globalization will continue “on course.” I’m quoting. Its
evolution will be rocky marked by chronic financial volatility and a
widening economic divide. That’s the basic prediction.
Those of you who take economics courses know that in theory
globalization is supposed to lead to a single market, an integrated
market with a common price and wage so what they’re actually
predicting is less globalization in a technical sense, that is a
widening economic divide, but more globalization in the doctrinally
preferred sense, which means that the people who matter will do just
fine, and the rest will… it’s not our department. That’s widening
economic divide. Financial volatility means slower growth, harming
mostly the poor. That’s what they call their most optimistic
projection.
Well, that projection actually extends previous tendencies, the
so-called neo-liberal period, the period that’s sometimes called
globalization. The term doesn’t mean much. The last 25 years or so
have been marked by a very notable deterioration in almost every
aspect of economic development: growth of economies, productivity,
investment, even growth of trade. And that’s true pretty much
world-wide: United States an almost everywhere else. The only real
exceptions being the countries that didn’t follow the rules. And so
they’re predicting that’s going to continue.
The military planners make pretty much the same predictions. So
Clinton-era planners also published expectations of the future. There
are many but this one is the most interesting. It’s called ‘Visions
For 2020.’ It’s actually meant for the public so you should look at
it. They predict a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots and
they predict that the have-nots will become disruptive and it’ll be
necessary to control them in the interests of what’s called stability.
Stability is a technical term that means everybody follows orders. You
can have perfect stability but if they’re not following orders you
have to get rid of it, destabilize it in the interest of stability.
Actually I’m quoting, believe it or not.
As that’s described by the National Intelligence Council, the same
prediction, they say that as globalization proceeds, deepening
stagnation will foster political, ethnic, ideological and religious
extremism along with violence, much of it directed against the United
States. Okay, so that’s the anticipation from the success of what they
call globalization. That’s part of the motive, a good part of the
motive between the vast expansion of US military power even before
September 11th. The US vastly outspent any conceivable collection of
adversaries and allies and the figures are misleading because it does
not count other things; for example the United States has an offshore
military base in the Middle East called Israel [applause]…. which
there, in Israel, they call it….
The reason is, a very good military correspondent in the mainstream
rightwing newspaper reporting the views of the military described
Israel not as a state with a military but a military with a state. And
the military is actually a branch of the US military so that’s
probably the way to look at it. It’s a small country, but since it has
become essentially a US military base, it has a very powerful military
force which is not counted in US military strength, though it should
be. And it’s not small. They estimate that they’re own air and naval
forces are larger and more technologically advanced than any NATO
power outside the United States. And the same is true of their armored
forces.
Britain which theoretically is called an independent country
approximately in the sense Ukraine was independent under the Soviet
Union, that’s the major military force in NATO outside the United
States. So we have the United States, Israel, Britain. Forty years ago
a senior Kennedy adviser described Britain as ‘our lieutenant.’ The
fashionable word is partner. The British like to hear the fashionable
word, but it’s nice to know the way they’re thought of internally. All
of this is part of the US military, so yes, it’s enormous.
September 11th was used as a pretext for rapid expansion of military
spending, and a pretext. I mean the spending has essentially nothing
to do with the spread of terrorism, just as the military doesn’t. The
plan is, and in fact the reality, to make the United States so
overwhelmingly dominant that it is in a place of world control without
challenge. The President’s recent national security strategy spelled
this out rather starkly, and it goes way back.
Going back to the Vision For 2020, the Clinton-era document. This
happens to come from Space Command, but it’s general. They give a
historical survey explaining why this has to happen, and it’s pretty
accurate. They say in the past countries like the United States had to
develop armies for self defense. We need an army for self defense as
the US was taking over the national territory. It was self defense
against what the Declaration of Independence calls the ‘merciless
Indian savages’ who were brutally attacking the innocent colonists who
just wanted to live in peace and had no other thoughts in mind. And
you needed an army in self defense until the national territory was
conquered. And [the] country also established navies, later air
forces, in order – I’m quoting it now – ‘in order to protect
commercial interests and investments.’ Of course Britain was in the
lead back in the old days, but when Britain developed a navy to
protect its global interests and investments – incidentally funding
the navy from the greatest narco-trafficking enterprise in human
history [Opium Wars, 1839-42 and 1856-60]; that’s a large part of the
history of empire and involves part of the conquest of India and the
break-in to China; it was really extraordinary. But they did have the
navy, thanks to narco-trafficking primarily. But it could be countered
by others, so Germany could construct a navy to counter the British
navy – with consequences in the 20th century we don’t have to talk
about. But the Clinton planners point out that this time it’s going to
be different. The US is going to have such overwhelming power that
there will be no counterforce, and in particular that’s going to be
true of what they call ‘the next frontier,’ namely the militarization
of space which is what they’re specifically interested in and they say
that it necessary to protect US interests, markets and investments,
and of course to control the growing number of have-nots as the
globalization proceeds with deepening stagnation and a widening
economic divide which is going to foster extremism, violence, so
therefore we’ll need a what’s going to be called, as it has been for
the last 20 years, ‘a war on terror.’ And anyone who has a good
University of Pennsylvania education knows that when you hear ‘war on
terror’ you mean ‘terrorist war’ which is exactly what it’s been for
20 years, including the new phase which was re-declared on September
11th.
THE LAST ACT
The most ominous part of these general projections actually has to do
with militarization of space. It’s not talked about much but it’s very
critical. This is still Clinton-era planning; it’s been escalated by
Bush. The idea is to put highly destructive weapons in space, probably
nuclear powered; they gotta be on hair-trigger alert, automated, which
raises a very high probability of what’s called in the trade, ‘normal
accidents.’ Normal accidents re the accidents that unpredictably take
place in any complex system. So if you have a computer, you know about
normal accidents. Things happen in complicated systems which are
unpredictable. When a normal accident takes place under militarization
of space, you can say goodbye to your friends and children and people
overseas and so on because that’ll probably be the last act. But
that’s the plan and it requires violating another treaty which isn’t
talked about much, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Though it isn’t
talked about much here, it’s well known around the world. The UN
general assembly has for the last couple of years brought up the Outer
Space Treaty, which has so far been observed. They brought it up just
for ratification, just reaffirmation. The US doesn’t vote against it,
it abstains; it’s passed unanimously with US and Israel abstaining. I
think once maybe, Micronesia.
The UN disarmament committee has been meeting the last couple of years
and the major focus of it is to try to abandon expansion of military
development into space. That’s been pressed by just about everybody.
The US has been blocking it consistently so nothing has happened, and
the reasons are the background ones I’ve just described. There’s total
silence about this – you read nothing about it. I guess the reasoning
in the editorial offices is that it’s not a good idea to let citizens
know of plans that may bring to an end biology’s only experiment with
higher intelligence. At lot of this is concealed as missile defense,
but again when you hear the word ‘defense’ you interpret it as
offense. And that’s the way it’s understood by planners, so, for
example, the Rand Corporation which is the main sort of analytic and
advisory research agency more or less for the Pentagon. The Rand
Corporation’s reports on missile defense happen to be almost verbatim
the same of the pronouncements of the Chinese government protesting
missile defense. Both of them say in almost the same words that,
quoting it, “Ballistic missile defense is not simply a shield but
rather an enabler of US actions.” That is, “…provide the United States
with absolute freedom in using or threatening to use force in
international relations, cementing US hegemony and making Americans
the masters of the world.”. It’s not going to work, but that’s another
story. Talking about their thinking. Missile defense is supposed to….
I’m quoting now, “…provide the United States with absolute freedom in
using or threatening to use force in international relations,
cementing US hegemony and making Americans the masters of the world.”
I’m quoting military analysts in the conservative and liberal press.
In the liberal press they point out that liberals are wrong when they
oppose missile ballistic defense. They’ve got matters backwards. They
should be in favor of it because it’s going to enable the US to use
military force without any concern and that’ll enable the US to carry
out the humanitarian intervention everywhere that liberals are in
favor of, and the logic…. so therefore they oughta be in favor of
missile defense and a huge military build up and weapons in space and
everything else. The logic is completely impeccable as long you accept
the basic principle of religious doctrine, namely that anything the
United States does is uniquely in history and uniquely, in the current
word, is benevolent. If you accept the fundamental theological
principle, everything else follows. And that one can’t be questioned.
If you raise a question about that, you’re labeled as someone who
hates America or some other insult.
That’s the reasoning behind the long-term global planning that was
recently announced. It’s true that the current administration takes an
extreme position on the spectrum, but you have to bear in mind that
it’s a pretty narrow spectrum. That’s why I was quoting Clinton-era
documents.
There’s a lot more to say about the general topic, but let’s focus now
on the Middle East.”
15:45
|
 |
