email Eden book PDF
Intro 2--Dialectical Seizures
Intro 3--Enumeration
Intro 4--Quotations
Establishment Organization
Defining America
Hating America
Socialism in the Abstract
European Socialism
German Socialism
Russian Socialism
Chinese Socialism
North American Socialism
Latin American Socialism
Socialism in Africa and Asia
World Socialism
Paternalism
Debauchery
Racism & Eugenics
Genocide & Euthanasia
The Disarmament Agenda
Ancient Rites
The New Age
The Systems Method
CFR and Trilateral
The Banking Scam
Destroying the Free Market
The National Emergency
Computer Glitches
Erosion of the Military
Spooks, Nukes and Terror
Eco-Psychos
Laws Gone Mad
The Drug War
War Drugs and Bioweapons
Manufacturing Madness
Making Little Monsters
Divisive Demography
Media Minions
Enslaving Speech
Erosion of Privacy
The Web of Foundations
The Clinton Disgrace
The Clinton Stonewall
The Clinton Mafia
How to Get Things Done
The AMPP Bookshelf
Back Matter and Link Info
James Taranto's daily (WSJ)
Political Diary (WSJ)
Visit the TPD Archive
The principal motivation for the power brokers' systematic crushing of uncooperative innovators can be stated another way. From the perspective of the rest of the world, these innovators introduce chaos into society. I do not mean for this to be understood as a metaphorical, approximate concept, but rather as a precise and mathematically meaningful concept. A characteristic of chaotic systems is that aspects of the system that are small at one time can determine very large aspects of the system at a later time. This is the butterfly phenomenon: turbulence from the fluttering of a butterfly in Brazil can (though is of course fantastically unlikely to) weeks later cause a hurricane to befall the eastern seaboard. Innovation is similar: a fleeting thought held in the head of a single individual can years later expand into a social and economic revolution. Though butterflies in Brazil are beyond the reach of meteorological methods, it is feasible to identify those rare individuals who are more likely to have such thoughts. Thus, they are constantly in danger. They threaten whatever world order the establishment has constructed to preserve its advantages.
A crucial asymmetry is on exhibit here. The establishment - or the establishments, as it is not at all monolithic - can survive only by exterminating all disruptive innovation everywhere all the time. In contrast, any one of the many disruptive innovators - each of whom is independent and scattered - can overthrow an establishment through disruptive innovation. The prospects for an establishment's survival are in fact vanishingly dim, in the long run.
People at the center of the western establishment oligarchy have at times openly aligned themselves with (and less openly, directly subsidized and partnered with) regimes in which individualists and innovators were exterminated by the millions. These are their vain attempts to exterminate all disruptive innovation everywhere all the time.
In his book Between Two Ages (1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski (then a professor at Columbia, and shortly thereafter, David Rockefeller protegé, founding director of the Trilateral Commission and National Security Advisor to his disciple, President Jimmy Carter, also a founding Trilateralist) said ``Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world,'' ``Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision,'' and ``The Soviet Union could have emerged as the standard-bearer of this century's most influential system of thought and as the social model for resolving the key dilemmas facing modern man.'' But from its outset, the Soviet Union with Lenin at its helm had ``changed Marxism from the doctrine of a highly organised and literate working class into one of state imposition of socialism by force, based on a despotic party and a police state,'' and the ``worst result of Lenin's bid for power has been the suppression of human freedom. He wrote in 1906: 'Great questions in the life of Nations are settled only by force.' Or, as Mao put it, 'all power comes from the barrel of a gun.''' (quoting Dr Eric Andrews and Cliff Cranfield). Stalin's purges, of course, included an extermination of individualists.
David Rockefeller (founder and honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission, the ``unelected if indisputable chairman of the American establishment'' (quoting Bill Moyers)) said of Maoist China, ``The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.'' Mao's Cultural Revolution also included an extermination of individualists. As noted by Jack Newell, ``The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal.''
John D. Rockefeller's direct support of and complicity with the Nazi democide, which shortly after his death metamorphosed into the attempted genocide of the disproportionately brilliant and innovative Jewish people (over 20% of Nobel Laureates between 1902 and 1995 were Jews), is an outstanding concrete example of establishment alignment with mass extermination. New World Order arch-mage Henry Kissinger (consultant to Psychological Strategy Board architect Gordon Gray, political consultant to the House of Rockefeller and Nelson Rockefeller protegé, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration, and Secretary of State in the Ford Administration), in his role as hypercollectivist sociopolitical architect and as a chief inheritor of the Rockefeller Nazi ideological mantle, has pursued tantamount and unprecedented evils.
Barbara Marx Hubbard, theosophist, author, ``futurist'', and 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, has been exposing the establishment (in presentations at conferences, and in her books) to her ideology, which includes a mystical mandate to exterminate the one quarter (this is the proportion she arbitrarily describes) of humanity that is intractibly individualistic. There are always people with established advantages, envisioning and planning a final solution for the innovator problem, so to speak.
Fear of chaos is not unique to the power brokers. It is much more common than that. It is, in short, an important example of fear of the unknown - in practical terms, it is fear of the unknowable. This fear is a classic characteristic of small minds and of those of meager confidence. It is often observed that investors tend to hate uncertainty: today, roughly half of the value of US stock markets is held by individual investors, and 45 percent of American households own stock directly or indirectly. Chaos of the type introduced by innovators produces very serious uncertainty for these investors, and they hate it. Thus, because of fear and short-term interest, the bulk of mainstream first-worlders, being small-minded, tacitly supports the neutralization, or even extermination, of uncooperative innovators. In fact, the ordinary feel offended and disgraced by these innovators, and for that the innovators are resented like no other group. The small-minded must become larger-minded if they are to realize that they, too, are slated for enslavement and capricious extermination - except that they have, as a rule, already resigned themselves to obedient slavery in exchange for survival. The power brokers are the total enemies of the innovators and the masses alike, but the masses cower and bow, signalling their surrender.
Posts
