Depopulation of a Planet (2/6): If You Thought It Was Bad... It's Worse Than You Think!

Today, 6.5 billion humans depend entirely on oil for food, energy, plastics & chemicals. Population growth is on a collision course with the inevitable decline in oil production.

To think that we can advocate for human rights, peace, and social justice while ignoring their necessary ecological basis—is both intellectually dishonest and ultimately self-defeating.

The longer we put off choosing the nicer methods of achieving demographic stability, the more likely the nasty ones become, whether imposed by nature or by some fascistic regime. Urine Good Company might represent a mild version of what could actually be in store if we let the marketplace, corporations, and secretive, militaristic governments come up with eugenic solutions to our population dilemma.
~ Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin | Population Growth: Most Powerful Force on Earth, Money&Markets ~

______________________________________________________________

Depopulation Of A Planet

If You Thought It Was Bad…

It's Worse Than You Think!

Part I: Historical Perspective
Part II: What you can’t see will hurt you!
Part III: No easy Answers!
Part IV: A Picture Emerges
Part V: U.N. Rings the Alarm
Part VI: The Final Chapter

A Report by RICK MARTIN

Part II: What You Can't See Will Hurt You!

11/22/95

Roger Walsh, M.D., Ph.D., in a chapter titled Human Survival: A Psycho-Evolutionary Analysis appearing in the book, Human Survival & Consciousness Evolution, writes

"The great experiment in consciousness, human evolution, now stands at a precipice of its own making. The same consciousness which struggled for millions of years to ensure human survival is now on the verge of depleting its planet’s resources, rendering its environment uninhabitable, and fashioning the instruments of its own self-annihilation. Can this consciousness (we) develop the wisdom not to do these things? Can we foster sufficient self-understanding to reduce our destructiveness, and mature rapidly enough to carry us through this evolutionary crisis? These are surely the most crucial questions of our time, or of any time. Today we face a global threat of malnutrition, overpopulation, lack of resources, pollution, a disturbed ecology, and nuclear weapons. At the present time, from fifteen to twenty million of us die each year of malnutrition and related causes; another six hundred million are chronically hungry and billions live in poverty without adequate shelter, education, or medical care (Brandt, 1980; Presidential Commission on World Hunger, 1979). The situation is exacerbated by an exploding population that adds another billion people every thirteen years, depletes natural resources at an ever-accelerating rate, affects "virtually every aspect of the Earth's ecosystem (including) perhaps the most serious environmental development ... an accelerating deterioration and loss of the resources essential for agriculture" (Council on Environmental Quality, 1979). Desertification, pollution, acid rain, and greenhouse warming are among the more obvious effects.

Overshadowing all this hangs the nuclear threat, the equivalent of some twenty billion tons of TNT (enough to fill a freight train four million miles long), controlled by hair-trigger warning systems, and creating highly radioactive wastes for which no permanent storage sites exist, consuming over $660 billion each year in military expenditure, and threatening global suicide (Schell, 1982; Sivard, 1983; Walsh, 1984). By way of comparison, the total amount of TNT dropped in World War II was only three million tons (less than a single large nuclear warhead). The Presidential Commission on World Hunger (1979) estimated that $6 billion per year, or some four days' worth of military expenditures could eradicate world starvation. While not denying the role of political, economic, and military forces in our society, the crucial fact about these global crises is that all of them have psychological origins. Our own behavior has created these threats, and, thus, psychological approaches may be essential to understanding and reversing them. And to the extent that these threats are determined by psychological forces within us and between us, they are actually symptoms - symptoms for our individual and collective state of mind. These global symptoms reflect and express the faulty beliefs and perceptions, fears and fantasies, defenses and denials, that shape and mis-shape our individual and collective behavior. The state of the world reflects our state of mind; our collective crises mirror our collective consciousness."

In the book entitled Population - Opposing Viewpoints is a chapter written by Jacques-Yves Cousteau which first appeared in the Nov. 1992 edition of Populi. In this article, Cousteau writes:

MALTHUS'S PREDICTION HAS COME TRUE

"What is happening now is a consequence of the exponential nature of population growth while available resources obey a linear progression and are ultimately limited, as the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus prophesied almost 200 years ago. The warnings were repeated by the Club of Rome after World War II, and substantiated by Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution; in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize in Stockholm, addressed to the leaders of the world, he insisted that they had only 30 years to harness the demographic threat.

"Twenty years have passed since, Borlaug told me, and not only have the leaders taken no action whatsoever, they have even avoided discussing the subject. Since then, the situation has worsened."

SOLUTIONS MUST BE FOUND TO CURB POPULATION GROWTH

If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.

We must have the courage to face the situation: either the leaders of the world, having participated in thc Rio Conference, understand that what is at stake is literally to save the human species, and accept the need to take drastic, unconventional, unpopular decisions, or the impending disaster dreaded by the British and American scientific academies will precipitate"

Cousteau concludes with: "Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside - by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally independent non-governmental organizations.

"A world policy inspired by eco-biology and eco-sociology is the only one capable of steering our perilous course towards a golden age, and protecting cultural and biological diversity while proudly hoisting the colors of humankind."

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

In the 1982 book, Higher Form Of Killing - The Secret Story Of Chemical And Biological Warfare [Hill and Wang Publishers, 19 Union Square West, New York 10003 - to order, call 800-788-6262], which is a research masterpiece, Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman write,

"In no future war will the military be able to ignore poison gas. It is a higher form of killing. [Professor Fritz Haber, pioneer of gas warfare, on receiving the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1919.]

"The world's oldest chemical warfare installation occupies 7,000 gently rolling acres of countryside on the southern edge of Salisbury Plain, known as Porton Down [England]. Over 700 men and women work there in labs and offices scattered through 200 buildings. There are police and fire stations, a hospital, a library, a branch of Lloyds Bank, a detailed archive with thousands of reports and photographs; there is even a cinema to screen the miles of film taken during experiments. They are the residue of more than six decades of research, generally at the forefront of contemporary scientific knowledge. Though there have been many political storms, and several attempts to close it down, Porton has survived them all - proof of the military's enduring fascination with poison gases, even in a country which now officially has no chemical weapons.

"It was in January 1916 that the War Office compulsorily purchased an initial 3,000 acres of downland between the tiny villages of Porton and Idmiston, and began to clear a site for what was then known as the War Department Experimental Ground."

...

"This was a crucial admission. No matter how loudly the British, or any other nation, renounced gas warfare in public, in secret they felt bound to give their scientists a free hand to go on devising the deadliest weapons they could, on the grounds that they had first to be invented, before counter-measures could be prepared.

"Porton Down made use of this logic between 1919 and 1939 to carry out a mass of offensive research, developing gas grenades and hand contamination bombs; a toxic air smoke bomb charged with a new arsenic code-named "DM" was tested; anti-tank weapons were produced; and Porton developed an aircraft spray tank capable of dispersing mustard gas from a height of 15,000 feet. At the same time the weapons of the First World War - the Livens projector, the mortar, the chemical shell and even the cylinder - were all modified and improved."

Several paragraphs later, "Mustard gas, 'the King of Gases', employed the most human volunteers. Just one experiment in 1924 involved forty men."

And, In October 1929, "two subjects received copious applications of crude Mustard which practically covered the inner aspect of the forearm. After wiping the liquid mustard off roughly with a small tuft of grass the ointment (seven weeks old) was lightly rubbed with the fingers over the area ..."

This is just a random selection of the sort of work which was done in Britain. Similar research was being carried out throughout the world. Italy established a Servizio Chemico Militate in 1923 with an extensive proving ground in the north of the country. The main French chemical warfare installation was the Atelier de Pyrotechnic du Bouchet near Paris. The Japanese Navy began work on chemical weapons in 1923, and the Army followed suit in 1925. In Germany, despite the fact that Haber's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute had been closed down in 1919, limited defensive work continued, later to form the basis of Germany's offensive effort. And in 1924, the Military-Chemical Administration of the Red Army was established and Russian chemical troops were stationed at each provincial army headquarters.

Chemical weapons were not merely researched and developed - they were used. At the beginning of 1919 the British employed the "M" device (which produced clouds of arsenic smoke) at Archangel when they intervened in the Russian Civil War, dropping the canisters from aeroplanes into the dense forests. The anti-Bolshevik White Army was equipped with British gas shells, and the Red army was also alleged to have used chemicals.

Later in 1919, Foulkes was dispatched to India, and in August urged the War Office to use chemicals against the Afghans and rebellious tribesmen on the North-West Frontier: "Ignorance, lack of instruction and discipline and the absence of protection on the part of Afghans and tribesmen will undoubtedly enhance the casualty producing value of mustard gas in frontier fighting."

.....

"Finally, in May 1925, under the auspices of the League of Nations, a conference on the international arms trade was convened in Geneva. Led by the United States, the delegates agreed to try and tackle the problem of poison gas, "with", as the Americans put it, "the hope of reducing the barbarity of modern warfare." After a month of wrangling in legal and military committees - during which the Polish delegation farsightedly suggested that they also ban the use of germ weapons, then little more than a theory - the delegates came together on 17th June to sign what remains to this day the strongest legal constraint on chemical and biological warfare:

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments:

Whereas the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and
Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and
To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and practice of nations;
Declare: That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to thc terms of this declaration..."

Thirty-eight powers signed the Geneva Protocol, among them the United States, the British Empire, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada; the fledgling USSR did not attend.

"The signing of the Geneva Protocol of 1925" as one expert has put it, "was the high-water mark of the hostility of public opinion towards chemical warfare."

Unfortunately, the anti-gas lobby had underestimated the strength of the interests ranged against them. Merely signing the Protocol was not enough to make it binding - individual governments had to ratify it. In many cases this meant a time lag of at least a year, and it was in this period that the supporters of chemical weapons struck back.

The United States Chemical Warfare Service [CWS] launched a highly effective lobby. They enlisted the support of veterans' associations and of the American Chemical Society (whose Executive declared that "the prohibition of chemical warfare meant the abandonment of humane methods for the old horrors of battle"). As has often happened since, the fight for chemical weapons was represented as a fight for general military preparedness. Senators joined the CWS campaign, among them the Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs who opened his attack on ratification in the Senate debate with a reference to the 1922 Washington Treaty: "I think it is fair to say that in 1922 there was much of hysteria and much of misinformation concerning chemical warfare." Other Senators rose to speak approvingly of resolutions which they had received attacking the Geneva Protocol - from the Association of Military Surgeons, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States and the Military Order of the World War. Under such heavy fire, the State Department saw no alternative but to withdraw the Protocol, and reintroduce it at a more favorable moment. It was not to be until 1970, forty-five years after the Geneva conference, that the Protocol was again submitted to the Senate for ratification; it took another five years for this to be achieved.

Japan followed America's example and refused to ratify (they finally did so in May 1970). In Europe, the various countries eyed one another cautiously. France ratified first, in 1926. Two years later in 1928, Italy followed suit and a fortnight after her, the Soviet Union declared that she, too, considered herself bound by the Protocol. Only after Germany ratified in 1929 did Britain feel able at last to accept the Protocol: on 9 April 1930, five years after the Conference, Britain at last fell into line.

Many of the states which ratified the Protocol - including France, Great Britain and the USSR - did so only after adding two significant reservations: (1) that the agreement would not be considered binding unless the country they were fighting had also ratified the Protocol; (2) that if any other country attacked them using chemical or biological weapons, they reserved the right to reply in kind.

.....

This "defensive" work included "improvements to many First World War weapons, including gas shells, mortar bombs, the Livens Projector and toxic smoke generators" and the development of "apparatus for mustard gas spray from aircraft, bombs of many types, airburst mustard gas shells, gas grenades and weapons for attacking tanks." The various inventions were tested in north Wales, Scotland, and in installations scattered throughout the Empire, notably northern India, Australia and the Middle East.

The commitment by most of the world's governments never to initiate the use of poison gas did not stop research: it simply made the whole subject that much more sensitive, and thus more secret. In 1928, the Germans began to collaborate with the Russians in a series of top secret tests called "Project Tomka" at a site in the Soviet Union about twenty kilometers west of Volsk. For the next five years, around thirty German experts lived and worked alongside "a rather larger number of Soviet staff," mainly engaged in testing mustard gas. The security measures surrounding Project Tomka "were such that any of its participants who spoke about it to outsiders risked capital punishment."

In Japan, experimental production of mustard gas was begun in 1928 at the Tandanoumi Arsenal. Six years later the Japanese were manufacturing a ton of Lewisite a week; by 1937 output had risen to two tons per day. Extensive testing - including trials in tropical conditions on Formosa in 1930 - resulted in the development of a fearsome array of gas weapons: rockets able to deliver ten liters of agent up to two miles; devices for emitting a "gas fog"; flame throwers modified to hurl jets of hydrogen cyanide; mustard spray bombs which released streams of gas while gently floating to Earth attached to parachutes; remotely-controlled contamination trailers capable of laying mustard in strips seven meters wide; and the "Masuka Dan", a hand-carried anti-tank weapon loaded with a kilogram of hydrogen cyanide."

And then, "There is now little doubt that from 1937 onwards the Japanese made extensive use of poison gas in their war against the Chinese. In October 1937 China made a formal protest to the League of Nations."

.......

"The Italians made use of chemicals in their invasion of Abyssinia in much the same way. In 1935 and 1936, 700 tons of gas were shipped out, most of it for use by the Italian air force. First came torpedo-shaped mustard bombs."

........

"The noise of fourteen thousand aeroplanes advancing in open order. But in the Kurfurstendamm and the Eight Arrondissement, the explosion of anthrax bombs is hardly louder than the popping of a paper bag." Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932).

The history of chemical and biological warfare has thrown up some strange stories, but few are as bizarre as those which surround a small island off the northwest coast of Scotland. It lies in its own well-protected bay, close to the fishing village of Aultbea - an outcrop of rock, well-covered with heather, three hundred feet high, one and a half miles long and a mile wide.

"It takes about twenty minutes to reach by fishing boat from Aultbea. As you draw closer it's possible to make out the shapes of hundreds of sea birds nesting on its craggy shore-line. Their calls are the only sounds which break the silence. Once upon a time the island is said to have supported eleven families. Today, the only sign of human habitation is the ruin of a crofter's cottage.

"This utterly abandoned island is Gruinard. Thanks to a series of secret wartime experiments - the full details of which are still classified - no one is allowed to live, or even land here."

Again, later in the chapter, "Anthrax had long been considered the most practicable filling for a biological weapon. A decade earlier, Aldous Huxley had predicted a war involving anthrax bombs. Even before that, in 1925, Winston Churchill wrote of 'pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast...' Blight to destroy crops, Anthrax to slay horses and cattle, Plague to poison not armies only but whole districts - such are the lines alone which military science is remorselessly advancing."

........

"In July 1942 the Chinese allegations were passed on to Winston Churchill. Two days later he had them placed on the agenda of the Pacific War Council.

"The growing alarm in London and Washington that the Japanese were on the verge of initiating biological warfare gave an added urgency to the first anthrax bomb tests on Gruinard that summer. Up to then the Allied germ warfare effort had lagged significantly behind the Japanese, but from 1942 onwards the Anglo-American biological programme began to vie with the Manhattan Project for top development priority.

The British biological warfare project was born on 12 February 1934 at a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff. For two years, a Disarmament Conference in Geneva had been discussing means of finally ridding the world of chemical weapons. Germ warfare had also been included, and in view of this, Sir Maurice Hankey told the Service Chiefs, he "was wondering whether it might not be right to consider the possibilities and potentialities of this form of war."

From the same chapter, "In October the CID approved, and Hankey became Chairman of the newly-created Microbiological Warfare Committee.

"In March 1937 the Committee submitted its first report, specifically on plague, anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease. Though they concluded that 'for the time being ... the practical difficulties of introducing bacteria into this country on a large scale were such as to render an attempt unlikely', they urged that stocks of serum be built up to meet any potential threat. From 1937 to 1940, Britain began to stockpile vaccines, fungicides and insecticides against biological attack.

"In April 1938 the Committee produced a second report, and in June Hanley circulated 'Proposals for an Emergency Bacteriological Service to operate in War': the emphasis was on defence, the tone still low-key."

Winston Churchill in a "Most Secret" minute to the Chiefs of Staff. 6 July 1944:

"... It may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred percent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by the particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there."

Again from A Higher Form Of Killing,

"At the end of the war, the British alone had manufactured 70 million gas masks, 40 million tins of anti-gas ointment and stockpiled 40,000 tons of bleach for decontamination; 10 million leaflets had been prepared for immediate distribution in the event of a chemical attack, and by a long-standing arrangement the BBC would have interrupted programmes with specially prepared gas warnings. Contingency planning ran down to the smallest details."

...

"On Christmas Eye 1949, Moscow Radio announced that twelve Japanese prisoners of war were to be charged with waging biological warfare in China. The Russians claimed that the Japanese had been producing vast quantities of bacteria, and had planned to wage biological warfare against the Allies. The allegations became more specific the next week. Three days later Moscow Radio claimed that Detachment 731 of the Kwantung Army had used prisoners of war for horrific biological warfare experiments, and then, the following day, that one of the prisoners had confessed to his interrogators that the unit had been established on the orders of the Emperor himself. On 29 December Pravda came to the point. The United States was protecting other Japanese war criminals, and engaging in biological warfare research herself."

......

"In the early days after the Second World War it was extremely difficult for the British or Americans to check many of the astonishing claims they came upon in the captured German flies. They concluded, however, that there was more than adequate evidence that the Soviet Union had been, and was still, engaged in some form of biological warfare research. Although little was known of the nature of contemporary work, it was thought that the Russians maintained some six sites for biological warfare research, most of them in the Urals.

The British and Americans recognized that their intelligence was inadequate. But the evidence was judged more than sufficient to justify continuing similar work in the West. When they came to assess the vulnerability of the United Kingdom to a potential germ attack they discovered that London, containing over 12 percent of the population, was only 500 miles from airbases in Soviet-occupied eastern Germany. When the Joint Technical Warfare committee assessed how easy a retaliatory strike with biological weapons might be, they realized that the civilian targets against which bacterial devices would be most effective were dispersed across the huge expanse of the Soviet Union. Even using British Empire airbases in Nicosia (Cyprus) and Peshawar (India), there was only one Soviet city of more than 100,000 population within 500 miles range, and only thirty-five such centers of population within 1,000 miles range. Clearly, at the very least, there should be a major research programme aimed at developing some defense. Intelligence, it was freely admitted, was inadequate. But no such reticence found its ways into the stories which began appearing in the press,

RUSSIA REPORTED PRODUCING 'DISEASE AGENTS' FOR WAR

In eight "military bacterial stations", one of them on a ghost ship in the Arctic Ocean, the Soviet Union is mass-producing enormous quantities of "disease agents" for aggressive use against the soldiers and civilians of the free world. In particular, the Red Army is stockpiling two specific "biological weapons", with which it expects to strike a strategic blow and win any future war decisively, even before it gets started officially.

.....

"There seems little doubt that the Soviet Union did conduct extensive research into germ warfare in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It was felt legitimate to conclude that such research was unlikely to have stopped at some arbitrary point after the Second World War. But firm intelligence to suggest the nature of the work was notably lacking.

"For most of the post-war years military microbiologists developed 'retaliatory' germ weapons against threats they did not know to exist, and then attempted to develop defenses not against the weapons of a potential future enemy, but against the diseases they themselves had refined."

.........

Certainly during the 1950s, the Russians were expecting chemical and biological weapons to be used against them by the West. In 1956 Marshall Zhukov told the Twentieth Party Congress: "Future war, if they unleash it, will be characterized by the massive use of air-forces, various rocket weapons, and various means of mass destruction, such as atomic, thermonuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons." Zhukov did not say that the Soviet Union planned to use these weapons herself. By 1960 the head of US Army Research was telling a Congressional inquiry: "We know that the Soviets are putting a high priority on the development of lethal and non-lethal weapons, and that this weapons stockpile consists of about one-sixth chemical munitions." If it was true that one sixth of the total amount of weapons available to the Soviet Union was made up of chemical shells and bombs, it represented an alarming threat to the United States and her NATO allies. Some years after this estimate had concluded that the United States was "highly vulnerable" to germ warfare attack. They pointed out that since the end of the war very little new work had been done to produce a biological bomb. It would, they believed, take "approximately one year of intensive effort" before America could wage biological warfare. True, there was no hard evidence that any potential enemy had developed a biological weapon, but could the United States afford to take the risk of not having her own, should one later be developed elsewhere?

The argument was persuasive. In October 1950 the Secretary for Defense accepted a proposal to build a factory to manufacture disease. Congress secretly voted ninety million dollars, to be spent renovating a Second World War Arsenal near the small cotton town of Pine Bluff, in the mid-west state of Arkansas. The new biological warfare plant had ten stories, three of them built underground. It was equipped with ten fermentors for the mass production of bacteria at short notice, although the plant was never used to capacity. Local people in the town of Pine Bluff had some idea of the purpose of the new army factory being built down the road, but in general there was, as the Pentagon put it later "a reluctance to publicize the program."

The first biological weapons were ready the following year, although they were designed to attack not humans but plants. In 1950 Camp Detrick [Maryland] scientists had submitted a Top Secret report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on work they had carried out on a "pigeon bomb". In an attempt to discover a technique of destroying an enemy's food supplies, the scientists had dusted the feathers of homing pigeons with cereal rust spores, a disease which attacks crops. The researchers discovered that even after a one hundred mile flight, enough spores remained on the birds' feathers to infect oats left in their cages. Then they had experimented in dropping pigeons out of aircraft over the Virgin Islands. Finally, they dispensed with live birds altogether and simply filled a "cluster bomb" with contaminated turkey feathers. In each of these bizarre tests the men from Camp Derrick concluded that enough of the disease survived the journey to infect the target crop. In 1951 the first anti-crop bombs were placed in production for the US Air Force.

The United States had established the first peace-time biological weapon production line.

.....

Fort Detrick scientists discovered a Trinidadian who had been infected with yellow fever in 1954 and had later recovered. They took serum from the Trinidadian and injected it into monkeys. From the monkeys they removed infected plasma, into which they dropped mosquito larvae. The infected mosquitoes were then encouraged to bite laboratory mice and pass on the disease. This ingenious technique of public health research in reverse worked. The mice duly contracted yellow fever.

Laboratories were built at Fort Detrick where colonies of the aedes aegypti mosquitoes were fed on a diet of syrup and blood. They laid their eggs on moist paper towels. The eggs would later turn into larvae, and eventually into a new generation of mosquitoes. The Fort Detrick laboratories could produce half a million mosquitoes a month, and by the late fifties a plan had been drawn up for a plant to produce one hundred and thirty million mosquitoes a month. Once the mosquitoes had been infected with yellow fever, the Chemical Corps planned to fire them at an enemy from "cluster bombs" dropped from aircraft and from the warhead of the "Sergeant" missile.

To test the feasibility of this extraordinary weapon, the army needed to know whether the mosquitoes could be relied upon to bite people. During 1956 they carried out a series of tests in which uninfected female mosquitoes were released first into a residential area of Savannah, Georgia, and then dropped from an aircraft over a Florida bombing range. "Within a day", according to a secret Chemical Corps report, "the mosquitoes had spread a distance of between one and two miles, and bitten many people". The effects of releasing infected mosquitoes can only be guessed at. Yellow fever, as the Chemical Corps noted, is "a highly dangerous disease", at the very least causing high temperatures, headache, and vomiting. In about a third of the recorded cases at that time, yellow fever had proved fatal.

Nor were mosquitoes the only insects conscripted into the service of the army. In 1956 the army began investigating the feasibility of breeding fifty million fleas a week, presumably to spread plague. By the end of the fifties the Fort Detrick laboratories were said to contain mosquitoes infected with yellow fever, malaria and dengue (an acute viral disease also known as Breakbone Fever for which there is no cure); fleas infected with plague; ticks contaminated with tularemia; and flies infected with cholera, anthrax and dysentery.

......

"The Vietnam War might have represented the perfect field laboratory for men like General Rothschild to test their theories about seeding clouds with anthrax. But there was by now sufficient evidence of the way in which American and South Vietnamese troops would also be affected to rule it out. Instead the germ warfare laboratories concentrated their efforts on the development of incapacitating diseases which would bring an enemy down with sickness for days and weeks. For some years the Fort Detrick laboratories had been working on enterotoxins causing food poisoning, on the military theory, as one proponent put it, that "a guy shitting away his stomach can't aim a rifle at you". By 1964, they believed a weapon based on the theory was feasible. But by now, another disabling disease looked a better candidate."

.......

"The results of the continuing research could be seen in the maps of Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, part of which were marked "permanent bio-contaminated area", after anthrax experiments in the mid-sixties. In the Pacific more tests were carried out with "hot" agents - the jargon for real biological weapons - on a number of deserted islands. The results of the tests are still classified on the grounds that they reveal weaknesses in American defenses. By March 1967 Fort Detrick had developed a bacteriological warhead for the Sergeant missile capable of delivering disease up to 100 miles behind enemy lines.

The Defense Department had justified the accelerating rush into biological weapons in the early sixties by saying that there was no prospect of any treaty being arrived at which would be acceptable to the United States. Since any argument to ban biological weapons was unlikely, they argued, the United States was bound to continue her research work.

"They were wrong. In 1968 the subject of chemical and biological warfare came up for discussion at the standing Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee in Geneva. Previous attempts to get agreement on an international treaty to ban the weapons had floundered, because of an insistence that both chemical and biological weapons be included in the same treaty. Since gas weapons had already been used in war, been proved effective, and were stockpiled on a large scale, they would be much more difficult to outlaw than germ weapons, which as far as could satisfactorily be proved had never been used in war. The British proposed that the two subjects be separated, and introduced a draft Biological Weapons Convention which would commit all signatory states to renouncing the weapons for all time.

There was heavy initial opposition from the Russians and their eastern European allies, and little overt enthusiasm from Washington. The British and Canadians, who had shared their germ warfare expertise with the Americans, nevertheless argued to President Nixon that an international treaty was now a real possibility. What was needed, they said, was a gesture of goodwill.

Nixon was already under pressure on the subject of chemical and biological weapons, and facing mounting domestic opposition. On 25 November 1969 he issued a statement: "Mankind", he said, "already carries in its own hands too many of the seeds of its own destruction." The United States was taking a step in the cause of world peace. "The United States", he went on, "shall renounce the use of lethal biological agents and weapons, and all other methods of biological warfare." It was a brave gesture, which proved the spur for which the British had been hoping.

The laborious negotiations in the Palais des Nations, Geneva, received a considerable boost with Nixon's announcement. Within two years the Soviet Union had abandoned its opposition to a germ warfare convention. On 4 April 1972 representatives of the two countries signed an undertaking that they would "never in any circumstances develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain any biological weapons." Over eighty other countries followed suit. The Biological Weapons Convention was a triumph, because unlike many other arms control agreements which merely restricted the development and deployment of new weapons, it removed one category of armaments from the world arsenals altogether.

By the time agreement was finally signed, the research which had begun with a small group of biologists pondering their contribution to the war against Hitler had produced a host of diseases capable of spreading sickness throughout the world. In addition to infections which would destroy wheat and rice, anthrax, yellow fever, tularemia, brucellosis, Q fever and Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis had all been "standardized" for use against man. Plans had been laid for their use behind enemy lines in the event of another war in Europe.

At Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas the machinery which for twenty years had been mass-producing disease was used to turn the germs into a harmless sludge, which was spread upon the ground as an army public relations officer explained what a good fertilizer it would make. And, on a small, bleak island off the Scottish coast the warning signs were due to be repainted.

.....

Despite the fact that such major powers as France and China have still (by early 1982) not signed it, largely because they consider the verification procedures to be inadequate, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention was a major achievement. One of the provisions of the treaty committed the eighty-seven signatory countries to "continue negotiations on good faith" with a view to obtaining a similar agreement to ban chemical weapons. The United Nations General Assembly optimistically dubbed the 1970s "The Disarmament Decade". In the field of chemical warfare it might more properly have been named "The Distrust Decade".

......

In January 1978, a correspondent with Reuters' news agency reported from NATO headquarters that "scientific experts" had informed him that the Russians were developing "three horrific new diseases for warfare …. Lassa fever, which according to the sources, kills 35 out of every 100 people it strikes; Ebola fever, which kills 70 out of every 100; and the deadly Marburg fever (Green Monkey Disease)".

Not surprisingly, the effect of these allegations was to throw serious doubt on the value of attempting to negotiate a second treaty with the Soviet Union to ban gas warfare. Indeed, in the summer of 1978 a story appeared suggesting that Nixon's original decision to stop developing new chemical and biological weapons had been the result of work by Soviet spies. "According to US intelligence officials", said the NEW YORK TIMES, "the Soviet Union attempted to influence then-President Richard Nixon in 1969 to halt chemical and biological weapons development by transmitting information through double agents working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The paper maintained that the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, had conveyed the information to Nixon personally. While none of Nixon's White House staff was able to recall having been given any information about chemical or biological weapons by FBI agents, the NEW YORK TIMES report was sufficient nonetheless to add to the growing disquiet over what the Russians might be up to.

Soon there was a positive cascade of stories about Soviet preparations for germ warfare. A Polish army officer claimed to have been told that KGB specialists in biological warfare had been posted to Cuba. Then in October 1979 came perhaps the most sensational allegation of all.

The fledgling British news magazine Now! splashed across its front cover the headline "Exclusive. Russia's secret germ warfare disaster". It reported that "Hundreds of people are reported to have died, and thousands to have suffered serious injury as a result of an accident which took place this summer in a factory involved in the production of bacteriological weapons in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk". The Soviet authorities had attempted to hush up the accident, said the magazine, but information had been obtained from a "traveller who was in the city at the time". This "traveller" claimed that bodies of the dead were delivered to their relatives in sealed coffins. Those few who had managed to glimpse the bodies had described them as being "covered in brown patches".

......

In the latter half of the 1970s there emerged a group of military theorists who believed the threat of Russian chemical warfare to be one of the great unrecognized dangers facing the West. In increasingly strident tones they began to argue in favor of chemical rearmament within NATO. One of the more restrained analyses of the Soviet threat was made by Professor John Erickson, an acknowledged authority on the Soviet Army.

Erickson estimated that there were eighty thousand specialists troops in the Red Army, commanded by Lieutenant General V.K. Pikalov, whose battlefield job it was to decontaminate men, machines and weaponry of chemicals. There were a thousand ranges where Soviet troops trained to fight on a contaminated battlefield. Soviet tanks and armored cars were equipped with elaborate seals and pressurization systems to keep out gas. Chemical training was taken so seriously that Soviet soldiers, he discovered, had been burned by real gas used in training.

Erickson noted that the Russians "constantly emphasize the likely use by the enemy - presumably NATO - of chemical weapons", yet NATO, as Erickson remarked, had only a small number of such weapons. Furthermore, Russian training emphasized defense not only against nerve gas, but also against blood and lung agents first developed during the First World War, and now unimportant in the NATO stockpile. Erickson decided that "the attraction of the chemical weapon would appear to be growing for the Soviet Command".

.......

The conviction was growing among the "hawks" in NATO that the decision to stop expanding the chemical arsenal had given a dangerous hostage to fortune. In 1980 the British opened a purpose designed 7,000 acre chemical warfare "Battle Run" training area in the Wiltshire hills alongside Porton Down. The US Army opened a specialist chemical training school in Alabama. The US Chemical Corps, reduced to 2,000 in the early 1970s, was built up to nearly 6,000 by 1981.

In 1979 NATO commanders played out of their biennial war games simulating the outbreak of World War Three. Code-named "Wintex", the exercise involved only the generals, civil servants and politicians who would make the critical decisions about how the war should be fought. In Operations Rooms in Europe and North America they acted out how they would respond to an escalating international crisis which finally pitted NATO and Warsaw Pact against each other in open war. As hostilities intensified, someone in NATO headquarters fed new information into the war plan being flashed to the decision makers in their concrete bunkers: the Soviet army had launched an attack with chemical weapons. What should be the NATO response? The choice alarmed everyone - both the small NATO members who disliked gas but wanted to avoid nuclear war at all costs, and the NATO nuclear powers, where many felt that the appropriate response was an attack with battlefield nuclear weapons, which itself ran the danger of inviting full scale Soviet nuclear counter-strike.

The then NATO Supreme Commander, General Alexander Haig, soon to become President Reagan's Secretary of State, told reporters in 1978 that NATO's ability to wage war with chemicals was "very weak". "Sometime in the near future," he said, "this will have to be reassessed". His successor as Supreme Commander went further. "We ought to be able to respond with chemical weapons," he said, "and they ought to know we have that capacity to respond." Ten years after Nixon's decision to suspend the manufacture of chemical weapons, by the end of the so-called Disarmament Decade, the advocates of chemical rearmament included some of the most senior figures in the military establishment.

There was already a weapon developed to make up for the deficiencies the generals saw all around them. The idea was simple, and, by the 1970s, some twenty years old.

......

Increasing cynicism about Soviet intentions had already led in the late 1970s to a more aggressive stance. Remembering the opposition to chemical weapons which had arisen during the late 1960s, and recognizing that any new generation would need to be based in Europe, the Pentagon began discussions with the British. Although initial negotiations with the Callaghan government came to nothing, discussions on the possible basing of chemical weapons in Britain were resumed after the 1979 election brought Margaret Thatcher to power. By the spring of 1980 the British Defence Secretary was publicly ruminating about the size and power of the Soviet chemical arsenal. That summer the British held a series of meetings with their American counterparts which resulted in British support for Pentagon proposals to begin producing a new generation of gas weapons. By December 1980 the British Defence Secretary had been finally converted to the cause of chemical rearmament.

Even before the T2 allegations, the climate had changed so much that in 1980 the Pentagon did not include proposals for a new binary gas weapon plant in its request for funds for the coming year. There was no need. When the budget proposal came before Congress for approval, eager politicians endorsed a suggestion to write into the budget plans to begin work on a new factory capable of turning out 20,000 rounds of 155 mm binary nerve agent shells every month. The entire debate in both houses of Congress took less than three hours.

By the time the T2 allegations surfaced even Richard Nixon, the man who seemed to have halted the chemical arms race in 1969, believed that his efforts had been in vain and that the Russians had rearmed while the United States stood still. In the past governments have justified continuing gas and germ research by pointing to the weapons they believe the enemy to possess. Plans for. chemical rearmament in the West are already well advanced. Unless disarmament negotiations suddenly bear fruit, the present climate of suspicion may provide the perfect culture in which to breed a new generation of weapons.

REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN

In 1967, Report From Iron Mountain On The Possibility And Desirability Of Peace was published.

The report said, in part:

"As we have indicated, the preeminence of the concept of war as the principal organizing force in most societies has been insufficiently appreciated. This is also true of its extensive effects throughout the many non-military activities of society. These effects are less apparent in complex industrial societies like our own than in primitive cultures, the activities of which can be more easily and fully comprehended."

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. Up to now, this has been suggested only in fiction, notably in the works of Wells, Huxley, Orwell, and others engaged in the imaginative anticipation of the sociology of the future. But the fantasies projected in Brave New World and 1984 have seemed less and less implausible over the years since their publication. The traditional association of slavery with ancient pre-industrial cultures should not blind us to its adaptability to advanced forms of social organization, nor should its equally traditional incompatibility with Western moral and economic values. It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of "universal" military service.

From the Iron Mountain report, under the heading of Ecological,

Considering the shortcomings of war as a mechanism of selective population control, it might appear that devising substitutes for this function should be comparatively simple. Schematically this is so, but the problem of timing the transition to a new ecological balancing device make the feasibility of substitution less certain.

It must be remembered that the limitation of war in this function is entirely eugenic. War has not been genetically progressive. But as a system of gross population control to preserve the species it cannot fairly be faulted. And, as has been pointed out, the nature of war is itself in transition. Current trends in warfare - the increasing strategic bombing of civilians and the greater military importance now attached to the destruction of sources of supply (as opposed to purely "military" bases and personnel) - strongly suggest that a truly qualitative improvement is in the making. Assuming the war system is to continue, it is more than probable that the regressively selective quality of war will have been reversed, as its victims become more genetically representative of their societies.

There is no question but that a universal requirement that procreation be limited to the products of artificial insemination would provide a fully adequate substitute control for population levels. Such a reproductive system would, of course, have the added advantage of being susceptible of direct eugenic management. Its predictable further development - conception and embryonic growth taking place wholly under laboratory conditions - would extend these controls to the logical conclusion. The ecological function of war under these circumstances would not only be superseded but surpassed in effectiveness.

The indicated intermediate step - total control of conception with a variant of the ubiquitous "pill" via water supplies or certain essential foodstuffs, offset by a controlled "antidote" - is already under development. There would appear to be no foreseeable need to revert to any of the outmoded practices referred to in the previous section (infanticide, etc.) as there might have been if the possibility of transition to peace had arisen two generations ago.

The real question here, therefore, does not concern the viability of this war substitute, but the political problems involved in bringing it about. It cannot be established while the war system is still in effect. The reason for this is simple: excess population is war material. As long as any society must contemplate even a remote possibility of war, it must maintain a maximum supportable population, even when so doing critically aggravates an economic liability. This is paradoxical, in view of war's role in reducing excess population, but it is readily understood. War controls the general population level, but the ecological interest of any single society lies in maintaining its hegemony vis-a-vis other societies. The obvious analogy can be seen in a free-enterprise economy. Practices damaging to the society as a whole - both competitive and monopolistic - are abetted by the conflicting economic motives of individual capital interests. The obvious precedent can be found in the seemingly irrational political difficulties which have blocked universal adoption of simple birth-control methods. Nations desperately in need of increasing unfavorable production-consumption ratios are nevertheless unwilling to gamble their possible military requirements of twenty years hence for this purpose. Unilateral population control, as practised in ancient Japan and in other isolated societies, is out of the question in today's world.

Since the eugenic solution cannot be achieved until the transition to the peace system takes place, why not wait? One must qualify the inclination to agree. As we noted earlier, a real possibility of an unprecedented global crisis of insufficiency exists today, which the war system may not be able to forestall. If this should come to pass before an agreed-upon transition to peace were completed, the result might be irrevocably disastrous. There is clearly no solution to this dilemma; it is a risk which must be taken. But it tends to support the view that if a decision is made to eliminate the war system, it were better done sooner than later.

THE CLUB OF ROME

The 1972 document entitled The Limits To Growth - A Report For The Club Of Rome's Project On The Predicament Of Mankind, says:

"The problems U Thant mentions - the arms race, environmental deterioration, the population explosion and economic stagnation - are often cited as the central, long-term problems of modern man. Many people believe that the future course of human society, perhaps even the survival of human society, depends on the speed and effectiveness with which the world responds to these issues. And yet only a small fraction of the world's population is actively concerned with understanding these problems or seeking their solutions." The report goes on, [quoting:]

The following conclusions have emerged from our work so far. We are by no means the first group to have stated them. For the past several decades, people who have looked at the world with a global, long-term perspective have reached similar conclusions. Nevertheless, the vast majority of policy-makers seems to be actively pursuing goals that are inconsistent with these results.

Our conclusions are:

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limit to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on Earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.

3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition - the transition from growth to global equilibrium. [End quoting.]

Conclusion:

How do we, the sponsors of this project, evaluate the report? We cannot speak definitively for all our colleagues in The Club of Rome, for there are differences of interest, emphasis, and judgment among them. But, despite the preliminary nature of the report, the limits of some of its data, and the inherent complexity of the world system it attempts to describe, we are convinced of the importance of its main conclusions. We believe that it contains a message of much deeper significance than a mere comparison of dimensions, a message relevant to all aspects of the present human predicament. Although we can here express only our preliminary views, recognizing that they still require a great deal of reflection and ordering, we are in agreement on the following points:

1. We are convinced that realization of the quantitative restraints of the world environment and of the tragic consequences of an overshoot is essential to the initiation of new forms of thinking that will lead to a fundamental revision of human behavior and, by implication, of the entire fabric of present-day society.

It is only now that, having begun to understand something of the interactions between demographic growth and economic growth, and having reached unprecedented levels in both, man is forced to take account of the limited dimensions of his planet and the ceilings to his presence and activity on it. For the first time, it has become vital to inquire into the cost of unrestricted material growth and to consider alternatives to its continuation.

2. We are further convinced that demographic pressure in the world has already attained such a high level, and is moreover so unequally distributed, that this alone must compel mankind to seek a state of equilibrium on our planet.

Under-populated areas still exist; but, considering the world as a whole, the critical point in population growth is approaching, if it has not already been reached. There is of course no unique optimum, long-term population level; rather, there are a series of balances between population levels, social and material standards, personal freedom, and other elements making up the quality of life. Given the finite and diminishing stock of non-renewable resources and the finite space of our globe, the principle must be generally accepted that growing numbers of people will eventually imply a lower standard of living and a more complex problematique. On the other hand, no fundamental human value would be endangered by a leveling off of demographic growth.

3. We recognize that world equilibrium can become a reality only if the lot of the so-called developing countries is substantially improved, both in absolute terms and relative to the economically developed nations, and we affirm that this improvement can be achieved only through a global strategy.

Short of a world effort, today's already explosive gaps and inequalities will continue to grow larger. The outcome can only be disaster, whether due to the selfishness of individual countries that continue to act purely in their own interests, or to a power struggle between the developing and developed nations. The world system is simply not ample enough nor generous enough to accommodate much longer such egocentric and conflictive behavior by its inhabitants. The closer we come to the material limits to the planet, the more difficult this problem will be to tackle.

4. We affirm that the global issue of development is, however, so closely interlinked with other global issues that an overall strategy must be evolved to attack all major problems, including in particular those of man's relationship with his environment.

With world population doubling time a little more than 30 years, and decreasing, society will be hard put to meet the needs and expectations of so many more people in so short a period. We are likely to try to satisfy these demands by overexploiting our natural environment and further impairing the life-supporting capacity of the Earth. Hence, on both sides of the man-environment equation, the situation will tend to worsen dangerously. We cannot expect technological solutions alone to get us out of this vicious circle. The strategy for dealing with the two key issues of development and environment must be conceived as a joint one

5. We recognize that the complex world problematique is to a great extent composed of elements that cannot be expressed in measurable terms. Nevertheless, we believe that the predominantly quantitative approach used in this report is an indispensable tool for understanding the operation of the problematique. And we hope that such knowledge can lead to a mastery of its elements.

Although all major world issues are fundamentally linked, no method has yet been discovered to tackle the whole effectively. The approach we have adopted can be extremely useful in reformulating our thinking about the entire human predicament. It permits us to define the balances that must exist within human society, and between human society and its habitat, and to perceive the consequences that may ensue when such balances are disrupted.

6. We are unanimously convinced that rapid, radical redressment of the present unbalanced and dangerously deteriorating world situation is the primary task facing humanity.

Our present situation is so complex and is so much a reflection of man's multiple activities, however, that no combination of purely technical, economic, or legal measures and devices can bring substantial improvement. Entirely new approaches are required to redirect society toward goals of equilibrium rather than growth. Such a reorganization will involve a supreme effort of understanding, imagination, and political and moral resolve. We believe that the effort is feasible and we hope that this publication will help to mobilize forces to make it possible.

7. This supreme effort is a challenge for our generation. It cannot be passed on to the next. The effort must be resolutely undertaken without delay, and significant redirection must be achieved during this decade.

Although the effort may initially focus on the implications of growth, particularly of population growth, the totality of the world problematique will soon have to be addressed. We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of institutions and political processes at all levels the highest, that of world polity. We are confident that our generation will accept this challenge if we understand the tragic consequences that inaction may bring.

8. We have no doubt that if mankind is to embark on a new course, concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent.

Such an effort calls for joint endeavor by all peoples, whatever their culture, economic system, or level of development. But the major responsibility must rest with the more developed nations, not because they have more vision or humanity, but because, having propagated the growth syndrome, they are still at the fountainhead of the progress that sustains it. As greater insights into the condition and workings of the world system are developed, these nations will come to realize that, in a world that fundamentally needs stability, their high plateaus of development can be justified or tolerated only if they serve not as springboards to reach even higher, but as staging areas from which to organize more equitable distribution of wealth and income worldwide.

9. We unequivocally support the contention that a brake imposed on world demographic and economic growth spirals must not lead to a freezing of the status quo of economic development of the world's nations.

If such a proposal were advanced by the rich nations, it would be taken as a final act of neocolonialism. The achievement of a harmonious state of global economic, socio, and ecological equilibrium must be a joint venture based on joint conviction, with benefits for all. The greatest leadership will be demanded from the economically developed countries, for the first step toward such a goal would be for them to encourage a deceleration in the growth of their own material output while, at the same time, assisting the developing nations in their efforts to advance their economics more rapidly.

10. We affirm finally that any deliberate attempt to reach a rational and enduring state of equilibrium by planned measures, rather than by chance or catastrophe, must ultimately be founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels.

This change is perhaps already in the air, however faintly. But our tradition, education, current activities, and interests will make the transformation embattled and slow. Only real comprehension of the human condition at this turning point in history can provide sufficient motivation for people to accept the individual sacrifices and the changes in political and economic power structures required to reach an equilibrium state.

The question remains of course whether the world situation is in fact as serious as this book, and our comments, would indicate. We firmly believe that the warnings this book contains are amply justified, and that the aims and actions of our present civilization can only aggravate the problems of tomorrow. But we would be only too happy if our tentative assessments should prove too gloomy.

In any event, our posture is one of very grave concern, but not of despair. The report describes an alternative to unchecked and disastrous growth and puts forward some thoughts on the policy changes that could produce a stable equilibrium for mankind. The report indicates that it may be within our reach to provide reasonably large populations with a good material life plus opportunities for limitless individual and social development. We are in substantial agreement with that view, although we are realistic enough not to be carried away by purely scientific or ethical speculations.

The concept of a society in a steady state of economic and ecological equilibrium may appear easy to grasp, although the reality is so distant from our experience as to require a Copernican revolution of the mind. Translating the idea into deed, though, is a task filled with overwhelming difficulties and complexities. We can talk seriously about where to start only when the message of The Limits to Growth, and its sense of extreme urgency, are accepted by a large body of scientific, political, and popular opinion in many countries. The transition in any case is likely to be painful, and it will make extreme demands on human ingenuity and determination. As we have mentioned, only the conviction that there is no other avenue to survival can liberate the moral, intellectual, and creative forces required to initiate this unprecedented human undertaking.

But we wish to underscore the challenge rather than the difficulty of mapping out the road to a stable state society. We believe that an unexpectedly large number of men and women of all ages and conditions will readily respond to the challenge and will be eager to discuss not if but we can create this new future.

The Club of Rome plans to support such activity in many ways. The substantive research begun at MIT on world dynamics will be continued both at MIT and through studies conducted in Europe, Canada, Latin America, the Soviet Union, and Japan. And, since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.

The last thought we wish to offer is that man must explore himself - his goals and values - as much as the world he seeks to change. The dedication to both tasks must be unending. The crux of the matter is not only whether the human species will survive, but even more whether it can survive without falling into a state of worthless existence.
The Executive Committee Of The Club Of Rome
Alexander King, Saburo Okita, Aurelio Peccei, Eduard Pestel, Hugo Thiemann, and Carroll Wilson.

I: Historical Perspective II: What you can’t see will hurt you!
III: No easy Answers! IV: A Picture Emerges
V: U.N. Rings the Alarm VI: The Final Chapter

Depopulation of a Planet (3/6): By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them: The NWO in Full Bloom

“Sometimes you may wonder: Why are nations so committed to economic growth at nearly any cost? Why do central banks continue to pump in so much money long after they recognize the inevitability of its inflationary consequences? Why has GDP growth become the supreme icon of most governments, businesses and investors? When debts and deficits run amuck, why dont our leaders just slow down, take a breather, and focus on finding a more stable path?

“Your answers may be varied. But if you trace back through the chain of cause and effect, you will always return to one single, overriding factor: The population explosion colliding with finite resources. More mouths to feed. More demand. More pressure to perpetuate growth. More inflation.”
~ US Naval Services Long-Term Study: Global Tipping Points on Food, Water, Energy, Pollution, Population & Natural Resources & The Population Explosion ~

______________________________________________________________

Depopulation Of A Planet

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them

The NWO In Full Bloom

Part I: Historical Perspective
Part II: What you can’t see will hurt you!
Part III: No easy Answers!
Part IV: A Picture Emerges
Part V: U.N. Rings the Alarm
Part VI: The Final Chapter

A Report by RICK MARTIN

Part III: No Easy Answers!

11/28/95

Pope John Paul II said, "The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination." [Christifidelis laici. no. 38].

In 1974, Mankind At The Turning Point - The Second Report To The Club Of Rome was published. Written by Mihajlo Besarvic and Eduard Pestel, it says, in part:

Suddenly - virtually overnight when measured on a historical scale - mankind finds itself confronted by a multitude of unprecedented crises: the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the world food crisis, the energy crisis, the raw material crisis, to name just a few. New crises appear while the old ones linger on with the effects spreading to every corner of the Earth until they appear in point of fact as global, worldwide, crises. Attempts at solving any one of these in isolation has proven to be temporary and at the expense of others; to ease the shortage of energy or raw materials by measures which worsen the condition of the environment means, actually, to solve nothing at all. Real solutions are apparently interdependent; collectively, the whole multitude of crises appears to constitute a single global crisis-syndrome of world development.

The intensity of the crisis in global world development and the elusiveness of effective measures to bring about a solution challenge premises that have long been most fundamental in guiding the evolution of human society. Although these premises have paved the way for human progress in the past, they have also, finally, led to the present conditions. Mankind, therefore, appears to be at a turning point: to continue on the old road - that is, to follow the traditional route, unchallenged, into the future - or to start on a new path.

.....

"On certain growth issues there would seem to exist universal agreement. Consider, for example, the issue of population growth. Few would quarrel with the position that the global population cannot and should not be permitted to grow unchecked forever. That the population must level off some time, i.e., that population growth should stop, is the view gaining universal acceptance."

.....

Man's dependency on Nature goes very deep indeed; his use and misuse of resources is only part of the picture. As man has become the dominant force in the shaping of life-systems on the Earth, his ascent has been accompanied by a reduction of the biological diversity in Nature. Species not perceived to be in the service of man have been systematically reduced in number or eliminated. Should this trend continue, Earth will soon be inhabited by a diminished number of species. Today we understand much better than our ancestors that the existence of all life on Earth - our own included - depends on the stability of the ecological system. An Earth with less diverse inhabitants might not continue to possess the stability essential for adaptation and survival. And if our ecosystem breaks down - even if only temporarily - the effect on mankind will be calamitous. The ultimate irony confronting technological man may well reside in the fact that Nature's most potent threats to human welfare are not her destructive power - earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes - but the fragility of the web of life, the delicacy of those skeins which bind species to species and which comprise the dynamic bonds which relate to animate and inanimate realms so inextricably in the processes of life.

BRIEF ON MAN'S INTERFERENCE IN NATURE

Continuing with Mankind At A Turning Point,

Being "but a part of nature," man has always affected and has always been affected by his environment. However, due to the disproportionate increase in numbers and due to increased sophistication in man's intervention in natural processes, the interference of man is taking on a completely new dimension with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences; this is beginning to cause concern from an unsuspected source: the scientists who originated and developed such techniques of intervention. A good example is the most recent appeal by a group of micro-biologists to the world scientific community at large to refrain from conducting the experiments that involved inserting into bacteria the genes which are resistant to antibiotics or the genes of viruses. [Remember, this was written in 1974.] The potential danger to which the appeal specifically addresses itself is due to the fact that the bacteria often used in scientific experiments of this kind is a common inhabitant in the human intestine. A prospect of such a resistant bacteria escaping and infecting the population must be taken into account; it implies the possibility of loosing new plagues upon the world. The event was properly hailed by the scientists themselves as a historical landmark of restraint to conduct experiments purely for the sake of scientific curiosity. It represents a reversal of the cherished tradition that nothing should interfere with the sciences' search for truth. However, even if the experiments in which new, resistant bacteria are created are foolproof, there exists a real danger in: (1) the potential of using such a new technique for biological warfare; (2) the possibility of such experiments being conducted outside of a properly controlled laboratory. Although the use of this less-than-a-year-old technique is still in the hands of experts, it will be a "high school project within a few years." The solemn high-level warnings against conducting such experiments whose consequences cannot be predicted could hardly be considered as a sufficient deterrent then. But there are many others, even if considered less spectacular, examples of unknown and potentially harmful consequences of man's intervention in nature.

FOOD CRISIS

Continuing from Mankind At The Turning Point,

"The most precious of all resources is food. Given even the most optimistic projections for population growth during the next fifty years, the worldwide demand for this resource will increase several fold. But to grasp the seriousness of the food problem and to comprehend the strain the demand for food will impose on the world system, one does not have to look into the future at all: the situation is already critical."

....

Our computer analysis, pregnant with optimism, shows clearly that the food crisis in South Asia will worsen. In spite of all the advancements assumed, the availability of fertilizer and land assumed, the lack of intervening disaster assumed, the protein deficit will continuously increase; by the year 2025 it will be up to 50 million tons annually. Such deficits could never be closed by imports: to pay for that quantity of imports, South Asia would have to spend one third of its total economic output, and three times what it earns from exports. But even if South Asia had that kind of money, the physical problems of handling those quantities of food would be incredible. In one year the region would then have to import 500 million tons of grain - twice as much as the total tonnage of all goods now being shipped overseas from the United States. And that is assuming that that quantity of grain would be grown for export elsewhere - 500 million tons, after all, is larger than the total grain production of the entire Developed World. Moreover, these quantities would have to be delivered every year, in ever increasing amounts, without end. In sum, it would be impossible.

But what would happen if those imports were not available? That question forms the basis of our second, or "tragic ", scenario. All of our optimistic assumptions have remained, except that we assume that importation of grain will be part of the picture. The catastrophe would start in the early 1980s and peak around 2010: deaths related to the food shortage would be double the normal death rate. Thereafter, the death rate will decline, but only because the earlier deaths reduced the birth rate for a later generation. Or, to put is more cruelly but simply, the people who would be having babies died when they were babies. The number of food-related deaths in the fifty-year period ending in 2025 would be, in the age of 0-15 group alone, about 500 million children.

In the November 1995 newsletter Forecast Highlights, Larry Acker writes, "Where is the wheat? Answer: Some of the world's wheat crop in 1995 was damaged or destroyed by bad weather, diseases, or insects. China needs wheat due to drought that lasted from October 1994 to present. The Soviets' wheat crop shrank significantly due to drought and insects. Australia's wheat burned up in a severe drought. Canada's crop was damaged by drought and the Orange Blossom Midge (an insect). Much of Europe's crop drowned out last February and the rest burned up in the drought 6 months later. Finally, Argentina's winter crop went 120 days with no water - which all but ruined the 1995 crop.

"Who's left that has any wheat? Answer: the US. Even the US crop had problems, and much of the Hard Red Winter wheat belt centered in Kansas is quite dry as this is being written. Different varieties of wheat had problems in 1995 and most saw some reduction in total yields. The US is the only country that has sizable quantities of wheat still available for sale. There is more demand for wheat worldwide than the US has wheat to fill. An explosion is about to happen in the trading pits and some vicious events may take place before this is over. Keep in eye on China; they need lots of wheat and they'll have to get most of it from the US if they want it."

Returning to Mankind At The Turning Point, "In summary, the only feasible solution to the world food situation requires: (1) A global approach to the problem; (2) Investment aid rather than commodity aid, except for food; (3) A balanced economic development for all regions; (4) An effective population policy; (5) Worldwide diversification of industry, leading to a truly global economic system.

"Only a proper combination of these measures can lead to a solution. Omission of any one measure will surely lead to disaster. But the strains on the global food production capacity would be lessened if the eating habits in the affluent part of the world would change, becoming less wasteful."

Mankind At The Turning Point concludes with the following commentary.

We most warmly welcome this report by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel to The Club of Rome. It marks an important new step toward understanding the global natural and human systems within which we live. And it appears as a book for wide distribution at an opportune time. Under the impact of worsening world situations, public opinion has greatly matured in the last few years. However, decision-makers in every country and the world establishment generally, although forced to face up to the stark realities of our age, are still reluctant to renovate their thinking and modes of action. The Mesarovic-Pestel work will confront them with a compelling frame of references that can hardly be ignored, offering them at the same time a new, potentially powerful tool to test out the validity or futility of their views and their policies in the real world framework.

Results to date, however, are already very important. The authors have concentrated on several clusters of problems which, if not squarely met, can, alone, provoke unimaginable disasters. Backed by this intensive research and study, certain basic conclusions have been reached. They confirm earlier warnings of The Club of Rome.

Two of them should be quoted here:

(1) No fundamental redressment of the world conditions and human prospects is possible except by worldwide cooperation in a global context and with long views.
(2) The costs, not only in economic and political terms, of the world conditions and human prospects is possible except by worldwide cooperation in a global context and with long views.

The costs, not only in economic and political terms, but in human suffering as well, which will result from delay in taking early decisions, are simply monstrous.

How can a true world community emerge, or even our present human society survive when it is ridden by profound and intolerable injustices, overpopulation and mega-famines, while it is crippled by energy and materials shortages, and eaten up by inflation? What explosions or breakdowns will occur, and where and when, now that nuclear war technology and civil violence are outrunning the pace of political wisdom and stability?

The odds seem against man. Yet we are moderately hopeful. The winds of change have begun to blow. A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income, in our own outlook and behavior. Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition without irreparable lacerations.

In the UN, for example, new concepts such as that of "world collective economic security" as a necessary correlative to political security, and an innovative "charter of duties and rights" of members states is under consideration. In April 1974, a special session of the Assembly issued a declaration on the establishment of a "new international economic order." And the UN world conferences - first on man and his environment, followed by studies on population, food, and the law of the seas, with planned sessions on energy and materials, human settlements, etc. - address themselves to global problems and global solutions.

These are the ferments of an inevitable revolution in international relations; they herald in a different management of the human society. Last February in Salzburg The Club of Rome convened a meeting of senior statesmen from different countries and cultures to discuss global problems and long-term alternatives for human society. The concluding statement interpreted the meeting as unequivocally indicating that "a new spirit of active solidarity and cooperation" among all peoples and nations - called the Spirit of Salzburg - is indispensable for mankind to face the challenge of our time.

COMMITTEE OF 300

In Dr. John Coleman's comprehensive work, Conspirators Hierarchy - The Story Of The Committee Of 300.

The Committee of 300 had already abrogated the decisions of life and death unto itself, and Peccei knew it. He had previously so indicated in his book Limits Of Growth. Peccei completely dismissed industrial and agricultural progress and in its place demanded that the world come under one coordinating council, to wit, the Club of Rome and its NATO institutions, in a One World Government.

Natural resources would have to be allocated under the auspices of global planning. Nation states could either accept Club of Rome domination or else survive by the law of the jungle and fight to survive. In its first "test case," Meadows and Forrestor planned the 1973 Arab-Israeli War on behalf of the RIIA to sharply bring home to the world that natural resources like petroleum would in the future come under global planners' control, meaning of course, under the control of the Committee of 300.

Tavistock Institute called for a consultation with Peccei to which McGeorge Bundy, Homer Perlmutter and Dr. Alexander King were invited. From London Peccei traveled to the White House where he met with the President and his cabinet, followed by a visit to the State Department where he conferred with the Secretary of State, the State Department's intelligence service and State's Policy Planning Council. Thus, from the very beginning, the United States government was fully aware of the Committee of 300's plans for this country. That should answer the often asked question, "Why would our government allow the Club of Rome to operate in a subversive manner in the United States?"

Volcker's economic and monetary policies were a reflection of those of Sir Geoffrey Howe, Chancellor of the Exchequer and member of the Committee of 300. This serves to illustrate how Britain has controlled the United States, beginning from soon after the War of 1812, and continues to exercise control over this country through the policies of the Committee of 300.

What are the goals of the secret elite group, the inheritors of Illuminism (Moriah Conquering Wind), the Cult of Dionysius, the Cult of Isis, Catharism, Bogomilism? This elite group that also calls itself the Olympians (they truly believe they are equal in power and stature to the legendary gods of Olympus, who have, like Lucifer their god, set themselves above our true God) absolutely believe they have been charged with implementing the following by divine right:

1. A One World Government - New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. Not many people are aware that the One World Government began setting up its "church" in the 1920s/1930s, for they realized the need for a religious belief inherent in mankind to have an outlet and, therefore, set up a "church" body to channel that belief in the direction they desired.
   
   
2. The utter destruction of all national identity and national pride.
   
   
3. The destruction of religion and more especially the Christian religion, with the one exception, their own creation mentioned above.
   
   
4. Control of each and every person through means of mind control and what Brzezinski calls "technotronics" which would create human-like robots and a system of terror beside which Felix Dzerzinski's Red Terror will look like children at play.
   
   
5. An end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated electric power in what they call "the post-industrial zero-growth society". Exempted are the computer and service industries. United States industries that remain will be exported to countries such as Mexico where abundant slave labor is available. Unemployables in the wake of industrial destruction will either become opium-heroin and/or cocaine addicts, or become statistics in the elimination process we know today as Global 2000.
   
   
6. Legalization of drugs and pornography.
   
   
7. Depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot's genocidal plans were drawn up here in the United States by one of the Club of Rome's research foundations. It is also interesting that the Committee is presently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia.
   
   
8. Suppression of all scientific development except for those deemed beneficial by the Committee. Especially targeted is nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Particularly hated are the fusion experiments presently being scorned and ridiculed by the Committee and its jackals of the press. Development of the fusion torch would blow the Committee's conception of "limited natural resources" right out of the window. A fusion torch properly used could create unlimited untapped natural resources from the most ordinary substances. Fusion torch uses are legion and would benefit mankind in a manner which is as yet not even remotely comprehended by the public.
   
   
9. Cause by means of limited wars in the advanced countries, and by means of starvation and diseases in Third World countries, the death of 3 billion people by the year 2000, people they call "useless eaters". The Committee of 300 commissioned Cyrus Vance to write a paper on this subject of how best to bring about such genocide. The paper was produced under the title the Global 2000 Report and was accepted and approved for action by President Carter, for and on behalf of the U.S. Government, and accepted by Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of State. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the United States is to be reduced by 100 million by the year 2050.
   
   
10. To weaken the moral fiber of the nation and to demoralize workers in the labor class by creating mass unemployment. As jobs dwindle due to the post industrial zero growth policies introduced by the Club of Rome, demoralized and discouraged workers will resort to alcohol and drugs. The youth of the land will be encouraged by means of rock music and drugs to rebel against the status quo, thus undermining and eventually destroying the family unit. In this regard The Committee of 300 commissioned Tavistock Institute to prepare a blueprint as to how this could be achieved. Tavistock directed Stanford Research to undertake the work under the direction of Professor Willis Harmon. This work later became known as The Aquarian Conspiracy.
    
    
11. To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then "managing" such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result. In the case of the United States, an agency for crisis management is already in place. It is called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), whose existence I first disclosed in 1980. There will be more on FEMA as we proceed.
    
    
12. To introduce new cults and continue to boost those already functioning, which includes rock "music" gangsters such as the filthy, degenerate Mick Jagger's Rolling Stones (a gangster group much favored by European Black Nobility) and all of the Tavistock-created "rock" groups which began with The Beatles.
    
    
13. To continue to build up the cult of Christian fundamentalism begun by the British East India Company's servant, Darby, which will be misused to strengthen the Zionist state of Israel through identifying with the Jews through the myth of "God's Chosen People" and by donating very substantial amounts of money to what they mistakenly believe is a religious cause in the furtherance of Christianity.
    
    
14. To press for the spread of religious cults such as the Moslem Brotherhood, Moslem fundamentalism, the Sikhs, and to carry out experiments of the Jim Jones and "Son of Sam"-type of murders. It is worth noting that the late Ayatollah Khomeini was a creation of British Intelligence, Military Intelligence Division 6, commonly known as MI-6, as I reported in my 1985 work, What Really Happened In Iran.
    
    
15. To export "religious liberation" ideas around the world so as to undermine all existing religions but more especially the Christian religion. This began with "Jesuit Liberation Theology" which brought about the downfall of the Somoza family rule in Nicaragua and which is today destroying El Salvador, now 25 years into a "civil war", Costa Rica and Honduras. One very active entity engaged in so-called liberation theology is the Communist-oriented Mary Knoll Mission. This accounts for the extensive media attention to the murder of four of Mary Knoll's so-called nuns in El Salvador a few years ago.
    
    The four nuns were Communist subversive agents and their activities were widely documented by the government of El Salvador. The United States press and new media refused to give any space or coverage to the mass of documentation in possession of the Salvadoran government, documentation which proved what the Mary Knoll Mission nuns were doing in the country. Mary Knoll is in service in many countries, and played a leading role in bringing Communism to Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola and South Africa.
    
    
16. To cause a total collapse of the world's economies and engender total political chaos.
    
    
17. To take control of all foreign and domestic policies of the United States.
    
    
18. To give the fullest support of supranational institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the World Court and, as far as possible, make local institutions of lesser effect by gradually phasing them out or bringing them under the mantle of the United Nations.
    
    
19. Penetrate and subvert all governments, and work from within them to destroy the sovereign integrity of nations represented by them.
    
    
20. Organize a world-wide terrorist apparatus and negotiate with terrorists whenever terrorist activities take place. It will be recalled that it was Bettino Craxi who persuaded the Italian and U.S. governments to negotiate with the Red Brigades kidnappers of Prime Minister Moro and General Dozier. As an aside, General Dozier is under orders not to talk about what happened to him. Should he break that silence, he will not doubt be made "a horrible example of" in the manner in which Kissinger dealt with Aldo Moro, Ali Bhutto and General Zia ul Haq.
    
    
21. Take control of education in America with the intent and purpose of utterly and completely destroying it.

Much of these goals, which I first enumerated in 1969, have since been achieved or are well on their way to being achieved. Of special interest in the Committee of 300 program is the core of their economic policy, which is largely based on the teachings of Malthus, the son of an English country parson who was pushed to prominence by the British East India Company upon which the Committee of 300 is modeled.

Malthus maintained that man's progress is tied to the Earth's natural ability to support a given number of people, beyond which point Earth's limited resources would rapidly be depleted. Once these natural resources have been consumed, it will be impossible to replace them. Hence, Malthus observed, it is necessary to limit populations within the boundaries of decreasing natural resources. It goes without saying that the elite will not allow themselves to be threatened by a burgeoning population of "useless eaters," hence culling must be practiced. As I have previously stated, "culling" is going on today, using the methods mandated in the Global 2000 Report. All economic plans of the Committee meet at the crossroads of Malthus and Frederick Von Hayek, another doom and gloom economist who is sponsored by the Club of Rome. The Austrian born Von Hayek has long been under the control of David Rockefeller, and Von Hayek theories are fairly widely accepted in the United States. According to Von Hayek, the United States economic platform must be based on (a) Urban Black Markets; (b) Small Hong Kong-type industries utilizing sweat-shop labor; (c)The Tourist Trade; (d) Free Enterprise Zones where speculators can operate unhindered and where the drug trade can flourish; (e) End of all industrial activity and; (f) Close down all nuclear energy plants.

Von Hayek's ideas dove-tail perfectly with those of the Club of Rome, which is perhaps why he is so well promoted in rightwing circles in this country. The mantle of Von Hayek is being passed to a new, younger economist, Jeoffrey Sachs, who was sent to Poland to take up where Von Hayek left off. It will be recalled that the Club of Rome organized the Polish economic crisis which led to political destabilization of the country. The exact same economic planning, if one dare call it that, will be forced upon Russia, but if widespread opposition is encountered, the old price-support system will quickly be restored.

The Committee of 300 ordered the Club of Rome to use Polish nationalism as a tool to destroy the Catholic Church and pave the way for Russian troops to reoccupy the country. The "Solidarity" movement was a creation of the Committee of 300's Zbigniew Brzezinski, who chose the name for the "trade union" and selected its office holders and organizers. Solidarity is no "labor" movement, although Gdansk shipyard workers were used to launch it, but rather it was a high-profile political organization, created to bring forced changes in preparation for the advent of the One World Government.

Most of Solidarity's leaders were descendants of Bolshevik Jews from Odessa and were not noted for hating Communism. This helps to understand the saturation coverage provided by the American news media. Professor Sachs has taken the process a step further, ensuring economic slavery for a Poland recently freed from the domination of the USSR. Poland will now become the economic slave of the United States. All that has happened is that the master has changed.

Brzezinski is the author of a book that should have been read by every American interested in the future of this country. Entitled The Technotronic Era, it was commissioned by the Club of Rome. The book is an open announcement of the manner and methods to be used to control the United States in the future. It also gave notice of cloning and "robotoids," i.e., people who acted like people and who seemed to be people, but who were not. Brzezinski, speaking for the Committee of 300 said the United States was moving "into an era unlike any of its predecessors; we are moving toward a technotronic era that could easily become a dictatorship." I reported fully on The Technotronic Era in 1981 and mentioned it in my newsletters a number of times.

Brzezinski went on to say that our society "is now in an information revolution based on amusement focus, spectator spectacles (saturation coverage by television of sporting events) which provide an opiate for an increasingly purposeless mass." Was Brzezinski another seer and a prophet? Could he see into the future? The answer is NO; what he wrote in his book was simply copied from the Committee of 300's blueprint given to the Club of Rome for execution. Isn't it true that by 1991 we already have a purposeless mass of citizens? We could say that 30 million unemployed and 4 million homeless people are a "purposeless mass," or at least the nucleus of one.

In addition to religion, "the opiate of the masses" which Lenin and Marx acknowledged was needed, we now have the opiates of mass spectator sport, unbridled sexual lusts, rock music and a whole new generation of drug addicts. Mindless sex and an epidemic of drug usage was created to distract people from what is happening all around them. In The Technotronic Era Brzezinski talks about "the masses" as if people are some inanimate object - which is possibly how we are viewed by the Committee of 300. He continually refers to the necessity of controlling us "masses".

At one point, he lets the cat out of the bag:

"At the same time the capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous control over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date files, containing even the most personal details about health and personal behavior of every citizen in addition to the more customary data.

"These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information. Our existing institutions will be supplanted by pre-crisis management institutions, the task of which will be to identify in advance likely social crises and to develop programs to cope with them. (This describes the structure of FEMA which came much later.)

"This will encourage tendencies through the next several decades toward a Technotronic Era, a dictatorship, leaving even less room for political procedures as we know them. Finally, looking ahead to the end of the century, the possibility of biochemical mind control and genetic tinkering with man, including beings which will function like men and reason like them as well, could give rise to some difficult questions."

Brzezinski was not writing as a private citizen but as Carter's National Security Advisor and a leading member of the Club of Rome and a member of the Committee of 300, a member of the CFR and as a member of the old Polish Black Nobility. His book explains how America must leave its industrial base behind and enter into what is called "a distinct new historical era."

Also in 1971, at a later date, the Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation held its energy strategy meeting for the Club of Rome: The recurring theme: LIMIT THE GROWTH OF THE U.S.A. Then to crown it all, the First Global Conference on the Future was held in July of 1980, attended by 4000 social engineers and members of think tanks, all of whom were members of or affiliated with various institutions operating under Club of Rome umbrella organizations.

The First Global Conference on the Future had the blessing of the White House which held its own conference based on the transcripts of the First Global Conference forum. It was called the "White House Commission on the 1980s" and OFFICIALLY recommended the policies of the Club of Rome "as a guide to future U.S. policies" and even went so far as to say that the United States economy is moving out of the industrial phase. This echoed the theme of Sir Peter Vickers Hall and Zbigniew Brzezinski and provides further proof of the control exercised by the Committee of 300 over U.S. affairs, both domestic and foreign.

As I said in 1981, we are set up, politically, socially and economically so that we remain locked into the Club of Rome's plans.

THE CLUB OF ROME

In En Route To Global Occupation: A High Ranking Government Liaison Exposes The Secret Agenda For World Unification, written by Gary H. Kah, the Club of Rome is described as:

Another organization that has drawn a high percentage of its members from the Council on Foreign Relations is the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome (COR) claims to be an informal organization of less than one hundred people who are, in their own words, "...scientists, educators, economists, humanists, industrialists, and national and international civil servants..." Included among these have been members of the Rockefeller family. Altogether, there are approximately twenty-five CFR members who belong to the American Association for the Club of Rome. The Club had its beginnings in April 1968, when leaders from ten different countries gathered in Rome at the invitation of Aurelio Peccei, a prominent Italian industrialist with close ties to the Fiat (there's a company worth looking at) and Olivetti Corporations. The organization claims to have the solutions for world peace and prosperity. However, these solutions always seem to promote the concept of world government at the expense of national sovereignty.

The Club of Rome has been charged with the task of overseeing the regionalization and unification of the entire world; the Club could therefore be said to be one step above the Bilderbergers in the one-world hierarchy. (COWs founder, Peccei, has been a close associate of the Bilderbergers.) As far as I have been able to determine, most of the directives for the planning of the world government are presently coming from the Club of Rome.

The Club' s findings and recommendations are published from time to time in special, highly confidential reports, which are sent to the power-elite to be implemented. On 17 September 1973 the Club released one such report, entitled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System, prepared by COR members Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel.

The document reveals that the Club has divided the world into ten political/economic regions, which it refers to as "kingdoms". While these "kingdoms" are not set in concrete and changes could still occur, it gives us an idea of what lies ahead.

Referring to the Mesarovic-Pestel study, Aurelio Peccei, the Club's founder, states:

Their world model, based on new developments of the multilevel hierarchical systems theory, divides the world into ten interdependent and mutually interacting regions of political, economic or environmental coherence... It will be recognized of course that these are still prototype models. Mesarovic and Pestel have assumed a Herculean task. The full implementation of their work will take many years.

SENATOR JESSE HELMS

On December 15, 1987, Senator Helms delivered a speech before Congress that contained, in part, the following comments:

This campaign against the American people - against traditional American culture and values - is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interests comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left. Among this group we find the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the money center banks and multinational corporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, and the large tax-exempt foundations.

Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a New World Order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute [or Council"?], and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles...

The psychological campaign that I am describing, as I have said, is the work of groups within the Eastern establishment, that amorphous amalgam of wealth and social connections whose power resides in its control over our financial system and over a large portion of our industrial sector. The principal instrument of this control over the American economy and money is the Federal Reserve System. The policies and the industrial sectors, primarily the multinational corporations, are influenced by the money center banks through debt financing and through the large blocks of stock controlled by the trust departments of the money center banks.

Anyone familiar with American history, and particularly American economic history, cannot fail to notice the control over the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency which Wall Street seems to exercise...

The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order.

The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "One-World" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, the phrase "One World" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its fundamental tenets.

Mr. President, in the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil, and certainly not a component of policy.

In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing this one-world design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as its centerpiece - into being... All that matters to this club is the maximization of profits resulting from the practice of what can be described as finance capitalism, a system which rests upon the twin pillars of debt and monopoly. This isn't real capitalism. It is the road to economic concentration and to political slavery.

THE WORLD ORDER

In Eustace Mullins' book The World Order - Our Secret Rulers, he writes:

In 1985, as a sequel to the history of the Federal Reserve System, this writer published The World Order as a compendium of additional information on this subject. It never occurred to me to call it The New World Order because my researches had traced its depredations back for some five thousand years. Perhaps in response to the exposes in this volume, the spokesman for the Brotherhood of Death went public with their claims for a "New World Order", which essentially was the Brave New World described by Aldous Huxley in his groundbreaking novel. Behind all demands for this new order were the same imperatives, as listed by Professor Stanley Hoffmann, in Primacy or World Order, "What will have to take place is a gradual adaptation of the social, economic, and political system of the United States to the imperatives of world order."

As Professor Hoffmann points out, the United States is the primary target of the missiles of the New World Order because it still retains, however perverted and distorted, the essential machinery for a republic which provides for the freedom of its citizens. The Order's present goals were originated by Lord Castlereagh at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when he handed over Europe to the victorious Money Power, as exemplified by the presence of the House of Rothschild. This was "the balance of power", which was never a balance of power at all, but rather a worldwide system of control to be manipulated at the pleasure of the conspirators. Henry Kissinger has been busily reviving this program for renewed control, as he wrote in a think piece for Newsweek, January 28, 1991, "We now face 'a new balance of power'. Today, it translates into the notion of 'a new world order', which would emerge from a set of legal arrangements to be safeguarded by collective security."

When minions of the World Order such as Henry Kissinger call for "collective security", what they are really seeking is a protective order behind which they can safely carry out their depredations against all mankind. This was very reluctantly identified by President George Bush, after months of dodging questions about the "new world order" which he had publicly called for, when he finally stated it really was "a United Nations peacekeeping force". This took us back to the Second World War, which produced the United Nations. Walter Millis, in Road To War, America 1914-17 further removed this program to the First World War, when he wrote, "The Colonel's (Edward Mandel House) sole justification for preparing such a bath of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order of peace and security as a result."

Note the call for "security": once again, this is the cry of the international criminals for protection as they carry out their universal work of sabotage and destruction. House had first laid out the program for this "world order" in his book, Philip Dru - Administrator, in which Dru, (House himself) became the guiding force behind the government and directed it to the goals of world order. The same forces set up a Second World War, from which the United Nations emerged as the new guarantor of "collective security". Random House Dictionary tells us that the United Nations was created in Washington, January 2, 1942, when twenty-six nations allied against the Axis, or "fascist" Powers. In The American Language, H.L. Mencken says that President Roosevelt coined the term, "United Nations" in conference with Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House in December of 1941, on the eve of the Pearl Harbor attack which manipulated us into World War II. The United Nations became an active entity at the Dumbarton Oaks conference in 1944, when Great Britain, the United States and Russia set it in motion as a financial dictator.

If the United Nations was created to fight "fascism", its mission ended in 1945, when Fascism was defeated by military force. Fascism derives its name from the bundle of rods which ancient Roman officials carried into court to punish offenders. Thus, fascism historically means law and order, the rule of law, and the intent to punish criminals. This, of course, is what the conspirators of the World Order wish to avoid at all costs. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Fascism as "one of a body of Italian nationalists which was organized in 1919 to oppose Communism in Italy." Other definitions state simply that the Fascists were organized "to fight Bolshevism". Thus the United Nations essentially was set up to battle against "anti-Communists" as exemplified by Germany, Italy and Japan. When this goal was successful in 1945, the United Nations no longer had a historic mission. Nevertheless, it continued to function, and the Rockefellers donated the most expensive parcel of real estate in Manhattan for its world headquarters. It was against this background that the Governor of New York, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, addressed a meeting at the Sheraton Park Hotel on July 26, 1968, in which he called for the creation of "a new world order".

Rockefeller ignored the fact that it was Adolf Hitler who had preempted this title as "My New Order" for Europe. The phrase was an attractive one to our politicians, as President Bush revealed when he addressed Congress on September 11, 1990, in a speech carried nationally on television, in which he called for "a new world ... a world quite different from the one we have known ... a new world order." He continued to reiterate this demand in subsequent addresses on television, declaring on January 29, 1991 in his annual State of the Union address, "It is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind, peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law." He repeated this toxin on February 1, 1991 in three separate addresses on the same day, in which he emphasized the new world order call. He modestly refrained from pointing out that it was not a new phrase, and that it had been adopted by Congress in 1782 for the Great Seal of the United States, the incomplete pyramid with its occult eye, and the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" beneath it, identifying this nation as committed to "a new world order" or a new order for the ages which apparently depended upon pyramid power for its fulfillment. This symbol dated from 1776, when Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati sect, formulated a program remarkably similar to that of the world order conspirators today. Weishaupt called for:

1. Abolition of all monarchies and all ordered governments;
   
2. Abolition of private property and inheritances;
   
3. Abolition of patriotism and nationalism;
   
4. Abolition of family life and the institution of marriage, and the establishment of communal education for children;
   
5. Abolition of all religion.

It was hardly accidental that the Rothchilds, when they hired Karl Marx and the League of Just Men to formulate a program, received the Communist Manifesto of 1848, which contained the above formula. Weishaupt's activities had taken over the Freemason movement in 1782, which then became one of the vehicles for the enactment of this program. Its true origin in ancient Oriental despotism was revealed on the editorial page of The Washington Post, January 5, 1992, when philosopher Nathan Gardels warned that "the ideal area for the new world order would be China, not the United States." Gardels points out that Marxism was a product of Western philosophy, i.e., Hegel, but that a world order would produce Oriental despotism. He supported his thesis with quotes from the Japanese Prime Minister, who complained that "abstract notions of human rights" should not interfere with foreign policy, and from Chinese leaders who denounced demands for independent liberty as "garbage".

President Bush modestly points out one of his aides, Brent Scowcroft, as the author of the magical phrase, "new world order". People Magazine, November 25, 1991 said, "Scowcroft's influence first became evident last year, several weeks after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again, while fishing, he and Bush came up with the idea of "a new world order", an ambitious phrase meant to suggest a new United States foreign policy in the post-cold war era."

TO RULE THE WORLD

Again, quoting from Eustice Mullins' The World Order - Our Secret Rulers:

Five men rule the world. This Council of Five consists of Baron Guy de Rothschild, Evelyn de Rothschild, George Pratt Shultz, Robert Roosa (from Bush's family firm of Brown Brothers Harriman) and one vacancy, at this writing. In the past several years, members of the Council who have died include Averill Harriman, Lord Victor Rothschild, and Prince Thurn und Taxis of Regensburg, Germany. None of them holds public office, but they choose who shall hold office in the nations. These five men comprise the apex of the pyramid of power, the World Order. We may ask, Why should there be a World Order? Is it not sufficient to hold absolute power in a single nation, or in a group of nations? The answer is NO, because of the nature of international travel, international trade, and international finance. International travel requires that a person may travel in peace from one nation to another, without being molested. Excepting cases of anarchy, revolution or war, this requirement can usually be met. International trade requires that traders of one nation can go to another nation, transact their business, and return with their goods or their profits. This requirement too is usually met. If not, the offended nation can exercise military force, as Great Britain did in its Opium Wars.

It is the third requirement, international finance, which called into being the World Order. In earlier days, when international trade consisted of barter, payment in gold or silver or piracy, the seizure of goods by force, there was no need for a world arbiter to determine the value of instruments of trade. The development of paper money, stocks, bonds, acceptances and other negotiable instruments necessitated a power, able to exercise influence anywhere in the world, to declare that a piece of paper represented one billion dollars in real wealth, or even one dollar in real wealth. An entry on a computer, flashed from London to New York, states that someone owes five billion dollars to someone else. Without genuine power banking, no such sum could ever be collected, regardless of the factuality or morality of the debt. As anyone in the Mafia can tell you, you don't collect unless you are willing to break legs. The World Order is always prepared to break legs, and break them they do, by the millions.

What would have happened to the earliest settlers in America if they had gone to the Indians and said, "Give us your goods and the deeds to your homes and lands. In return, we will give you this beautifully printed piece of paper." The Indians would, and did, attack them. If the settlers arrived with an army led by a Pizaro or a Cortes, they took the lands without a piece of paper.

The World Order rules with its pieces of paper, but behind every paper is a force which can be employed anywhere in the world. The force may be disguised by various subterfuges as international agreement, associations or other camouflage, but its base is always force.

The World Order rules through a simple technique, Divide and Conquer (Divide et impera). Every natural or unnatural division among people, every occasion for hatred or greed, is exploited and exacerbated to the limit. The polarization of racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. is accelerated by a flood of government decrees, originating in foundation "studies", which are designed solely to set American against American. Only in this way can the World Order maintain its iron grip on the daily lives of the people. The World Order also rules by the principle of 1984 - no groups of two or more people are allowed to gather unless the World Order has a representative present. If you start a club of dandelion fanciers, the Order will send someone who will be quietly helpful, avoid taking the front position, and who will offer to pay the rent of a meeting place or the printing of the minutes. In more radical groups, the Order's representative will be the first to suggest dynamiting a building, assassinating an official, or other violent action.

The international terrorism of the Communist Party originated in a small club of German and French working men in Paris, dedicated to quiet reading and discussion, until Karl Marx joined. It was then converted into a revolutionary group. This one example explains the Order's determination to allow no group, however insignificant, to remain unmonitored. The World Order adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality. It denies all other powers and all other realities. It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis which results when the thesis and antithesis are thrown against each other for a predetermined outcome. Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups. It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles, and try to destroy each other. By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome.

In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other. John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi. David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist. However, the Order always turns up on the winning side. A distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order. Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group, although the Order has members in controlling positions in all of these groups. If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect. You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.

It has taken centuries of patient effort for the World Order to attain the power it exercises today. Its origins as an international force go back to the Phoenician slave-traders, continues through the Phnariot families of the Byzantine Empire, then the Venetian and Genoese traders and bankers of the Middle Ages, who moved into Spain and Portugal, and later into England and Scotland. By the 14th Century, the Genoese controlled the Scottish landlords. The Imperial Family of the Byzantine Empire, the Paleologues (meaning 'the Word') were attacked by the Gnostic faction, whose materialistic Aristotelian philosophy was the forerunner of Hegelian dialective and Marxism. The Paleologues devoutly believed in the Christian faith, as expressed by the Orthodox Rite. The materialistic Venetian and Genoese armies, with the aid of the Turkish "infidels", looted and conquered Constantinople, the legendary "City of God". The Byzantine survivors recreated their culture in Russia, with Moscow as "the third Rome". The plan to destroy the Orthodox Church with its Romanov (new Rome) leaders was the hidden goal of the First World War. The victors came away with one billion dollars of the Romanov fortune, after achieving the defeat of their hated enemy, the Orthodox Church.

During the Middle Ages, European power centers coalesced into two camps, the Ghibellines, those who supported the Emperor's Hohenstaufen family, (an Italian adaptation of Weinblingen, the name of the Hohenstaufen estate), and the Guelphs, from Welf, the German prince who competed with Frederick for control of the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope then allied himself with the Guelphs against the Ghibellines resulting in their victory. All of modern history stems directly from the struggle between these two powers. The Guelphs, also called the Neri, or Black Guelphs, and Black Nobility, were the Normans who conquered England in the 11th century; the Genoese who backed Robert Bruce in his conquest of Scotland, and who supported William of Orange in his seizure of the throne of England. William's victory resulted in the formation of the Bank of England and the East India Company, which have ruled the world since the 17th century. Every subsequent coup d'etat, revolution and war has centered in the battle of the Guelphs to hold and enhance their power, which is now the World Order.

The power of the Guelphs grew through their control of banking and international trade. It was extended through the Italian centers to the north of Florence, in Lombardy, which became great financial centers. All Italian bankers, including the Genoese, the Venetians, and Milanese, were referred to as "Lombards": Lombard, in German, means "papers of monetary value (Wertpapiere)"; the Lombards were bankers to the entire Medieval world. Modern history begins with the transfer of their operations north to Hamburg, Amsterdam, and finally to London.

The great American fortunes originated with the Guelph slave trade to the colonies. Many of the slave traders doubled in piracy. Trinity Church, whose leading vestryman later was J.P. Morgan, was originally known as "the church of the pirates". Capt. William Kidd provided the material to build it in 1697, and a pew was reserved for him. He was arrested the next year, and hanged in chains at Newgate. In 1711, a slave market was set up on Wall Street near the church, and functioned there for many years.

Two of the most powerful influences in the world today are the international drug trade, which began with the East India Co., and international espionage, which began with the Bank of England.

QUALITY OF LIFE

In the 1969 book, Population, Evolution, and Birth Control: A Collage of Controversial Ideas, author Harrison Brown writes:

If we were willing to be crowded together closely enough, to eat foods which would bear little resemblance to the foods we eat today, and to be deprived of simple but satisfying luxuries such as fireplaces, gardens and lawns, a world population of 50 billion persons would not be out of the question. And if we really put our minds to the problem we could construct floating islands where people might live and where algae farms could function, and perhaps 100 billion persons could be provided for. If we set strict limits to physical activities so that caloric requirements could be kept at very low levels, perhaps we could provide for 200 billion persons.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

In Michael Tobias' book World War III - Population and the Biosphere At The End Of The Millennium, (published in 1994 by Bear & Co, Santa Fe, NM) [N.B.- does not appear to be available now] is written,

"It is estimated that every second more than twenty-eight people are born and ten die; that every hour, more than eleven-thousand newborns cry out. Each day more than 1 million human conceptions are believed to come about, resulting in some 350,000 new cases of venereal disease, and more than 150,000 abortions. Among those newborns, every day 35,000 will die by starvation, 26,000 of them children. Meanwhile, each twenty-four hours, the pace of war against the planet increases, sometimes in major affronts, other times imperceptibly, at least by our limited perceptual standards. That war includes the loss of 57 million tons of topsoil and eighty square miles of tropical forest and the creation of seventy square miles of virtually lifeless desert - every day. At current birth and death rates, the world is adding a Los Angeles every three weeks. If average human growth rates were to continue at their present course (the so-called "constant fertility variant") the world's population would reach at least 10 billion by the year 2030, 20 billion by 2070, 40 billion by 2110, and 80 billion by the year 2150."

I: Historical Perspective II: What you can’t see will hurt you!
III: No easy Answers! IV: A Picture Emerges
V: U.N. Rings the Alarm VI: The Final Chapter