Slave Masters Rise Again

War in the Context of Everything Else

Slave Masters Rise Again

In Part 2 of War in the Context of Everything Else, I detailed the advanced planning for the education system - the nature of which is revealed in the design of the system. Computer Systems - and especially government computer systems take years to develop and there are thousands of people both within government and outside of government who need to cooperate in projects like this. As such, they leave a trail a mile wide to follow if one knows what information to look for - and where to find it. The government computer system that was designed and built for education and labor is one component of a corporatized "government" management and control system for the "assets" of a totalitarian state.

Following the Systems

Nobody does strategic planning better than Computer Systems Designers. It's the nature of the beast that all of the entities involved in and impacted by big computer systems must be coordinated and moving in sync to all arrive at the same place at the same time on D-Day when the system is turned on. Because of that, one can go back to decisions that were made in the 1980's and early 1990's and follow the documentation to build a picture of the strategic maneuvers and elements of the design that constitute prepositioning and preparations for what will be known in the future as the world's first digital coup d'etat carried out at the administrative levels of government. The "transformations" we are living through now are the result of the coup - "New Rulers - New Rules".

"The good news from Washington is that every single person in Congress supports the concept of an information superhighway. The bad news is that no one has any idea what that means."
~ Cong. Edward J. Markey ~

Nearly everything I've written has been the result of documenting my findings from 'following the systems' up to and including September 11, 2001 and the North American Union. It's not my intent to reinvent the wheel by rewriting what I've already done. Rather, it is to organize and refine the presentation of the material and add the detail that provides the timeline and milestones that put America on the road to fascism - ending the United States as a nation; replaced by a cartel of corporations hiding behind the facade of a government.

Linguistic Fraud

Before launching into the trail of treason, a prerequisite to understanding the trail is the recognition that the terminology they used doesn't correspond to the commonly understood meanings of words. In fact, one could safely say that without the use of linguistic fraud - redefinition, misuse, and intentional obfuscation, treason of the digital coup d'etat could never have occurred.

The first term that is relevant to this topic is the word "market". In common usage, one might think of a market in the context of "supermarket" but as it pertains to the European Union, the term "market" was used to obfuscate the real goal of political reorganization of the individual nations of Europe to create a single ruling authority over all of Europe. Every agreement signed by the nations of Europe ceding power to the European Union was a diminution of power of the sovereign nations of Europe.

Excerpt from 'National Subversives Security Act of 1947'

"In the previous report (Biggest, Big Lie) there was a link to the U.S. State Department website and it was noted that Secretary of State George Kennan established a new group named the Policy Planning Staff. Their function was planning and management of U.S. engagement (Marshall Plan) in the recovery of Europe following World War II. The objective of the Marshall Plan was to rebuild Western Europe as an economically integrated region governed by a regional council. It was decided that the U.S. involvement would be through the United Nations rather than direct management by the U.S. government. The Policy Planning Staff of the State Department was the liaison between the United States and the United Nations - coordinating domestic policy with the United Nations initiatives. Because of the magnitude of the Marshall Plan and involvement with an association of governments (United Nations), the National Security Council was created by the National Security Act of 1947 (amended 1949)."

The dissolution of national sovereignty was couched in terms: Common Market, Community, etc. with the alleged goal of borderless trade, supposedly to increase "security and prosperity" for the citizens. Of course, once the real agenda of the parasitic usurpers of legitimate government power are revealed by the declining standards of living of the native population, the strategy appears to be to flood the region with immigrants who will be loyal to the usurpers because they are getting 'Something for Nothing'. Restated, the strategy is 'destabilization and economic disempowerment' - exactly the opposite of 'security and prosperity' - exposing the linguistic fraud of the marketing.

The above is precisely what is happening in the United States today with the exception that the "term of art" for dissolution of our nation is "Free Trade" which as we know really means transnational investment agreements for borderless trade. The native population is being destabilized and economically disempowered by the massive inflows of immigrants - legal and illegal. Rule of law in defense of the Homeland is no longer enforced. Violations of law by newcomers are for the most part ignored or the newcomers are aided and abetted by the parasitic usurpers:

The following is an excerpt from an article titled, "Clinton Democrats are to blame for the credit crunch" published in the UK. American Pravda doesn't provide such information to the American public:

‘Let us be clear: this is a crisis caused on Wall Street,’ insisted Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her consensus-strangling speech on Monday, shortly before her fellow members of the House of Representatives voted to reject the President’s $700 billion bail-out plan. Out on the campaign trail, Barack Obama ventured that the root cause of the trouble in the markets was that ‘too many people in Washington and Wall Street weren’t minding the store’

....Unless we take advantage of this hiatus between the crashing of financial institutions to take an honest look at the origins of our current predicament, then today’s spin and myth-making will quickly harden into tomorrow’s firm conviction. Let us be clear: this crisis was not caused on Wall Street — it was caused in the White House. The root problem was not financial — it was political, and those truly responsible for this fiasco were not bankers, nor even Bush Republicans; they were Clinton Democrats.

...Let’s wind back to 1993 and Roberta Achtenberg’s arrival on the Washington political scene. Achtenberg had made her name in San Francisco as a civil rights lawyer and activist, campaigning to keep open the city’s gay bathhouses, and (I promise I’m not making this up) pressing for an increase in the number of gay Scoutmasters. Bill Clinton offered her a job in his new administration, and Roberta Achtenberg became the first openly lesbian nominee ever to receive a Senate confirmation. She duly took up her post as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The main thrust of the Clinton housing strategy was to increase home ownership among the poor, and particularly among blacks and Hispanics. White House aides, in familiar West Wing style, could parrot the many social advantages that would accrue: high levels of home ownership correlated with less violent crime, better school performance, a heightened sense of community. But standing in the way of the realisation of this dream were the conservative lending policies of the banks, which required such inconvenient and old-fashioned things as cash deposits and regular repayments — things the poor and minorities often could not provide. Clinton told the banks to be more creative.

Meanwhile, Ms Achtenberg, a member of the kickass school of public administration, was busy setting up a network of enforcement offices across the country, manned by attorneys and investigators, and primed to spearhead an assault on the mortgage banks, bringing suits against any suspected of practising unlawful discrimination, whether on the basis of race, gender or disability. Achtenberg believed racism was a big factor in keeping minorities from enjoying the same level of home ownership as whites. She doubted if much could be done to change people’s attitudes on racial matters, but she was confident she, in cahoots with Attorney General Janet Reno, could use the law to change the behaviour of banks.

However, when little or no overt or deliberate racial discrimination was discovered among the mortgage lenders, HUD’s investigators turned to trying to prove ‘disparate treatment’ of minority groups, a notion similar to that of unintentional ‘institutional racism’. If a bank refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones, for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of dollars. A series of highly publicised cases were brought on this basis, starting in 1994. Eventually the investigators would turn somewhat desperately to ‘disparate impact’, a form of discrimination so abstract and rarefied as to be imperceptible to its supposed victims, and indeed often only discernible at all through the application of multivariate regression analysis to information stored on regulators’ databases. In fact, by 1995 Achtenberg was actually having to rein in her zealots, issuing a clarification that the use of the phrase ‘master bedroom’ in a property advertisement was, despite its clear patriarchal and slave-owning resonances, not actually an actionable offence under the anti-discrimination laws.

The Parasitic Usurpers

"Regionalization" is the strategy of the Parasitic Usurpers regardless of whether you are looking at the international arena or within the domestic arena. The idea is to corrode power from legitimate and lawful authority - handing it over to the hidden power structure of the parasites. The parasites then dictate policy from behind the curtain just as the marionette makes the puppets dance.

This is how I see the power structure of the parasites:

Insurgency from Below

The creation of insurgency in the administrative levels of government - as far as can be seen from the outside, began in 1983 when the La Paz Agreement was signed with Mexico. This agreement was for the ostensible purpose of environmental cleanup and cooperation on the border. However, when one looks at the agreement with knowledge of the 1980 Brandt Commission Report: North-South, A Programme for Survival calling for a new economic relationship between North-South with North representing the alleged wealthy border countries and South representing the allegedly poor border countries, it exposes the fraud of the environmental agenda:

"Perhaps one can illustrate part of the problem from the development of some of the
present industrialized countries in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A long and
assiduous [20] learning process was necessary until it was generally accepted that higher
wages for workers increased purchasing power sufficiently to move the economy as a
whole. Industrialized countries now need to be interested in the expansion of markets in the developing World. This will decisively affect job opportunities in the 1980s and 1990s
and the prospect of employment." Page 15

Both in the way the La Paz Agreement was written and in the implementation of it, it served what we now know was the agenda of the Parasitic Usurpers. The La Paz agreement was regionalism - creating a separate international zone managed by a supranational committee consisting of both Mexican and American administrative government employees buried within the Environmental Protection Agency with direction from the State Department via the National Security Council and it was creating an insurgency from below the elected representatives of government. Tyranny from above - insurgency from below. The same insurgency was created within the Mexican government and in fact, every government in the entire world that participates in the global "trading system".

[Note: The insurgency from below goes into action dismantling the government and re-aligning systems to link up to the global "governance" network when the 1991 High Performance Computing Act is passed and Bill Clinton signs Executive Order 13011.]

In the early 1980's when the La Paz Agreement was signed, the Bad Seed from Tennessee, William Brock was the U.S. Trade Representative. He probably was the person who was responsible for negotiating the La Paz Agreement. He was definitely the person who negotiated the first few "free trade" agreements (that aren't about trade) and he initiated the Uruguay Round of the GATT talks. In fact, in some circles, he is known as the 'Father of the Uruguay Round' which led to the creation of the WTO.

Excerpt from 2004 Pre-Summit Conference document on the Toronto G8 Information website:

The disappointment with the Tokyo Round led the US to try to launch a new Round almost as soon as the ink was dry. At the 1981 Ministerial the USTR William Brock asked the OECD to launch a program of research on agriculture and quite new issues such as trade in services and trade-related investment measures. At the 1981 Ottawa Summit a GATT Ministerial was endorsed and was convened in 1982. The timing could not have been worse. The world was in a serious recession. A serious debt crisis had emerged in Latin America. The old GATT club no longer existed and Southern Countries were firmly opposed to another negotiation. Fortunately the GATT as an institution survived. Further, an offspring of the Ottawa Summit was the Quadrilateral Trade Ministers or Quad, which played an important role in efforts to launch the Uruguay Round.

The main role of summitry in the launch of the Uruguay Round was as a focal point for coordinating among different institutions, the OECD, the Quad – amplified by inclusion of some Southern Countries – and the GATT. The OECD’s research on agriculture and services was crucial in facilitating discussions in the GATT since the GATT had very meagre research capability. Canada played an active role in this coordination and, indeed, the creation of the WTO was a Canadian initiative.

Note: "The Quad" includes trade ministers from Canada, Japan, the European Union and the United States.

Trade in Services

What is a 'Service'? It's a job. It doesn't matter whether the job is sweeping the street or whether it's a surgeon doing heart surgery. A 'Service' is work performed by an individual. For the purposes of 'Trade in Services', there is no distinction between the 'job' and the person who performs the job. Both are tradable commodities under the international agreements for 'Trade in Services'.

In 1981, the Slave Masters of the South rose again when William Brock was appointed to be the U.S. Trade Representative. The first item on Brock's agenda was 'Trade in Services'.

In a book titled, "International Trade in Services: An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations", Geza Feketekuty wrote:

(Excerpts - emphasis added)

APPENDIX:
THE HISTORY OF A CAMPAIGN:
HOW SERVICES BECAME A TRADE ISSUE

How do you sell a new concept such as trade negotiations on services to the world community?

... One of the first people to recognize the new importance of trade in services in a rapidly integrating world economy was Hugh Corbet, an Australian who had written on international economic issues for the Times in the mid-1960s. As a writer on international economic issues, Corbet had become increasingly aware that the "informed" public understood very little about trade policy. Moreover, neither the academic community nor government policymakers seemed equipped or inclined to fill this gap in public knowledge, which in practice meant a lack of public support for "good" trade policy. Corbet therefore decided in 1968 to establish the Trade Policy Research Center in London, which commissions articles and books on trade policy geared to the intelligent layman and sponsors conferences and seminars on trade policy.

As Corbet thought about the trade policy issues the center should address, it occurred to him that services were playing an increasingly important role in the world economy. Indeed, it would have been difficult for an economic observer in London during the 1960s not to be aware of the rapid growth of international services. During these years, London was one of the principal centers in the world for international services such as insurance, banking, publishing, theater, and shipping. What is more, an earlier study of nontariff barriers to trade in goods and how they might be tackled in GATT negotiations gave Corbet the idea that a similar study of barriers to trade in services might provide the basis for similar negotiations in services (Corbet, 1977). He therefore commissioned Brian Griffiths, an economist at the London School of Economics, to undertake a study of international flows of services and restrictions on transactions in the services sector. The resulting book, Invisible Barriers to Invisible Trade, was published by the Trade Policy Research Center in 1975. It became the starting point for much of the subsequent work in the field, and the Trade Policy Research Center has played a key role in the development of international thinking on trade and investment in services since that time.

First Official Recognition of Trade in Services

In the meantime, in September 1972, a group of eminent individuals from key industrial countries, under the chairmanship of Jean Rey, the former president of the Commission of the European Community, issued a report on the long-term trade issues facing the world economy. The Report by the High Level Group on Trade and Related Problems provided the intellectual underpinnings for the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations. It contained a short chapter on trade in services and was the first published document of any kind to discuss trade in services as "trade in services."

The Rey group was the brainchild of Emile van Lennep, the secretary general of the Organization of Economic Cooperation of Development, an intergovernmental organization that seeks to improve economic cooperation among industrial countries through the analysis of common policy challenges. By learning from each other, policymakers from different countries are able to develop a better understanding of economic problems and, where appropriate, to establish a coordinated approach to required solutions. Every year, the ministers from the member countries meet in May to review economic trends and to evaluate the major challenges facing the world economy.

[Note: As the Chairman of the Commission of the European Community, Jean Rey was working on the problem of how to create a 'United States of Europe'. Obviously the free movement of people across sovereign national borders was an issue for European countries in order for the merger to occur - creating a new political supra-structure, the European Union.]

Continuing:

In 1971 many trade policy officials in the key industrial countries had come to the conclusion that a new effort was needed to liberalize trade. Van Lennep therefore convened a group of eminent individuals to analyze trade and related problems in a longer term perspective, i.e.., to define the problems and assess their relative urgency, consider how they might be dealt with, and set out options for their solution.

The decision to include a chapter on trade in services was largely due to several individuals associated with the preparation of the report. One was Bill Eberle, a prominent American businessman; another was Bertil Ohlin, a well-known Swedish economist. A third was Sir Richard Powell, who had been extensively briefed by a study group put together by the Trade Policy Research Center.

...The next major step toward the incorporation of services in trade policy took place in the U.S. Congress.

...It was an executive at another company, however, who saw the full potential of expanding the definition of international trade to cover international trade in services. Ron Shelp had only recently been appointed vice president in charge of international relations at the American International Group (AIG), the American insurance company with the largest international business. Shelp had previously been with the International Department of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he worked on international trade issues. He was therefore familiar with international trade concepts, and with the assistance provided by the U.S. government to merchandise exporters in the form of export promotion activities and negotiations aimed at the reduction of foreign trade barriers. Shelp reasoned that if services could be included under the definition of trade, the government would give U.S. exporters of services the same kind of assistance.

With the full support of the president and CEO of his company, Hank Greenberg, Shelp organized a full-fledged campaign to extend many of the provisions of the trade act to services. Representatives from a number of service industries joined the campaign and offered public testimony in hearings organized by the Senate Finance Committee.

The Trade Act of 1974 included a number of key provisions on trade in services. The most important of these provisions is probably found in Section 102, which gave the president authority to negotiate on nontariff barriers to trade. Paragraph g(3) of Section 102 says simply that "the term 'international trade' includes trade in both goods and services." By simply expanding the definition of international trade, the Congress thus directed the president to concern himself not only with barriers to trade in goods, but also with barriers to trade in services.

Tokyo Round Negotiating Results in Services

In addition to these provisions, the United States obtained an informal commitment from the other industrial countries to undertake a comprehensive study of trade in services in the Trade Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The objective of the study was to determine if it was possible to identify trade issues in services that would lend themselves to negotiation in future trade agreements.

Ultimately, the Tokyo Round achieved some results because business leaders such as Shelp and Greenberg from AIG and Harry Freeman from American Express were not willing to let the administration forget about services. Bob Strauss appointed Greenberg to the Presidential Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations, which provided high-level private sector advice to U.S. negotiators, and once on the committee, Greenberg kept reminding Strauss of the legislative mandate on services. At the same time Shelp persuaded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to organize a services committee, which could monitor the government's response to the legislation and exert pressure on the administration to take the legislation seriously.

DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR NEGOTIATION

[Geza Feketekuty] With the decision to launch a comprehensive study of trade in services in the OECD, the work on trade in services entered a new stage. It was now possible to approach the subject in terms of serious, long-term effort to lay the groundwork for future negotiations. Since I represented the United States in the OECD Trade Committee, it fell to me to organize the campaign, and soon thereafter I was given full responsibility for all facets of U.S. trade policy in services.

At about the same time, a change in administration led to the appointment of William E. Brock as the new U.S. trade representative. Brock had developed a keen interest in services previously as a member of the Banking Committee of the U.S. Senate, and he brought dynamic political leadership to the effort to integrate services into the domestic and international trade policy framework.

It had become quite apparent that building an international consensus in support of multilateral trade negotiations represented a major challenge. First, except for the excellent study carried out by Wolf and Company in 1975-76 and the 1975 study prepared by Brian Griffiths for the Trade Policy Research Center in London, information about trade in services and barriers to such trade was totally inadequate. Moreover, very few businessmen, including those in the services sector, looked at international services activities in trade terms. In fact, most people, including most economists, thought that one of the principal distinctions between services and goods was that services were not tradeable and that economic activity in the services sector was therefore insulated from global economic pressures.

Selling the Slave Trade in a Modern Context

William Brock wrote the FOREWORD to Geza Feketekuty's book. Here are a few excerpts of what he said about 'Trade in Services':

For decades our manufacturing employment has remained relatively stable while services jobs have virtually exploded in number. It is an oft-ignored fact that many of those "services" exist primarily in order to make our manufacturing firms more productive. Informatics, computer services, satellite communications, education and training, financial services, - transportation, engineering, accounting-all are available as enormous assets for the U.S. industrial base to an extent equaled by no other nation in the world. Many, in fact, are specialized spin-offs from manufacturing firms of a few years ago.

As United States Trade Representative from 1981 to 1985, I was deeply involved in efforts of the United States to put trade in services on the world agenda, and as Secretary of Labor more recently, I became equally involved in helping U.S. workers adjust to the new economy. I am convinced that a profound understanding of the role of services in both our economy and the world economy is required to deal intelligently with the crucial policy issues in areas such as trade, manpower retraining, labor laws, education, taxation, and regulatory reform.

Before U.S. trade officials began talking about trade in services in the early 1980s, very little was known about either the international flow of services or the new role of services as a major driving force in the domestic economy. As we began discussing trade in services, we increased public awareness of this forgotten element of the world economy and of the crucial role it plays in generating economic growth. Insights gained from an analysis of the trade dimension yielded new insights into the role of services at home.

[Note: Right.... it never occurred to the American people - nor probably to most people in the world - that the "leaders" of their countries would sell them out - returning to a modern day, formalized system of slave trading.]

My first effort to place trade in services on the world trade agenda in the 1982 GATT Multilateral generated considerable controversy, and the compromise we hammered out in the predawn hours-after several days of nonstop negotiations-was widely reported by the press at the time as a failure. Wrong. It set in motion a process of inquiry into the GATT that led to a decision by trade ministers four years later to include trade in services as a major negotiating item in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

Geza Feketekuty has played an important leadership role throughout the process of taking an idea and a glimmer in the eyes of a few farsighted business leaders to a negotiation on the world stage. International Trade in Services: An Overview and Blueprint for Negotiations-is well worth reading, both for the background it provides to the negotiations on trade in services in the Uruguay Round and the insight it offers on the issues we must confront at home in coming to terms with the new services based economy. The American Enterprise Institute is to be congratulated for its sponsorship of this book, as well as of the other books in the American Enterprise Institute Trade in Services Series.

There are three very important details to remember about William Brock's history. When he was in the Senate, he was on the Senate Banking Committee. After being defeated in a re-election contest (1976), he became the Chairman of the Republican party (1977-1981). In 1981, he was appointed to the position of U.S. Trade Representative.

Backing up to the question: How do you sell a new concept such as trade negotiations on services to the world community?

Excerpts from the history of the National Endowment for Democracy:

On Capitol Hill, Congressman Dante Fascell (D, FL) introduced a bill in April, 1967 to create an Institute of International Affairs, an initiative that would authorize overt funding for programs to promote democratic values. Although the bill did not succeed, it helped lead to discussions within the Administration and on Capitol Hill concerning how to develop new approaches to the ideological competition then taking place between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Interest in American involvement in the promotion of human rights was intensified during the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, who made it a central component of American foreign policy. In the late 1970's America became committed to the process of monitoring the Helsinki accords, especially that "basket" dealing with human rights. In 1978 Congressmen Fascell and Donald Fraser (D,MN) proposed a "QUANGO" (i.e, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization) whose mission would be the advancement of human rights. The bill they introduced would have created an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom to furnish technical and financial assistance to nongovernmental organizations that promote human rights abroad.

By the late 70's, there was an important model for democracy assistance: the German Federal Republic's party foundations, created after World War II to help rebuild Germany's democratic institutions destroyed a generation earlier by the Nazis. These foundations (known as "Stiftungen"), each aligned with one of the four German political parties, received funding from the West German treasury. In the 1960's they began assisting their ideological counterparts abroad, and by the mid-70's were playing an important role in both of the democratic transitions taking place on the Iberian Peninsula.

Late in 1977, Washington political consultant George Agree, citing the important work being carried out by the Stiftungen, proposed creation of a foundation to promote communication and understanding between the two major U.S. political parties and other parties around the world. Headed by U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, a former Republican National Committee Chairman, and Charles Manatt, then serving as Democratic National Committee Chairman, by 1980 the American Political Foundation had established an office in Washington, D.C. from which it provided briefings, appointments, and other assistance to foreign party, parliamentary, and academic visitors to the U.S.

Two years later, in one of his major foreign policy addresses, President Reagan proposed an initiative "to foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means." He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study "to determine how the U.S. can best contribute--as a nation--to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force." Delivered to a packed Parliamentary chamber in Britain's Westminster Palace, the Reagan speech would prove to be one of the central contributions to the establishment of a U.S. democracy foundation.

The American Political Foundation's study was funded by a $300,000 grant from the Agency for International Development (AID) and it became known as "The Democracy Program." (Note: Link to large pdf on the history of the Democracy program...HERE )