The Stalking Horse
In the late 80's and early 90's when the government and communications industry people were discussing changes to the communications system to accommodate the internet and all of the potential modernizations that it would enable, they convinced Congress that the issues were too technical and complex for Congress to understand. That's not a difficult thing for technical experts in any field to do. All they have to do is to take you down into the detail of their business using the terms specific to their industry. To use techno-speak to mystify "the ignorant" is about as difficult as tricking a 3 year old. And that's not an insult to anybody's intelligence, it's just a fact that nobody can understand in an hour or two, a body of knowledge that takes years to acquire.
It doesn't take much imagination to hear the marketing that went on between industry and Congress. Visions of the George Jetson's world of efficiency and convenience. And through efficiency, lowered costs as computers take over functions that people used to do. I'm sure they were glorious visions of a 21st century of automation. In fact, in the late 1960's there was a program on TV called 21st Century narrated by Charles Osgood I believe. Each week, they would present a different aspect of how automation was going to be used in the future. At some point when I was researching the NAFTA Superhighway history, I remembered that program because the computerization of our highways and vehicles as it was being designed and implemented for the corridors was described in one of the programs in the 21st Century series in the 1960's.
All throughout my website, there are descriptions of the redesign of our government integrated with corporate systems that were global in scope - Global Health, Global Transportation, Global Supply Chain, Global, Global, Global. To design global systems requires global designers and an army of millions of facilitators, lawyers, engineers, etc. to implement the systems as designed. Initially, as any American would, I thought that these designs were originating from within our government and "Public-Private Partnership" stakeholders. But in my ongoing forensic analysis of what has gone wrong in our country that is destroying our way of life and our system of government, and in the process of documenting the Stalking Horses, I believe I've found the center cell of the 'Technocracy" - the "commonist" global systems designers.
International Institute of Applied Systems
In a biography of Aurelio Peccei that is posted on the Club of Rome website, it says the following on page 6:
Of course the point at which something like the IIASA comes into being is well after the decisions are made to create such an organization. On the IIASA website history page, they give us the decision point:
At this point, anybody old enough to remember is saying, "ah ha!" The Great Society. And they would be right. And the fact that the designs for the "Great Society" originated from a non-governmental institute partnered with Harvard - an Ivy League University in the most left-leaning state in the nation, took their activities out of public view giving them the room to design systems to bring us to this point where we are circling the proverbial toilet bowl after the flush. In fact, I remember William F. Buckley saying that he'd rather be governed by the first 3,000 people in the Boston phone book than by the academics at Harvard. The comment was funny and I agreed even though in hindsight, I had no idea of the true import of what he was saying.
In effect, the creation of the IIASA was the merger of governance of the superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. That's why our country has moved steadily left. That's why the National Endowment for Democracy is comprised of socialists - so that they could formulate left-right packaging for socialist ideas that would make it appear as if there is a two-party system with choices. In case you think that's hyperbole, ask yourself why both Democrats and Republicans refer to our form of government as a democracy. It's not a democracy. It's a Republic. With the benefit of all the research I've done, I would say that they are using the term Democracy as a synonym for Technocracy. And the body of "Communitarian Law" was no doubt the result of the implementation of the systems designs that needed a philosophical and legal basis to justify the changes in societies as mandated in those designs. But, I'm getting ahead of myself because there is more to this story of how the Technocracy came to power - and make no mistake, the Technocracy is in power. Our Congress and our state governments still have the power to change that - but it's doubtful that many of them even understand it - and the ones that do understand it have been bought off by the people who are benefiting from the global central planning and slave systems.
And lest anybody think that this "non-governmental organization" doesn't really have any power to affect our lives, you'll think again when you see the company they keep in Vienna: United States Mission to International Organization in Vienna.
Bundy and Gvishiani
In a paper called, "Across an Ideological Divide: IIASA and IIASANET" by Jay Hauben he documents the history which obviously is tied directly to the history of computers, applied technology and society. Recall from the prior section, it was noted that Gvishiana was Aleksei Kosygin's son-in-law:
Back to Jay Hauben's paper on IIASA, he wrote:
Between War and Peace
If I knew of a book that described the Psychology of Changing Systems, I would give it to you now. Because the intersection of the National Security Advisors, the CIA and their covert activities to the IIASA and it's beginning and purpose, makes sense in the context that people have to be prodded and/or courted to change their systems at whatever level the systems are being changed. It doesn't matter if it's the side of the drawer you put your socks or the system of government under which you live. Few people embrace change and it's only when life becomes intolerable without it, that people accept it and sometimes demand it. And when you are looking at projects of the magnitude of global management - global administration of the planet, it would be an understatement to say that there would be a lot of resisters. That's where the CIA and their bloody past (and present) comes into play. They were dealing with the resisters to the global totalitarian system as epitomized by the IIASA while we were being given the impression that they were fighting communism. Quite a joke. Peace only comes when people surrender to it at whatever level serves the interests of the Global Totalitarian Technocrats.
I didn't know
it at the time I started writing 'The Stalking Horse' that what I was
writing would turn out to be the prelude to "Battle
of Ideas and Systems" that I wrote last month. The threads of
'The Stalking Horse' pick up with Nelson Rockefeller, his stint in the
CIA as head of the Forty Committee followed by his "Commission on
Critical Choices". But for now, the fog of war will begin to
clear by continuing with the IIASA and the Club of Rome which is the
semi-public face of the IIASA.
Howard Raiffa was invited by McGeorge Bundy to participate in the creation of the IIASA from the inception of "The Big Idea" and he became the first American Director. In 1992, he gave a talk about the beginnings of the IIASA that is now posted on the IIASA website in the History section. The following are more excerpts from the transcript of that talk:
The fact that the Polish delegation mentioned "central nervous system" in this context tells me that they were far more advanced in their thinking on the use of computer systems and networks for global systems than were the Americans or so it would seem by looking at the career and writings of Zbigniew Brezenski who wrote 'Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era in 1970'. The Internet is the global "central nervous system" and they were talking about it in the 1960's - amazing.
No matter where a person is in their research on what's gone wrong in our country, they've no doubt run up against UN Agenda 21 - Sustainable Development. The concepts for Agenda 21 came from a report titled "Our Common Future" also called the Brundtland Report that was published in 1987. "Our Common Future" was one of a series of reports produced by an international committees empanelled to study common problems. The predecessor report, "Common Security: A Blueprint For Survival" chaired by Olaf Palme published in 1982. And before that, the Brandt Report "North-South: A Program for Survival, published in 1980. The "common thread" in the Common Reports is that they were all studying and making recommendations for solutions to "common problems" with the thinking that all the world's problems will go away if we just have a "common solution" to our "common problems".
In 1999, His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was elected to be the International Chair of the World Conference on Religion and Peace. He was also the President of the Club of Rome. On the Jordan Embassy website, there is an article about a conference that was held in November of 1999.
The Prince served as President of the Club of Rome from 1999 to 2007. On June 5, 2000, the Prince gave an Address at the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs titled, "Globalization and Culture: China and the Arab World".
On September 19, 2001, Prince El Hassan bin Talal released a statement titled, "What Next? The Vital Need for Compliance with International Humanitarian Norms". Excerpts from that statement:
It's a great statement that contains within it the inherent contradiction of common global systems. His message was about culture, tradition and norms. But those things arise out of a human need for stability and protection because the world is comprised of predators and prey. Societies organize and evolve around the twin objectives of stability and protection. The Stalking Horses of the "global commons" are the destabilizers of the very things that we all need for a peaceful world. Clearly, creative genius turned to creative madness and they missed the obvious and the fundamental. The ultimate lesson learned will be that just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is workable or desirable in practice.