The Stalking Horse
Part 3

 

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 Analysis (IIASA)
 

In a biography of Aurelio Peccei that is posted on the Club of Rome website, it says the following on page 6:

As a result of activities that started in the 1960s and continued into the 1970s, Peccei was one of the principal architects of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria in 1972. This Institute was formed after a considerable struggle, but then served as an important bridge between East and West, partly because its founders included the United States (through the National Academy of Sciences), the Soviet Union (through the Soviet Academy of Sciences), and further countries in the then Western and Eastern sector of the world, such as the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. IIASA became a meeting place for scholars and scientists from around the globe and provided a bridging function for the scientific world, producing important studies in different fields, including climate change, energy and agriculture.

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:

The IIASA charter was signed in London in October 1972, but the history goes back six years earlier. In 1966 American president Lyndon Johnson gave a rather remarkable speech — this was during the Cold War — in which he said it was time that the scientists of the United States and the Soviet Union worked together on problems other than military and space matters, on problems that plagued all advanced societies, like energy, our oceans, the environment, health. And he called for a liaison between the scientists of East and West.

Johnson enlisted McGeorge Bundy to pursue the topic. Bundy had been an adviser to presidents Kennedy and Johnson, but before that had been Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. Bundy knew me because I would go from department to department at Harvard, doing my decision thing.

One of the first things Bundy did was to commission a report from the Rand Corporation. Roger Levien, the second director of IIASA, wrote that report, and it was very positive. Unfortunately, it got lost in the shuffle, but it was a necessary step: it gave the United States a green light to go ahead.

Bundy met [the late] Jermen Gvishiani — Gvishiani was the deputy minister of the Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology — and he was delighted with the reaction.

Bundy and Gvishiani realized that if IIASA was going to be stable, it should be multilateral, not bilateral. Since it was to be multilateral, Gvishiani pushed for inclusion of the German Democratic Republic. This was embarrassing for the United States: the US didn’t recognize East Germany. Our first crisis.
It was surmounted by deciding that the new institute would be nongovernmental. How lucky!

What that meant was not very clear, because the intention was that governments would finance the center. For the US it meant that the National Academy of Sciences got into the act. The money went from the National Science Foundation, which is governmental, to the academy, which is nongovernmental: they sort of laundered the money.

  

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: 

Both Johnson and Kosygin were given encouragement in the direction of East-West cooperation when they met unexpectedly in June 1967. Kosygin was in New York to address the extraordinary session of the United Nations in connection with the 1967 Six-Day War in the Middle East. Johnson proposed a meeting. At the last minute, the Soviets accepted. The meeting was precisely half way between New York City and Washington, D.C in the small town of Glassboro, New Jersey. The president and the premier discussed the issues of the serious situation in the Middle East and much else. They found each other “capable of showing good will and searching for mutual understanding.”8 Also, in nasty weather, over 2000 local people gathered, by all accounts spontaneously, to cheer on what they saw as an example of international cooperation. The homemade signs
welcomed Kosygin as a friend and there was little of the usual popular hostility because of the Vietnam war toward Johnson.
9


Gvishiani and Bundy were assigned by their respective sides to carry on the negotiations despite the tension in the world over the division of Germany, the Vietnam war, the Middle East conflicts and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Howard Raiffa
10, the eventual first Director of IIASA explained later that Gvishiani and Bundy shared a belief in the potential value of an East-West center for research of solutions of complex problems neither side could solve alone. The problems were of two types, ‘universal’ and ‘global’. At IIASA the term universal would be used for problems that effected many countries within their own bounders, such as health care delivery or urban planning. Global problems would be those which would involve many or all countries for their solutions like human contribution to climate change or management of oceans. Raiffa reasoned that the world was interdependent and volatile so both sides were willing to work toward cooperation even while there was competition. A sort of unconscious “global concern” was emerging.11 Also, there was great respect for science at all levels of Soviet society. International scientific collaboration would be welcomed by the Soviet people as it would be by much of the world.


"Forty Committee"


The loop on this story begins to close when one looks at the "Forty Committee"  and the CIA.  In a magazine called Genesis, L Fletcher Prouty was the author of an article titled, "The Forty Committee".  

What is this Forty Committee, which has this power over the noncommunist world? Who are its members? Do they operate within any law? Whom do they represent and whose interests do they promote?

        The Forty Committee is the latest of a long line of such committees, all of which live in deepest secrecy. Before it was called the Forty Committee it was the 303 Committee. Before that the Special Group. In the early Fifties it was the Special Group 10/2 and later the Special Group 5412 or 5412/2.[1] Ostensibly this organization has always been made up of a representative of the President (the President's Advisor for National Security Affairs -- a euphemism for the CIA's man in the White House); a representative of the Secretary of State and one for the Secretary of Defense. It also includes the Director of the CIA and since Kennedy's time it has included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These five men, representing as they do the principals of the National Security Council, have had thrust upon them the responsibility for international clandestine operations.

        At one time Nelson Rockefeller was the President's National Security Advisor. So were Robert Cutler, McGeorge Bundy, and Maxwell Taylor. The present incumbent is Henry Kissinger, because he did not relinquish that CIA-oriented job when he became Secretary of State. This is no doubt an unauthorized and perhaps illegal use of this position because the law requires that the President have a National Security Advisor. By his very duties this advisor performs functions that are in direct conflict with those of the Secretary of State.

Back to Jay Hauben's paper on IIASA, he wrote:

Around President Johnson in 1966 were policy advisers3 including McGeorge Bundy.4  Bundy had left his position as Special Advisor to the United States President to be the president of the Ford Foundation but he remained active as one of Johnson’s inner circle. These advisors, while advocating the bombing of North Vietnam, also argued that US interests in Europe and its image abroad would be served by “constructive political, diplomatic and economic initiatives to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.”5 Aware of the growing sentiment in Europe in favor of détente, a US National Security Action Memo (NSAM) was issued calling for Johnson to “actively develop areas of peaceful cooperation with the nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union . . . to help create an environment in which peaceful settlement of the division of Germany and of Europe will become possible."6 Offering cooperation in the solution of global problems like pollution and acid rain was expected to be attractive as was “providing Western instruction in …modern management.”

 

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. 
 

"Common Problems"

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:  

Name Games

I have a folder from ’68 and it says International Center for the Study of Problems Common to Advanced Industrialized Societies. That was decided in Sussex, when the Soviets weren’t there. And they objected: ‘What do you mean by advanced industrialized society?’ So we said, ‘Well, we’ll have a Center for Research of Common Problems.’ And they said, ‘What do you mean by common problems?’ We said, ‘We’ll have a Center for Research.’ ‘And why should it be research and not training?’ ‘We’ll have a Center for Study.’ ‘Should it be a center or an institute? Should it be written center or centre?’ ‘We’ll have an institute.’

Names kept pouring out. Cybernetics was the favorite word for Eastern Europeans. Management science, operations research, policy analysis — all kinds of names, but every suggestion had an objection.

In the ’60s I wrote a book called Applied Statistical Decision Theory, and everybody said, ‘What do you mean by applied statistical decision theory?’ So I got an idea: call it applied systems analysis, because nobody will know what it means. We had a clean slate.

The Polish delegation was excited because they wanted to study the central nervous system. Applied systems analysis didn’t mean that: it had something to do with management and policies and societal implications, rather than individual implications.

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.

 

"The Commons"

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.

Excerpts:

AMMAN — The general assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) closed on Monday announcing the election of HRH Prince Hassan as international chair of the organisation, and issuing the "Amman Declaration."

More than 1,000 religious, civic, and political leaders from around 60 countries affirmed after five days of intense deliberation and groundbreaking dialogue their commitment to "common humanity, common security, common interdependence, common future, common living, and comprehensive education for peace."

 

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:

The last century was perhaps the bloodiest in recorded human history and the last millennium was uniquely characterised by the dehumanisation of others. This century, too, has begun with one of the bloodiest acts we can imagine, and the new millennium all of a sudden echoes with the familiar cries of hatred, anger and violence.

We have once again come to a watershed in our understanding of each other.

Is it not time that policymakers ponder over the constituent elements of the twin concepts of civilisation and culture? Is it not time to recognise that culture and identity for many in the world represents security? Any global response, in order to have legitimacy for all concerned, must be related to the various historical, legal and religious traditions.

...When the full implications of the human tragedy in New York and Washington DC have been fathomed and we have shed our tears for the citizens of many nationalities who lost their lives, including those from the Arab and Muslim world, the question will be 'what next?' This will transcend all alliances against evil and invite a common understanding of a need to return to international humanitarian, legal and moral norms. Let this be the age of sanity and wisdom.

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. 

Club of Rome

  


Vicky Davis                                                             
May 4, 2010

Stalking Horse:
Part 1
Part 2