<ME ROCKEFELLER,
LMAO>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/97summer/peters.htm
(Carlisle dot army dot mil?)
Constant Conflict
RALPH PETERS
From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.
Go to Summer issue Table of Contents.
Go to
Cumulative Article Index.
We have entered an age
of constant conflict. Information is at once our core commodity and the most
destabilizing factor of our time. Until now, history has been a quest to
acquire information; today, the challenge lies in managing information. Those
of us who can sort, digest, synthesize, and apply relevant knowledge
soar--professionally, financially, politically, militarily, and socially. We,
the winners, are a minority.
For the world masses, devastated by
information they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is "nasty,
brutish . . . and short-circuited." The general pace of change is
overwhelming, and information is both the motor and signifier of change. Those
humans, in every country and region, who cannot understand the new world, or
who cannot profit from its uncertainties, or who cannot reconcile themselves
to its dynamics, will become the violent enemies of their inadequate
governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United
States. We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still
wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite
hatreds without precedent.
We live in an age of multiple truths. He who
warns of the "clash of civilizations" is incontestably right; simultaneously,
we shall see higher levels of constructive trafficking between civilizations
than ever before. The future is bright--and it is also very dark. More men and
women will enjoy health and prosperity than ever before, yet more will live in
poverty or tumult, if only because of the ferocity of demographics. There will
be more democracy--that deft liberal form of imperialism--and greater popular
refusal of democracy. One of the defining bifurcations of the future will be
the conflict between information masters and information victims.
In the past, information empowerment was
largely a matter of insider and outsider, as elementary as the division of
society into the literate and illiterate. While superior information--often
embodied in military technology--killed throughout history, its effects tended
to be politically decisive but not personally intrusive (once the raping and
pillaging were done). Technology was more apt to batter down the city gates
than to change the nature of the city. The rise of the modern West broke the
pattern. Whether speaking of the dispossessions and dislocations caused in
Europe through the introduction of machine-driven production or elsewhere by
the great age of European imperialism, an explosion of disorienting
information intruded ever further into Braudel's "structures of everyday
life." Historically, ignorance was bliss. Today, ignorance is no longer
possible, only error.
The contemporary
expansion of available information is immeasurable, uncontainable, and
destructive to individuals and entire cultures unable to master it. The
radical fundamentalists--the bomber in Jerusalem or Oklahoma City, the moral
terrorist on the right or the dictatorial multiculturalist on the left--are
all brothers and sisters, all threatened by change, terrified of the future,
and alienated by information they cannot reconcile with their lives or
ambitions. They ache to return to a golden age that never existed, or to
create a paradise of their own restrictive design. They no longer understand
the world, and their fear is volatile.
Information destroys traditional jobs and
traditional cultures; it seduces, betrays, yet remains invulnerable. How can
you counterattack the information others have turned upon you? There is no
effective option other than competitive performance. For those individuals and
cultures that cannot join or compete with our information empire, there is
only inevitable failure (of note, the internet is to the techno-capable
disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the
illusion of empowerment and community). The attempt of the Iranian mullahs to
secede from modernity has failed, although a turbaned corpse still stumbles
about the neighborhood. Information, from the internet to rock videos, will
not be contained, and fundamentalism cannot control its children. Our victims
volunteer.
These noncompetitive cultures, such as that of
Arabo-Persian Islam or the rejectionist segment of our own population, are
enraged. Their cultures are under assault; their cherished values have proven
dysfunctional, and the successful move on without them. The laid-off
blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are
brothers in suffering.
It is a truism that throughout much of the
20th century the income gap between top and bottom narrowed, whether we speak
of individuals, countries, or in some cases continents. Further, individuals
or countries could "make it" on sheer muscle power and the will to apply it.
You could work harder than your neighbor and win in the marketplace. There was
a rough justice in it, and it offered near-ecumenical hope. That model is
dead. Today, there is a growing excess of muscle power in an age of
labor-saving machines and methods. In our own country, we have seen
blue-collar unions move from center stage to near-irrelevance. The trend will
not reverse. At the same time, expectations have increased dramatically. There
is a global sense of promises broken, of lies told. Individuals on much of the
planet believe they have played by the rules laid down for them (in the
breech, they often have not), only to find that some indefinite power has
changed those rules overnight. The American who graduated from high school in
the 1960s expected a good job that would allow his family security and
reasonably increasing prosperity. For many such Americans, the world has
collapsed, even as the media tease them with images of an ever-richer,
brighter, fun world from which they are excluded. These discarded citizens
sense that their government is no longer about them, but only about the
privileged. Some seek the solace of explicit religion. Most remain
law-abiding, hard-working citizens. Some do not.
The foreign twin is the Islamic, or
sub-Saharan African, or Mexican university graduate who faces a teetering
government, joblessness, exclusion from the profits of the corruption
distorting his society, marriage in poverty or the impossibility of marriage,
and a deluge of information telling him (exaggeratedly and dishonestly) how
well the West lives. In this age of television-series franchising, videos, and
satellite dishes, this young, embittered male gets his skewed view of us from
reruns of Dynasty and Dallas, or from satellite links beaming
down Baywatch, sources we dismiss too quickly as laughable and unworthy
of serious consideration as factors influencing world affairs. But their
effect is destructive beyond the power of words to describe. Hollywood goes
where Harvard never penetrated, and the foreigner, unable to touch the reality
of America, is touched by America's irresponsible fantasies of itself; he sees
a devilishly enchanting, bluntly sexual, terrifying world from which he is
excluded, a world of wealth he can judge only in terms of his own poverty.
Most citizens of the globe are not economists;
they perceive wealth as inelastic, its possession a zero-sum game. If decadent
America (as seen on the screen) is so fabulously rich, it can only be because
America has looted one's own impoverished group or country or region. Adding
to the cognitive dissonance, the discarded foreigner cannot square the
perceived moral corruption of America, a travesty of all he has been told to
value, with America's enduring punitive power. How could a nation whose women
are "all harlots" stage Desert Storm? It is an offense to God, and there must
be a demonic answer, a substance of conspiracies and oppression in which his
own secular, disappointing elite is complicit. This discarded foreigner's
desire may be to attack the "Great Satan America," but America is far away
(for now), so he acts violently in his own neighborhood. He will accept no
personal guilt for his failure, nor can he bear the possibility that his
culture "doesn't work." The blame lies ever elsewhere. The cult of
victimization is becoming a universal phenomenon, and it is a source of
dynamic hatreds.
It is fashionable among
world intellectual elites to decry "American culture," with our domestic
critics among the loudest in complaint. But traditional intellectual elites
are of shrinking relevance, replaced by cognitive-practical elites--figures
such as Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Madonna, or our most successful
politicians--human beings who can recognize or create popular appetites,
recreating themselves as necessary. Contemporary American culture is the most
powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. While
some other cultures, such as those of East Asia, appear strong enough to
survive the onslaught by adaptive behaviors, most are not. The genius, the
secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise:
ours is the first genuine people's culture. It stresses comfort and
convenience--ease--and it generates pleasure for the masses. We are Karl
Marx's dream, and his nightmare.
Secular and religious revolutionaries in our
century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the
world or the faithful just can't wait to go home at night to study Marx or the
Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather "Baywatch."
America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our
knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not
undermine. There is no "peer competitor" in the cultural (or military)
department. Our cultural empire has the addicted--men and women
everywhere--clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their
disillusionment.
American culture is criticized for its
impermanence, its "disposable" products. But therein lies its strength. All
previous cultures sought ideal achievement which, once reached, might endure
in static perfection. American culture is not about the end, but the means,
the dynamic process that creates, destroys, and creates anew. If our works are
transient, then so are life's greatest gifts--passion, beauty, the quality of
light on a winter afternoon, even life itself. American culture is alive.
This vividness, this vitality, is reflected in
our military; we do not expect to achieve ultimate solutions, only constant
improvement. All previous cultures, general and military, have sought to
achieve an ideal form of life and then fix it in cement. Americans, in and out
of uniform, have always embraced change (though many individuals have not, and
their conservatism has acted as a healthy brake on our national excesses).
American culture is the culture of the unafraid.
Ours is also the first culture that aims to
include rather than exclude. The films most despised by the intellectual
elite--those that feature extreme violence and to-the-victors-the-spoils
sex--are our most popular cultural weapon, bought or bootlegged nearly
everywhere. American action films, often in dreadful copies, are available
from the Upper Amazon to Mandalay. They are even more popular than our music,
because they are easier to understand. The action films of a Stallone or
Schwarzenegger or Chuck Norris rely on visual narratives that do not require
dialog for a basic understanding. They deal at the level of universal myth, of
pre-text, celebrating the most fundamental impulses (although we have yet to
produce a film as violent and cruel as the Iliad). They feature a hero,
a villain, a woman to be defended or won--and violence and sex. Complain until
doomsday; it sells. The enduring popularity abroad of the shopworn Rambo
series tells us far more about humanity than does a library full of scholarly
analysis.
When we speak of a global information
revolution, the effect of video images is more immediate and intense than that
of computers. Image trumps text in the mass psyche, and computers remain a
textual outgrowth, demanding high-order skills: computers demarcate the domain
of the privileged. We use technology to expand our wealth, power, and
opportunities. The rest get high on pop culture. If religion is the opium of
the people, video is their crack cocaine. When we and they
collide, they shock us with violence, but, statistically, we win.
As more and more human beings are overwhelmed
by information, or dispossessed by the effects of information-based
technologies, there will be more violence. Information victims will often see
no other resort. As work becomes more cerebral, those who fail to find a place
will respond by rejecting reason. We will see countries and continents divide
between rich and poor in a reversal of 20th-century economic trends.
Developing countries will not be able to depend on physical production
industries, because there will always be another country willing to work
cheaper. The have-nots will hate and strive to attack the haves. And we in the
United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves. States will
struggle for advantage or revenge as their societies boil. Beyond traditional
crime, terrorism will be the most common form of violence, but transnational
criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars
will continue to plague the world, albeit with the "lesser" conflicts
statistically dominant. In defense of its interests, its citizens, its allies,
or its clients, the United States will be required to intervene in some of
these contests. We will win militarily whenever we have the guts for it.
There will be no peace. At any given moment
for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating
forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but
cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive.
The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for
our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair
amount of killing.
We are building an
information-based military to do that killing. There will still be plenty of
muscle power required, but much of our military art will consist in knowing
more about the enemy than he knows about himself, manipulating data for
effectiveness and efficiency, and denying similar advantages to our opponents.
This will involve a good bit of technology, but the relevant systems will not
be the budget vampires, such as manned bombers and attack submarines, that we
continue to buy through inertia, emotional attachment, and the lobbying power
of the defense industry. Our most important technologies will be those that
support soldiers and Marines on the ground, that facilitate command decisions,
and that enable us to kill accurately and survive amid clutter (such as
multidimensional urban battlefields). The only imaginable use for most of our
submarine fleet will be to strip out the weapons, dock them tight, and turn
the boats into low-income housing. There will be no justification for
billion-dollar bombers at all.
For a generation, and probably much longer, we
will face no military peer competitor. Our enemies will challenge us by other
means. The violent actors we encounter often will be small, hostile parties
possessed of unexpected, incisive capabilities or simply of a stunning will to
violence (or both). Renegade elites, not foreign fleets, should worry us. The
urbanization of the global landscape is a greater threat to our operations
than any extant or foreseeable military system. We will not deal with wars of
Realpolitik, but with conflicts spawned of collective emotions, sub-state
interests, and systemic collapse. Hatred, jealousy, and greed--emotions rather
than strategy--will set the terms of the struggles.
We will survive and win any conflict short of
a cataclysmic use of weapons of mass destruction. But the constant conflicts
in which we selectively intervene will be as miserable as any other form of
warfare for the soldiers and Marines engaged. The bayonet will still be
relevant; however, informational superiority incisively employed should both
sharpen that bayonet and permit us to defeat some--but never all--of our
enemies outside of bayonet range. Our informational advantage over every other
country and culture will be so enormous that our greatest battlefield
challenge will be harnessing its power. Our potential national weakness will
be the failure to maintain the moral and raw physical strength to thrust that
bayonet into an enemy's heart.
Pilots and skippers, as well as defense
executives, demand threat models that portray country X or Y as overtaking the
military capability of the United States in 10 to 20 years. Forget it. Our
military power is culturally based. They cannot rival us without becoming us.
Wise competitors will not even attempt to defeat us on our terms; rather, they
will seek to shift the playing field away from military confrontations or turn
to terrorism and nontraditional forms of assault on our national integrity.
Only the foolish will fight fair.
The threat models stitched together from dead
parts to convince Congress that the Russians are only taking a deep breath or
that the Chinese are only a few miles off the coast of California uniformly
assume that while foreign powers make all the right decisions, analyze every
trend correctly, and continue to achieve higher and higher economic growth
rates, the United States will take a nap. On the contrary. Beyond the Beltway,
the United States is wide awake and leading a second "industrial" revolution
that will make the original industrial revolution that climaxed the great age
of imperialism look like a rehearsal by amateurs. Only the United States has
the synthetic ability, the supportive laws, and the cultural agility to remain
at the cutting edge of wealth creation.
Not long ago, the Russians were going to
overtake us. Then it was oil-wealthy Arabs, then the Japanese. One
prize-winning economist even calculated that fuddy-duddy Europe would dominate
the next century (a sure prescription for boredom, were it true). Now the
Chinese are our nemesis. No doubt our industrial-strength Cassandras will soon
find a reason to fear the Galapagos. In the meantime, the average American can
look forward to a longer life-span, a secure retirement, and free membership
in the most triumphant culture in history. For the majority of our citizens,
our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvelous culture is the greatest engine of positive
change in history.
Freedom works.
In the military sphere,
it will be impossible to rival or even approach the capabilities of our
information-based force because it is so profoundly an outgrowth of our
culture. Our information-based Army will employ many marvelous tools, but the
core of the force will still be the soldier, not the machine, and our soldiers
will have skills other cultures will be unable to replicate. Intelligence
analysts, fleeing human complexity, like to project enemy capabilities based
upon the systems a potential opponent might acquire. But buying or building
stuff is not enough. It didn't work for Saddam Hussein, and it won't work for
Beijing.
The complex human-machine interface developing
in the US military will be impossible to duplicate abroad because no other
state will be able to come from behind to equal the informational dexterity of
our officers and soldiers. For all the complaints--in many respects
justified--about our public school systems, the holistic and synergistic
nature of education in our society and culture is imparting to tomorrow's
soldiers and Marines a second-nature grasp of technology and the ability to
sort and assimilate vast amounts of competitive data that no other population
will achieve. The informational dexterity of our average middle-class kid is
terrifying to anyone born before 1970. Our computer kids function at a level
foreign elites barely manage, and this has as much to do with television
commercials, CD-ROMs, and grotesque video games as it does with the classroom.
We are outgrowing our 19th-century model education system as surely as we have
outgrown the manned bomber. In the meantime, our children are undergoing a
process of Darwinian selection in coping with the information deluge that is
drowning many of their parents. These kids are going to make mean
techno-warriors. We just have to make sure they can do push-ups, too.
There is a useful German expression, "Die
Lage war immer so ernst," that translates very freely as "The sky has
always been falling." Despite our relish of fears and complaints, we live in
the most powerful, robust culture on earth. Its discontinuities and
contradictions are often its strengths. We are incapable of five-year plans,
and it is a saving grace. Our fluidity, in consumption, technology, and on the
battlefield, is a strength our nearest competitors cannot approach. We move
very fast. At our military best, we become Nathan Bedford Forrest riding a
microchip. But when we insist on buying into extended procurement contracts
for unaffordable, neo-traditional weapon systems, we squander our brilliant
flexibility. Today, we are locking-in already obsolescent defense purchases
that will not begin to rise to the human capabilities of tomorrow's service
members. In 2015 and beyond, we will be receiving systems into our inventory
that will be no more relevant than Sherman tanks and prop-driven bombers would
be today. We are not providing for tomorrow's military, we are paralyzing it.
We will have the most humanly agile force on earth, and we are doing our best
to shut it inside a technological straight-jacket.
There is no "big threat" out there. There's
none on the horizon, either. Instead of preparing for the Battle of Midway, we
need to focus on the constant conflicts of richly varying description that
will challenge us--and kill us--at home and abroad. There are plenty of
threats, but the beloved dinosaurs are dead.
We will outcreate, outproduce and, when need
be, outfight the rest of the world. We can out-think them, too. But our
military must not embark upon the 21st century clinging to 20th-century
models. Our national appetite for information and our sophistication in
handling it will enable us to outlast and outperform all hierarchical
cultures, information-controlling societies, and rejectionist states. The
skills necessary to this newest information age can be acquired only beginning
in childhood and in complete immersion. Societies that fear or otherwise
cannot manage the free flow of information simply will not be competitive.
They might master the technological wherewithal to watch the videos, but we
will be writing the scripts, producing them, and collecting the royalties. Our
creativity is devastating. If we insist on a "proven" approach to military
affairs, we will be throwing away our greatest national advantage.
We need to make sure our information-based
military is based on the right information.
Facing this environment of constant conflict
amid information proliferation, the military response has been to coin a new
catchphrase--information warfare--and then duck. Although there has been
plenty of chatter about information warfare, most of it has been as helpful
and incisive as a discussion of sex among junior high school boys; everybody
wants to pose, but nobody has a clue. We have hemorrhaged defense dollars to
contractors perfectly willing to tell us what we already knew. Studies study
other studies. For now, we have decided that information warfare is a matter
of technology, which is akin to believing that your stereo system is more
important to music than the musicians.
Fear not. We are already masters of
information warfare, and we shall get around to defining it eventually. Let
the scholars fuss. When it comes to our technology (and all technology
is military technology) the Russians can't produce it, the Arabs can't afford
it, and no one can steal it fast enough to make a difference. Our great
bogeyman, China, is achieving remarkable growth rates because the Chinese
belatedly entered the industrial revolution with a billion-plus population.
Without a culture-shattering reappreciation of the role of free information in
a society, China will peak well below our level of achievement.
Yes, foreign cultures are reasserting their
threatened identities--usually with marginal, if any, success--and yes, they
are attempting to escape our influence. But American culture is infectious, a
plague of pleasure, and you don't have to die of it to be hindered or crippled
in your integrity or competitiveness. The very struggle of other cultures to
resist American cultural intrusion fatefully diverts their energies from the
pursuit of the future. We should not fear the advent of fundamentalist or
rejectionist regimes. They are simply guaranteeing their peoples' failure,
while further increasing our relative strength.
It remains difficult, of course, for military
leaders to conceive of warfare, informational or otherwise, in such broad
terms. But Hollywood is "preparing the battlefield," and burgers precede
bullets. The flag follows trade. Despite our declaration of defeat in the face
of battlefield victory in Mogadishu, the image of US power and the US military
around the world is not only a deterrent, but a psychological warfare tool
that is constantly at work in the minds of real or potential opponents. Saddam
swaggered, but the image of the US military crippled the Iraqi army in the
field, doing more to soften them up for our ground assault than did tossing
bombs into the sand. Everybody is afraid of us. They really believe we can do
all the stuff in the movies. If the Trojans "saw" Athena guiding the Greeks in
battle, then the Iraqis saw Luke Skywalker precede McCaffrey's tanks. Our
unconscious alliance of culture with killing power is a combat multiplier no
government, including our own, could design or afford. We are magic. And we're
going to keep it that way.
Within our formal military, we have been
moving into information warfare for decades. Our attitude toward data
acquisition and, especially, data dissemination within the force has broken
with global military tradition, in which empowering information was reserved
for the upper echelons. While our military is vertically responsible, as it
must be, it is informationally democratic. Our ability to decentralize
information and appropriate decisionmaking authority is a revolutionary
breakthrough (the over-praised pre-1945 Germans decentralized some tactical
decisionmaking, but only within carefully regulated guidelines--and they could
not enable the process with sufficient information dissemination).
No military establishment has ever placed such
trust in lieutenants, sergeants, and privates, nor are our touted future
competitors likely to do so. In fact, there has been an even greater diffusion
of power within our military (in the Army and Marines) than most of us
realize. Pragmatic behavior daily subverts antiquated structures, such as
divisions and traditional staffs. We keep the old names, but the behaviors are
changing. What, other than its flag, does the division of 1997 have in common
with the division of World War II? Even as traditionalists resist the
reformation of the force, the "anarchy" of lieutenants is shaping the Army of
tomorrow. Battalion commanders do not understand what their lieutenants are up
to, and generals would not be able to sleep at night if they knew what the
battalion commanders know. While we argue about change, the Army is changing
itself. The Marines are doing a brilliant job of reinventing themselves while
retaining their essence, and their achievement should be a welcome challenge
to the Army. The Air Force and Navy remain rigidly hierarchical.
Culture is fate.
Countries, clans, military services, and individual soldiers are products of
their respective cultures, and they are either empowered or imprisoned. The
majority of the world's inhabitants are prisoners of their cultures, and they
will rage against inadequacies they cannot admit, cannot bear, and cannot
escape. The current chest-thumping of some Asian leaders about the degeneracy,
weakness, and vulnerability of American culture is reminiscent of nothing so
much as of the ranting of Japanese militarists on the eve of the Pacific War.
I do not suggest that any of those Asian leaders intend to attack us, only
that they are wrong. Liberty always looks like weakness to those who fear it.
In the wake of the Soviet collapse, some
commentators declared that freedom had won and history was at an end. But
freedom will always find enemies. The problem with freedom is that it's just
too damned free for tyrants, whether they be dictators, racial or religious
supremacists, or abusive husbands. Freedom challenges existing orders, exposes
bigotry, opens opportunity, and demands personal responsibility. What could be
more threatening to traditional cultures? The advent of this new information
age has opened a fresh chapter in the human struggle for, and with, freedom.
It will be a bloody chapter, with plenty of computer-smashing and
head-bashing. The number one priority of non-Western governments in the coming
decades will be to find acceptable terms for the flow of information within
their societies. They will uniformly err on the side of
conservatism--informational corruption--and will cripple their competitiveness
in doing so. Their failure is programmed.
The next century will indeed be American, but
it will also be troubled. We will find ourselves in constant conflict, much of
it violent. The United States Army is going to add a lot of battle streamers
to its flag. We will wage information warfare, but we will fight with
infantry. And we will always surprise those critics, domestic and foreign, who
predict our decline.
Major (P) Ralph Peters is assigned to the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he is responsible
for future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he
served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate of the US Army
Command and General Staff College and holds a master's degree in international
relations. Over the past several years, his professional and personal research
travels have taken Major Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia,
Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the
countries of the Andean Ridge. He has published widely on military and
international concerns. His sixth novel, Twilight of Heroes, was
recently released by Avon Books. This is his eighth article for Parameters.
The author wishes to acknowledge the importance to this essay of discussions
with Lieutenant Colonels Gordon Thompson and Lonnie Henley, both US Army
officers.
Go to Summer issue Table of Contents.
Go to
Cumulative Article Index
Go to
Parameters home page.
Reviewed 8 May 1997. Please send comments or
corrections to
Parameters@carlisle.army.mil
Good News, Earth!! The
Rockefeller Intellectual Elite are taking over!!!
(Actually,
think
of it
as
adding
new
genetic
material
to the
retarded
inbreeders
of
Anglo
decent-
which
is a
real
thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_%28Y-DNA%29
)
"...march towards a
world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers
is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past
centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission
meeting in June of 1991
That means me!!! (I'm a distant
cousin of these paranoid neurotic criminally insane mass murdering greedy
selfish, lying-ass gossiping violent, vicious, COWARDS, and guess what,
even the cousins are like that, up close and personal.)
Listen to what my cousin Nick says aboud youz
serfs:
Aaron Russo and Nick Rockefeller-
Microchipped; GPS-stalked.
(That's mighty intellectual of Cousin Nick to
have spilled the beans, eh?)
The reason I created this page is because I
totally had to keep the following treatise on how the world is going to turn
out according to this truly paranoid nutcase, Major Ralph Peters. It
kind of like totally jives with what the NeoCons and Kissinger and their ilk
are saying, and we all know by now that Henry Kissinger was a Rockfeller
pitbull. (Ah-hem. One of my family's servants, ya might say.)
The following is self-ass-biting at its finest. Everything predicted
here fell backwards upon us, and it is us who are weak, stupid, cowardly,
empty of creativity, greedy, immoral, inept and unable to use our military
forces as a "human-machine interface." Instead, a third of the troops
are traumatized out of their minds, another third had their minds fried by
the shock-waves of their own bombs and the recruiters are hiring criminals
and the retarded, and the final third just plain don't give a shit about the
outcome of Bushie's fraudulent wars. Bushie f-d up the Middle East and
the future of the PetroDollar, totally ending what might have taken place
more naturally over 75 years... in a mere 7.
And I-ME-MY in my Rockefeller
"Brilliant," "Genius" Intellectual Eliteness, have proven to the world that
American Medicine needed to be turned upside down to make it upright thanks to
the criminally insane behavior of Yale University on "Lyme Disease." And
if you don't believe that, read these proclamations by the NIH, the AMA, the
AVA, and the CDC:
Go here for that AMA-AVA-CDC announcement
(they talk about vector-borne diseases duh)
HEEeeyyy!! Look at all the millions in grants NOT
going to Yale or New York Medical College !!
JHU receives $93 million grant
from NIH:
http://www.baltimoresun.com
Award meant to help school turn promising medical discoveries into
tangible treatments
Yale got
squat and American Medicine is starting over from scratch due to the
assinnine, perverted behavior of everyone associated with Yale University.
It means: There is no expertise of any kind in medicine and that US Medicine
is a Free-For-All. Do as you please. There are no rules.
CDC said so.
Leaving Poland and the
Troublemaking Crazy Trotskyites only to have to deal with them here in the
US
And I would like
to thank my other cousins, the criminally insane Rockefellers, for giving me
this excellent book
Leaving the criminally insane Trotskys,
marrying into the insane Rockefeller family Yikes What a Neverending
Nightmare.... The Trotskys (NeoCons) appear to have joined the
Rockefellers in their global campaign of "creative destruction."
That allegedly (Rockefeller WTC)
hysterical Building 7 took down the elite. They
had to be TOO greedy, didn't they?