cj#249> re: NWO article


Richard Moore

[orininally sent 9 Aug -- didn't seem to get distributed -rkm]

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:00:13 -0700
Sender: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: Democracy & NWO -- Draft 2.0

Richard --

> ... ..
>Washington considered such disputes as "internal Arab matters".  It seems
>in retrospect that Saddham was foolish to be duped by such a response, but
>after years of support and encouragement of his military ventures, one can
>understand his credulity.
>So the trap was set, and Saddham marched brashly into it.  And what a
>well-sprung trap it was!

this is not how I remember it.  It seems to be that Bush's first response to
news of the invasion was "not our business."  Later, after his "advisors"
suggested that a war president could easily get re-elected, did the tone
change to "this will not stand."  Indeed, this tactic was so effective that
the regular Demo's didn't even contest his re-election.

In general, I think those within the evil conspiracy are just as duped by
propaganda as those outside.

> ... the Gulf "War" is most
>accurately seen as a carefully orchestrated _precedent_ for the military
>regime planned for the New World Order.

I doubt this.  I do not believe our species has this capacity.  "Stumbled
upon" is believable, not "planned".

TOES, "The Other Economic Summit" has been in existance a few years,
attempting what you suggest with G77.


Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 00:00:10 -0700
Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#256> Arun re: NWO article

On Sun, 6 Aug 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> Countries in the Third World would be less amenable to IMF manipulation,
> if  alternative models hadn't failed so miserably. Socialism has been a
> failure in the 3rd World. Enron would not be needed, nor AT&T, if the
> public sector had been able to deliver.
> ..
> I have some problems with the solution you hint at. Maybe I need to see
> more, you only touched on it towards the end, but 3rd World Solidarity is
> a failed model too. The Non-Aligned were a grouping of the sort you
> describe. But solidarity is out the window.

> Editor:
>                         If at first you don't succeed,
>                               try, try again.
> One point to consider is the extent to which "socialism" has been
> intentionally undermined.  As just one example, the international financial
> community exercises "value judgements" over where it grants and refuses
> financing.

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with that: question is what sort of
values they propagate. Concern  for the bottom line there is
fundamentally nothing wrong with, particularly when dealing with
bureaucrats and politicians who are quite careless with other people's

Assuming even that international financial institutions were opposing
socialism (which I don't agree with:  most of the lending of the World
Bank has been to government and the public sector), one must bear in mind
that the USSR and the rest of the East Bloc was actively supporting
socialism. OK, maybe their brand wasn't perfect, but we live in an
imperfect world, and imperfect socialism did worse than imperfect
capitalism (compare the two Koreas or Germanys).

Ultimately, what changed economic ideology around was (in most cases)
near bankruptcy, and in most cases, the governments were inefficient
enough to have achieved that without multinational help.

> These value judgments, unfortunately, don't concern themselves
> with human rights, but do concern themselves with the extent to which
> financed projects will generate profits for multinationals, who are
> important clients of the same banks that provide (or don't provide) the
> project funding.  Any project which is "socialist", or otherwise aimed at
> maximizing benefit to the domestic economy, will clearly generate less
> profits for multinationals.

I agree with the human rights bit, but do you have data that backs up your
thesis, that profits for multinationals is a bigger criterion than
"maximizing benefit to the domestic economy"?

> Another point is that doctrinaire socialism is inadequate, just as is
> doctrinaire free trade.  Let's think less of exclusive "alternatives", and
> more of intelligent mixed strategies.

Yes, let's: Maybe that calls for a separate article, given your worries
about your word count, however, that article I really look forward to.

Intelligent or not, mixed strategies are, for instance, what the Indian
government has been trying. Probably true of other dedveloping countries
For instance, against considerable pushing from people wishing to invest
in the country, the government has refused to frame an "exit policy", one
which would allow companies to close down and fire everybody. The
decision to cancel the Enron power project (everybody know what I'm
talking about?) was a victory of democracy over commercial interests,
whether one agrees with it or not.

I have less complaint with the conspiracy theory. For years, the US and
everyone permanent on the Security Council except the USSR (Taiwan
occupied the China seat -- proof enough of US power over the UN) voted
against India, for instance over the invasion of Goa. In the midst of
independent India, well over a decade after the Brits had left, and the
French had left too, Portugal refused to give up the few pockets it held
in India. The USSR saved us with its veto several times, which explains
why the two countries became close. Why, the US troops in Korea still fly
the UN flag, and every year they would cart nuclear weapons around on

The US is doing with GATT, NATO and the UN exactly the same: long as they
are convenient, they are used. Otherwise, sidestepped.


Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:23:46 -0700
>From: •••@••.••• (Joe Ferguson)
>To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: cj#256> Arun re: NWO article

        Richard, Arun:

        Appreciating the substance of your dialogue, I think I can make
        one contribution.  When Arun says "3rd World Solidarity is a failed
        model too" and "solidarity is out the window" I think he is missing
        a key point that I _think_ Richard implies, but (if I'm right) could
        be made more forcefully.  The point is that the "solidarity strategy"
        must explicitly NOT be restricted to the third world.  I think the
        only hope for survival of humanity is a uniting of reasonable persons
        in _all_ countries.  In this, I criticize Richard's "G99" unless you
        make it clear that "first world" populist and/or counter culture
        forces must join.  In other words, the "first world" must participate
        in the solution, although the struggle is against current institutions
        and "leaders" of that very world.

        I enclose an article forwarded from Butler Crittenden (who I happily
        visited in San Francisco this past weekend, making him my second
        cyber-to-real-world-relationship-conversion!)  Richard, you may
        still be receiving "The Nation" and Arun, I apologize for the
        Ameri-centric nature of it, but it is surprisingly and refreshingly
        focused on the very key theme (potential power of "common people"
        if we united) I have been feeling and trying to express and advance
        since joining cyber-space as a contributor.

        Regards.  (Arun, when are you coming to Northern California?)

        - Joe


Editor>  I'm posting the Nation article as a separate message, marked (long).

 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                 Editor: The Cyberjournal (@CPSR.ORG)

    World Wide Web (shared with cyber-rights):

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.  For
commercial re-use, contact the appropriate author.


fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google