What to expect from the next US Administration


Richard Moore


Up until December 3rd, it was very difficult to predict what might 
happen in 2008. We had every sign that a nuclear attack was being 
prepared for Iran. There was talk of the neocons declaring a national 
emergency, suspending the Constitution, and cancelling the next 
election. Basically, the neocons seemed to be out of control, 
deranged almost, and we didn't know what might be coming our way.

On December 3rd, when the National Intelligence Estimate was made 
public, declaring that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, it 
immediately became apparent that the Iran attack was off, simplifying 
the picture a bit. In the ensuing days, by watching how Bush was 
responding to the new circumstance, it became apparent the 
cancellation of the Iran project was not something that was wanted by 
the White House. Higher ups had made the decision. As subsequent 
events have unfolded, it becomes clear that more than Iran was 
cancelled. The whole neocon program is being rapidly reined in.

I talked about these things in great detail in an earlier posting, 
"dialog on recent themes". But that analysis didn't try to anticipate 
very much about the next administration, except in broad strokes. I 
think the picture is now beginning to come into focus. It took me a 
while to put the pieces back together again, after the December 3rd 
announcement shook up the table a bit.

I think we can see the focus of the next administration by watching 
Al Gore. He's going around preaching the gospel of climate change, 
and that is rapidly becoming the new cause celebre for the 
'international community'. It's more than a campaign by Gore, we're 
seeing a campaign being supported by the mass media, by the powers 
that be. We are clearly being prepared for a 'new show', after the 
'Bush show', and the 'new show' is going to be about carbon taxes and 
credits, new energy sources, more efficient cars, biofuels, and all 
those other things that are allegedly related to climate change and 
peak oil.

In order to clear the way for the new show, it seems pretty clear 
that the new administration will begin with some easy political wins, 
by rapidly cleaning up some of the obvious messes left by the 
neocons. Closing down Guantanamo, and declaring that rendition 
flights have been abandoned, would gain a lot of points at no real 
cost (secret flights and prisons would undoubtedly continue). Iraq 
has already been destabilized and prepared for balkanization, and 
permanent US bases have already been built. Another easy win will be 
for US troops to withdraw to their bases and the oil fields, for the 
war to be declared over, and for Iraq to be split up into ethnic 
provinces, leaving them to squabble among themselves. It can all be 
portrayed in the media as a 'victory for peace and democracy'.

What then, can we expect from this new show? What consequences are 
likely to follow from implementing the kind of policies that Al Gore 
and the media have been talking about, around climate change, energy 
independence, etc.?

At a general level, it is clear that those kinds of policies do not 
involve fundamental changes in how our societies operate. We'll still 
have cars, only they might be a bit more efficient, and we'll be 
paying more for fuel and taxes to operate them. We'll still be 
shipping products from China that we could produce locally, and we'll 
still be depending on long-distance trucking. We'll still be using 
agricultural methods that are highly petroleum-dependent, for 
tractors, fertilizers, and pesticides. Research and development of 
new energy sources will lead to lots of government subsidies, and it 
may get us a bit more energy, but not nearly enough to replace 
petroleum. As long as our transport and other infrastructures remain 
basically unchanged, we remain unsustainable, dependent on petroleum, 
and none of the Gore-like initiatives change the overall energy 
picture, carbon picture, or climate picture in any significant way.

On the face of it then, the whole new show is destined to fail. 
Climate change will not be alleviated and peak oil will loom as 
alarmingly as ever, albeit postponed for a bit. Are we to assume then 
that our new leaders are stupid? I have found that the presumption of 
'government incompetence' is seldom a useful assumption in evaluating 
the behavior of governments. We only reach such a conclusion if we 
take their official rhetoric at face value. In terms of 'achieving 
democracy', the official rhetoric, Bush has been 'incompetent' in 
Iraq. But in terms of the real agenda -- building permanent bases and 
controlling the oil -- he has in fact been successful. I have found 
that this is always the pattern: some real agenda is always being 
achieved by the policies in force, despite the apparent bungling in 
terms of the official agenda.

In order to begin figuring out what the 'real agenda' is, behind 
Gore-like policies, let's look first at one example: biofuels. 
Producing biofuels does give us another energy source, but it also 
removes land from food production. As a consequence of the 
already-existing biofuels market, market prices for grain and other 
potential biofuels are now being driven by energy prices. Global food 
prices are therefore rising rapidly, while at the same time 
food-production acreage is being reduced. These two things will 
directly and drastically increase world hunger, particularly in the 
poorest regions. A Gore-inspired administration will be promoting an 
expansion of biofuel programs on a global scale, and it will be 
patting itself on the back for its noble energy-saving deeds.

All of this will be occurring in a context where we are facing a 
global food crisis generally. We haven't seen many headlines on this 
topic, but the world is sitting on the brink of a major food crisis. 
Emergency stockpiles are at low ebb, production levels are down, crop 
failures are up, etc. It's a very nasty picture.

In this context, the net consequence of a major biofuel agenda comes 
down to intentional genocide. In order to provide marginally more 
fuel to the over-consuming industrialized nations, untold millions 
will starve in the third world, in addition to those untold millions 
that are already starving. The marginal energy gain is so small by 
comparison, that we must accept that the biofuels agenda is PRIMARILY 
about genocide. However when we begin reading about new famines 
breaking out, perhaps in Brazil where biofuels are now going into 
massive production, the headlines will blame it on droughts, or crop 
failures, or some other excuse, as they always do. We will meanwhile 
feel a 'green glow' every time we fill up our Prius with biofuels, 
unaware of what damage we are doing. And perhaps we'll donate to 
Oxfam, or adopt some third world child and send them letters.

An Gore agenda is simply genocidal imperialism hiding under a new 
mask, a new show. Instead of killing off the Indians by killing their 
buffalo, it kills off populations by removing their access to food in 
other ways. Once again, 'they' must be sacrificed so that 'our' way 
of life can continue and expand. We might note here that more Iraqis 
died under Bill Clinton's sanctions that have been killed in the 
current Iraq war. In  Bill Clinton's time the pattern was invisible 
genocide, rather than the more violent Bush variety. Apparently in 
Hillary Clinton's time we are to return to that earlier invisible 

Clearly the consequences of a Gore agenda are genocidal, but one 
might question whether that is a primary intended outcome. I've been 
suggesting that it is, and I think more elaboration is in order on 
that point. I haven't made the case very well yet, I've merely 
presented some of the evidence and suggested a pattern. In order to 
get a proper perspective on this issue, we need to step back a bit, 
and consider the bigger picture of the industrialized world vis a vis 
the third world, in the face of a broad range of mounting resource 

It seems very clear that the industrialized nations have no intention 
of changing the basic path they are on. More industrial growth, more 
energy consumption, continued use of energy-intensive agricultural 
methods, etc. The energy band-aids of a Gore agenda make no 
significant difference in this picture, they simply proclaim the 
intention to proceed with business as usual.

The only way the industrialized North can continue on this path is by 
taking over more and more of the third world's resources for its own 
use. As the industrial appetite for resources continues to grow at a 
rapid rate, and as our global resources are increasingly stressed, we 
are going to see a very rapid expansion of third world hunger and 
starvation -- the globalization of African-scale famines. This is 
inevitable while the North stays on this basic path, whether we have 
Gore-like policies or some other set of policies is of little 

This 'inevitability' of mass die-offs in the third world is well 
known to those who run the industrial nations, the ones who give us 
alternate versions of Clinton and Bush to be our leaders and set our 
temporary agendas. From the perspective of the heights of power, the 
question becomes, "How can we manage these die-offs so that they 
cause the least disruption in the global economy, and so that they 
don't arouse too much public outcry?" Of course once you begin 
managing die-offs, then you are engaging in genocide, ie, arranging 
for particular populations to die in preference to others.

The pattern for the management strategy has been made very clear in 
Sub-Saharan Africa, where all those civil wars, genocidal atrocities, 
droughts, and famines have been occurring. Not many people realize 
that these disasters have been systematically imposed on Africa, by 
means of IMF requirements, covert destabilization programs, the 
widespread distribution of modern weapons, the manipulations of 
international banks, the dedication of agricultural land to Northern 
consumption, and the list goes on. Not only is Africa being starved 
to death by market forces, but the process is being accelerated by 
covert genocidal interventions.

In Africa we see a full-scale Holocaust, a massive genocide program 
in process, or should I say we see it not. For in the media it's 
nothing like that. We read that 'tribal conflicts have flared up', 
but we don't hear about the two CIA bombings that were each blamed on 
the 'other side', and which ignited the fracas, a fracas that could 
become a civil war. We read about a famine due to 'drought', and we 
aren't told that there would be plenty of water if it weren't for all 
the coffee-export plantations using up the local water. We don't see 
genocide, we see Africans befallen with unfortunate miseries, all due 
to the vagaries of Mother Nature.

Thus the pattern of managing die-offs becomes clear. It has been 
tested satisfactorily in Africa, and we can expect the proven pattern 
to be employed in future. They pick a population that they consider 
'redundant', they undertake a program of acquiring that population's 
resources, and then to speed up the process of removal they engage in 
various covert acts of genocide. In this way the world's population 
can be whittled down piecemeal, and manageably, as the North 
gradually requires the utilization of ALL the world's resources for 
its own exclusive use. Unfortunately for the North, even that won't 
be enough to enable industrial growth to continue. The South is being 
killed off only that the unsustainable North can continue as it is a 
wee bit longer.

Meanwhile, the media in the North paints a picture in which only 
nature causes famines, and the role of the North is always to provide 
aid, to the extent it can. Concerned viewers are given convenient 
numbers to call, so they can dispel their concern with a simple 
donation that will 'save a child', or 'give a family a goat'. No 
genocide around here; we're the good guys. See no evil, feel just 
fine. By the way, too bad about those famines over there.

The Gore-style policies are not just genocidal, they are formidably 
genocidal. When they start taking massive amounts of land out of food 
production, and bring about a substantial increases in global food 
prices, in the face of an already stressed world food situation, they 
could bring about in a very short time -- one harvest season -- 
famine on a scale we have never have seen before. How serious the 
outcome is depends entirely on how aggressively the new 
administration pursues the Gore-style agenda. They've got genocide 
down to a science, with tunable parameters.

Apparently, having field tested Holocaust tactics in Sub-Saharan 
Africa, a decision has been made to go global with the program. For 
this purpose, the Gore-style policies have the potential to be the 
appropriate Weapon of Mass Destruction, the equivalent in the 
starvation game to nukes in the kill-by-fire game. This decision to 
go global was evidently made some time ago, no doubt just before Gore 
was asked to make "An Inconvenient Truth". The film was the first 
signal of which way the winds were going to blow, the first preview 
of the 'new show'.

The primary mission of the Hillary administration, under the banners 
of 'doing something about climate change and peak oil', will 
evidently be to undertake a massive resource grab in the global 
South, leading to the selective and massive elimination of certain 
populations through starvation. In other words, the mission is to 
expand the starving-Africa model globally, a process that will 
presumably be helped along by the usual shadowy suspects in their 
usual destabilizing roles.

My big fear with the Bush regime was the likely attack on Iran...or 
was it the unleashing of the Gestapo? It was a close race in those 
dark days. Now we are on the verge of a regime bent on genocide on a 
scale that would put the Nazis to shame. I suggest that we have 
escaped the kettle only to fall into the frying pan.

I hope no one out there has any romantic notions about the new 
administration, and I hope everyone realizes that the political 
process can never be used to solve our problems; that system is in 
fact the heart of our problem. I also hope it is clear to everyone 
that global genocide is an inevitable consequence of the continuation 
of this insane capitalist system, whether you agree with most of my 
analysis or not. And in the end, capitalism can't last anyway.

Only when you have reached that deep level of hopelessness, where you 
see no avenue of escape, can you clear your mind enough to begin to 
see where the real problem lies. The real problem lies, my friends, 
in the fact that you and I have nothing to say about how our 
societies are run. Any one of us has more sense than the people who 
are running things, and we certainly have our fellow beings more at 
heart. Our problem lies in our own powerlessness, leaving power in 
the hands of those who always abuse it, in one way or another, in one 
age after another.

Our challenge as a sentient species, and our response if we seek to 
do anything about the growth-thru-genocide agenda, is to begin to 
empower ourselves, us ordinary people, without reference to the 
useless political process. How to pursue our empowerment must be the 
aim of our investigations, and pursuing that empowerment must be the 
point of our activism.

happy new year,
happy empowerment,


Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Film treatment: A Compelling Necessity

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)