Note: This is a lightly-edited transcript of a radio presentation on "9/11 In Context" on the Resistance Radio Network on December 9, 2010
Today’s show I’ve titled “The Global Fascist Terror State,” and this is my term for what I think is under construction, and well along the way toward realization. Today’s program is a continuation of the program I did a couple of weeks ago, on “Planning, Propaganda, and Purposes.” I ran out of time and I didn’t finish with everything I had to say about the purposes behind the attacks; in fact I just sort of got started. So today I would like to carry on with my discussion of purposes.
So I’ve got some ideas that I’ve been working with for a long time, trying to explain to myself what’s going on. I talked a couple of weeks ago about the dual nature of the objectives. The Global War on Terrorism that was launched by 9/11 has both an external purpose and an internal purpose. An external purpose of waging war anywhere in the world for purposes of conquest, conquest of resources, space, control, all of that, to govern the “ungoverned spaces” that they’re worried about. But then internally as well, a major focus of the false-flag attack of 9/11, in my view, was to enable states to massively increase control of their domestic populations. This is mainly what I want to talk about today. I have a few more things to say about the external purposes, however, before I go on to the internal ones. And they’re connected. The achievement of both sets of these purposes, internal and external, will allow the construction of this global control system, that I call a Global Fascist Terror State.
My contention is that there is really only one enemy in the eyes of the planners and propagandists and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. And that that enemy is the working class, the world’s population, basically. The “working class” is a technical term; I will define it. It doesn’t just mean blue collar workers; it means virtually everyone who lives on the planet, the vast majority of people, who do not have independent wealth and have to work for a living, have to sell their ability to work to some buyer of their labor in order to get a job and get the money they need to live. Anybody who’s in that situation, whether they’re high-paid or low-paid, is in the working class. So I’m going to make a case today that the principal target of the 9/11 attacks is the working class.
This is a different sort of an approach from that taken by most folks. It’s an outgrowth of my own personal history and things I’ve studied and learned over the decades. I think it’s a plausible analysis and I want to lay it out for you and you guys can evaluate it. I’ve put links up for today’s show at the usual place, the Resistance Radio Forum (http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-shows/63-9ic-the-global-fascist-terror-state-129-links).
I want to talk a little bit more about the ideas of Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose book in 1997, The Grand Chessboard, laid out a long-term plan, a long-term strategy for the United States. And really, when that book was published the US was already well-advanced along this line. He was really rather articulating a consensus, I believe. The consensus he articulated was the notion of controlling Central Asia. And the purpose of controlling Central Asia was that any power which did control Central Asia would be able to dominate the entire region called Eurasia. It’s like a “two-continental” region, a vast portion of Europe, plus all of Asia, Eurasia. It’s everything to the east of Germany and Poland, all the way to the Pacific coast, is the way Brzezinski defines Eurasia. So he felt that a power which controlled Central Asia would really be able to dominate Eurasia.
The US is already well underway in establishing control of Central Asia. Central Asia are the “Stans”; I think Afghanistan properly is one of them, but this is Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. These were former Soviet Republics in the USSR which became independent when the USSR fell apart. The plan was to peel these countries off from Russian control, to take them out of the Russian zone of influence, so to speak. The US has already essentially done this; we have now military bases in all these countries. Right after Brzezinski’s book came out in ’97, the US Congress in March 1999 passed a major bill called The Silk Road Strategy Act, and this laid out in Congressional formulations basically the same strategy that Brzezinski wrote about in his book, and so his strategy has been formally adopted by the United States government, there’s no doubt about this.
Here the idea is that the US, by controlling Central Asia, would be able to control the flow of natural gas and oil in whatever direction it desired, it would reduce Russia’s influence over these resources, it would be able to control what kind of access China would have to these. Brzezinski’s big notion is, that if you control Eurasia you control the world. And he has an argument to back that up. Brzezinski considered Russia, at that time, the mid-90s, the greater threat to the United States, United States “interests”, that is. And so the book is formulated with Russia in the center more than China. A lot of the goals that he laid out have been achieved, or are in process of being achieved, and so we’re in a later phase now, another fifteen years, approximately, down the line, and in that period China has surged upward in prominence and power. And probably right now the planners are looking more closely at China than Russia, as the recent ramping-up of tensions with China that you may have noticed, especially around what is happening in the Koreas, indicates.
Now, let’s see, the US has got military bases in Central Asia, and we also have bilateral relations with the rulers of each of these Central Asian countries. And although Russia still has relations with these countries as well, we’ve definitely moved in on Russia there, and it’s sort of a mixed situation there, [as to] how complete US control will be. This is forcing Russia to look more toward Western Europe for its economic activity, its trade and sales, and it doesn’t have access to the resources in Central Asia to the degree that it did before, so it has forced Russia to change its orientation, it has sort of put Russia back on its heels. It’s also allowed US corporations to have access to these Central Asian countries, and has permitted US-run agencies like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to penetrate and offer [so-called] “aid” and loans. And it’s even involved the “dollarization” of these countries, that is, some of them have given up their national currencies and have just adopted the dollar as their money. So it’s a very deep penetration.
Brzezinski’s book is pretty extraordinary, and it’s an interesting read in Machiavellian thought in the modern context for anybody. It’s worth checking out. I’ve got a few passages, I thought I’d try this, I haven’t done this before but I thought I’d try a read you a few passages that are interesting. He introduces the language of “Pearl Harbor”, the concept of Pearl Harbor, early in the book, on page 24 he says:
“"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been … ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
So here’s he laying out an element in his argument that such a shock effect may be necessary to launch the kind of control [in Central Asia] that he forsees as necessary for the US. And then he says:
“How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
So here he’s laying out the stakes here, this is the Big Prize. Whoever controls this, and if it’s the US, which already controls the Western Hemisphere, then you’ve got it all locked up. Whoever controls Eurasia controls the world, especially if the US can pull it off.
And then he says:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
He’s stating these things as facts. The perspective is that this is not good. He’s complaining, he’s arguing against these restrictions on what he calls “military intimidation.” Military intimidation is a positive for Brzezinski.
Then he translates his notions into the language of an earlier period. He says:
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
But then he says,
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
So you can see how Machiavellian his thought is. And in November 2001, right after September 11th happened, Michael C. Ruppert published an article on the subject of Brzezinski’s book, and he went further and he quoted [from an interview he did] with a German, a former German defense ministry official who had also been in NATO, associated with a former Director General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, and this guy, Johannes Koeppl, had had contact with Brzezinski in the ‘80s and the ‘90s, and he realized in the ‘80s that he was a madman and that he was planning global domination. And he spoke out about it and his career was destroyed, he was locked out of his diplomatic career after that. Ruppert interviewed him, and Johannes Koeppl had this to say about Brzezinski. This is after 9/11 happened; he says:
“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."
Well, this fellow, Johannes Koeppl, he’s not a radical, I don’t even know if he’s a liberal, he’s someone who saw what was going on and spoke the truth about it, and I think his view has to be taken very seriously. I especially feel that way because it coincides with my own view. I think that he basically goes right to the heart of the situation. 9/11 for him was a wake-up call, and it has been for many of us.
The enemy in the War on Terrorism is the people. It’s quite a remarkable situation to contemplate. We didn’t imagine our society was like this in earlier years. But now apparently we’re in a new situation. How could it be that the enemy of the United States, and of all the countries in the world, is their own people, that is, the people of the world? Well, actually, one thing that we need to wake up to, and that I want to devote today’s show to, is that this is actually a natural outgrowth of the nature of our society, our capitalist society. This capitalist society that we’re living in now has been in a situation of crisis, economic crisis, since about 1970. It’s been a long series of crises, which I’ll go into. So that now, the inherent tensions within capitalist society, which is a class society, with classes opposed to one another, one class trying to survive, the other class trying to dominate completely, these inherent tensions and the internal contradictions that are always present in capitalist society have reached a very extreme pitch.
So I want to talk about capitalism a little bit, and talk about the two classes that are contending in this situation, and why one class, the people of the world, is the enemy of the ruling class. In capitalist society there are two primary classes, the ruling class and the working class. I’m laying out a sketchy version of a Marxian analysis. Marx is extremely valuable in trying to understand the world we live in. I recommend him highly to people who like to read. In capitalist society the two classes are in opposition, their interests are opposed basically. The society is based on private property, and especially private property in the means of production, that is, machinery, the things that go to producing people’s needs and desires. The machinery, the factories that make things, these are all held privately so that there is control by the owners of the means of production over those who do not own the means of production and have nothing but their own ability to work to sell, in order to have any way of living.
Under capitalism, the purpose of all this economic activity is not satisfying people’s needs or satisfying people’s desires, but is to make profits. Marx’s technical term for this is the accumulation of value. Value is a theoretical concept that he uses, which explains a lot of different things. Value is the basis of money. Commodities that sell, they have prices; those prices are based on the values of those commodities. So what is value? Value, in Marx’s analysis, the value of a commodity is the measure of the socially-necessary labor-time that went into its creation. How much time, how much human labor-time was involved in the creation of the commodity, is its value. And that’s expressed phenomenologically as money. The accumulation of money, value in the money form, is the accumulation of profit. And that’s the purpose behind it, so capitalists invest in a particular line of production, some particular thing that they make, because it’s profitable. If it’s not profitable then they will bail on it and go do something else. So when capitalist enterprises become unprofitable, they’re closed down, people are fired, workers lose their jobs and the capitalists move on to something else.
It’s human labor that’s the source of value and the source of profit, and there is an internal contradiction within capitalism which is the cause of continual crisis, which is that because of the pressure on all capitalist enterprises to be profitable and to out-compete their rivals, they do everything they can to cut back on their labor costs. The principal way this is done is by developing machinery that can take over for people. So over time people are thrown out of productive work and replaced by machinery. But the thing is machines do not create value, only people create value. So there is this contradiction, in which capital, in trying to accumulate profit, throws out the very source of future profit by eliminating workers and replacing them with machinery. So over time there [occurs the tendency] of profits to fall. Profit rates fall over time. So it’s a continual scramble for capitalists to keep their enterprises profitable.
So let’s just look at the general impact of these contradictions and these tendencies of capitalism. Cyclical recessions are a common feature, boom years-bust years , boom years-bust years. In the 19th Century, there was a about a ten-year cycle, that went through most of [that] century, of boom followed by bust. Some of these recessions are very severe and go into depressions. These are much longer periods and much more severe. Stock market crashes. And these can lead in extreme periods to wars, and to rebellions, and to revolutions.
The nature of life in capitalist society, according to a Marxian analysis, with which I agree, is basically class war. It’s a continual battle between the two principal classes, over the terms of social existence. And work, this wage labor that we’re all required to do, this is a form of social control. We’re required to work, and as long as we’re at work we are contributing to the reproduction of this set of social relations, of this class set-up, and we’re actually working against our own interests.
Now I want to talk a little bit about the history of capitalism in the 20th Century, that led up to 9/11, because I think it’s pertinent to understanding 9/11. In the period 1914 to 1945, from the beginning of the First World War to the end of the Second World War, it was a continual crisis period. Two major wars, millions of people killed, a huge depression in between the two wars. There was this one period in the ‘20s, which was a sort of a boom period, but a lot of that was based on speculative activity and finance chicanery and Ponzi schemes just like what’s been going on since 9/11. That whole period, 1914-1945, was a crisis period. But the result of it, at the end of it after World War Two, so much old machinery and factories had been renovated or destroyed by war production or by being bombed into non-existence, that new machinery, new methods of production came into use. And the US built up Germany and built up Japan after the war, and profitability was restored. The cost of things that people need to live, the cost of food, the cost of clothing, of consumer goods like refrigerators and cars, all declined, because of the increasing productivity that the new generation of technological developments had brought about. And so there was a period after World War Two, from 1945 to approximately 1970, maybe not quite that long, when workers seemed to be relatively prosperous, especially in the industrial countries.
The post-war prosperity really peaked in the late ‘60s. And it coincided with a period of radical contestation in the United States and in Europe, and actually around the world. There was of course the anti-war movement, and there was the anti-materialistic counter-culture where many millions of people just decided they didn’t want to buy new things, they didn’t want to work long hours, they wanted to work part time or not work at all, they moved out to the country. And there were radical political movements in the US and especially in Europe. In the US there was a wildcat strike wave in the ‘50s and ‘60s. In the late ‘60s and early ‘70s there were radical political movements like the Diggers in the Netherlands, the Autonomen in Germany, Autonomia in Italy, and as I said, wildcat strikes. And of course the events in France, May-June 1968 in France, essentially a six-week general strike that definitely posed the possibility of revolution. The result of this was that the ruling class in the US and Western Europe was very scared. And this was precisely when the terror attacks under Operation Gladio started.
The first big bombing in Italy was in December, 1969, and the whole series of bombings in Italy [lasted] into the mid-‘80s, and other related atrocities carried out by the state in other Western European countries, all of this organized by the CIA, through NATO. Next week Daniele Ganser is going to be on the show with me and we’re going to talk about Operation Gladio across Europe in some detail. The purpose of these attacks was to characterize this upsurge in radical left politics as associated with terrorism. And so these attacks were blamed on the left, and the result was that thousands of radical leftists were imprisoned and charged with having been involved in these terrorist attacks. Many of them were in prison for many years. Of course, many other kinds of attacks on the working class and the contestation of the class to continued domination by capital were undertaken, not just false-flag attacks: attacks on unions, cutbacks of wages, Thatcher and Reagan came in and imposed wage-cuts. And another strategy was to shift production out to lower-waged countries where they wouldn’t have to deal with high-waged and uppity workers. So there was a decline in real incomes after 1970, that has continued to the present. There was a multi-faceted response by the capitalist ruling class in the US and Western Europe to the upsurge of contestation in the ‘60s.
This coincided, however, with the critical onset of profit crisis in capitalism that started in the early ‘70s. You will remember the oil crisis and recession from ’73 to ’75, and a whole series of economic crises through the ‘80s and the ‘90s. From the mid-‘70s to the late-‘90s, there were a whole series of economic crises all over world, financial crises, the Third World debt crisis, the US became a debtor nation, the Savings and Loan meltdown, the Japanese stock market crash, Mexico defaulted twice on its debts, there was the Asian crisis in ’97-’98, and of course Russia defaulted on its debts in ’98, Long Term Capital Management collapsed and was bailed out by the Fed, and then in 2000 the DotCom collapse, when the NASDAQ tanked by sixty percent and has never recovered. So the whole period from the mid-70’s to 2000 was a continual crisis. There was a big stock market crash in 1987.
Real wages were falling throughout this period. At the same time, in response to the economic crises in Third World nations, the IMF and the World Bank were imposing austerity on the global south and on developing nations. As a response to all of these worsening economic conditions, very intense class war being waged by the ruling class on workers all over the world, the imposition of austerity, there was a resurgence in the late-‘90s in what’s come to be known as the anti-globalization movement. And the occasion for the real breakthrough was in 1999 in Seattle, where the World Trade Organization tried to hold an important round of talks to set up its agency’s operations. The World Trade Organization is the key agency for capitalist globalization because it’s going to harmonize the conditions for investment worldwide, but at a tremendous price to the working class. And in 1999, over 300,000 people from all over the world took to the streets in Seattle and they shut it down. They stopped the World Trade Organization in its tracks. And the World Trade Organization has never recovered. It has never been able to get its momentum going again, it’s essentially been stymied ever since.
The ruling class was unprepared for this. There was no preparation by the ruling class in the United States for any kind of eventuality like this. They really didn’t have their repressive forces in place. The people very effectively stopped the business at the WTO from going forward. So imagine how upset the ruling class was at this eventuality. From that day forward, every single major demonstration at meetings of the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, were met with escalating repressive force, and this got more and more extreme in the run-up to Genoa, where people were actually shot in the street. Clearly the ruling class had decided that they needed to crack down physically and prevent this [contestation]. And of course these attacks, e.g. in Genoa, this was classic fascist attack. Then 9/11 happened, two months after Genoa. From that point forward big demonstrations like the ones that had happened earlier stopped completely. At all subsequent meetings there has been incredible security.
I think it’s highly plausible that the timing, at least, of the 9/11 attacks was affected by the growing anti-globalization movement. And of course the people who were killed on 9/11 were working people, just like all the people who were killed in the bombings in Europe under Operation Gladio. So this Global War on Terrorism – there are some things we need to realize about it. “Terrorism” has just replaced “Communism” as the name for an enemy which is everywhere and must be defeated at any price, and this strategy is designed to reduce the public to putty in the state’s hands. The War on Terrorism is a method of controlling domestic populations by fear, just like Operation Gladio was. Demonstrators, leftists, workers, are now either explicitly or implicitly considered to be terrorists. And all states, not just the United States, all states are colluding in this. This is not just the US, it’s happening in Europe, it’s happening all over the world.
So now, given the nature of our society – it’s a class society based on class struggle, class war, with a long history of crises and resistance, and with a long history of state terror, as proven by Operation Gladio, and the WTC in ’93 and the Oklahoma City bombing in ’95, I think it’s very plausible that control of domestic populations by police states is the main purpose of 9/11, or co-equal with the [objective] of controlling Eurasia. And I think the long-term goal of the US is what I call the Global Fascist Terror State, in alliance with the UK. The UK has attached itself to what it perceives will be the winner in this contest. So we’ve got a US/UK alliance. Their purpose is to set up a global system of fascist control, with themselves on top. They’ll control Eurasia, and that means they’ll control China, Russia, the whole world, and then they [will have] set up the first-ever global empire.
So what’s happening right now? They haven’t conquered China and Russia yet, but in all countries all over the world right now police-state measures are being instituted. They’re all moving toward fascism. They’re all effectively there already, it’s just that there’s a cover, a gloss on it, that looks like they’re still democracies, but the real decision-making is not democratic. There’s some resistance on the part of European countries to US domination, but it’s not clear how long they’ll be able to hold out. But the ruling class in all the countries is in agreement on this domestic population control aspect.
I’m not sure the US and the UK are going to succeed in pulling off their global conquest. They may just upset the balance and find that they’ve brought themselves down, ultimately. But in the meantime we’ve got fascism developing in all the individual countries, so we’re being subjected to false-flag attacks. Or fake terror scares: you don’t really need to bomb people, you can just do these fake terror scares like we’ve had so many of recently. They can be openly the product of government manipulation, but there will be no press commentary about it because the press is in lock-step with the state on this. The false-flag attacks have been not just 9/11; there was the 7/7 bombings in London, the Madrid bombings, etc. We’re going to have total surveillance, we’re going to have checkpoints, body scans, drones overhead, no legal rights; we’ve got concentration camps that have been built by FEMA all over the United States; we’ve got a worldwide network of black sites, secret prisons; countries in Europe are rendering captives to these secret prisons on the command of the United States; people are [subjected to] psychological operations; microchips; no health care; the whole thing. This is a fascistic picture and its happening in every country, and it will become global when the global conquest is completed. And if the US and the UK succeed, then states will just become population control units, like domestic police agencies. People will be controlled with propaganda, and entertainment, and virtual realities and soporifics of various kinds, and of course the threat of hunger and torture, so they’ll keep working for their low wages.
This vision that our masters, our wannabe masters, have of a harmonized fascistic [global] state under unipolar control, this is really the dream that the Nazis had. The Germans lost World War Two but the Nazis did not lose. Of course the Nazis had a long earlier relationship with powerful elite families in the United States. The Bushes were involved with the Nazis going back into the ‘20s, and probably everyone in the audience knows about this. They were bankers and business partners for the Nazis. After World War Two the Nazis came into the United States. The CIA brought many, hundreds of Nazis into the United States, under Operation Paperclip. I’ve got a link in the forum to information on Operation Paperclip. And many of the experts that the CIA brought in were Nazi researchers into mind control, techniques of mind control and ways to control populations using fear. They hired these people because they were technically advanced, and could tell them the kinds of things they wanted to know and help them develop their abilities in these areas.
Now I want to talk about what fascism is. It’s a frequently chosen option of capitalist ruling classes; this isn’t the first time. Fascism is always available. Germany, Italy, and Japan in the ‘20s, the ‘30s and the ‘40s all went into fascism. It’s a response to perceiving that the population is uncontrollable. Virtually every fascist state has come into existence after a period of insurrection or radical upsurge in the population. It’s a way for the state to merge with corporations to reimpose control. So it’s a merging of the state with dominant sectors of the corporate universe, banks, arms firms, energy companies, finance. Mussolini called his form of government “corporatism.” The interlock between corporations and the state is the key feature of fascism.
But fascism is just one type of a broader category that’s called state capitalism. This is capitalism where the state is making many major decisions or is very, very involved in maintaining the situation, maintaining the capitalist social set-up. And actually, the USSR, the Soviet Union, was not communist. The Soviet Union was state capitalist as well. It was a different variety of state capitalism from fascism. The social set-up in the Soviet Union had absolutely nothing to do with anything that Marx ever wrote about. They called themselves “Communist” in order to bask in the radical reputation of Marx, but it was a complete inversion of Marx. The Soviet Union was a state capitalist society, and so the similarities between what it was like to live in the Soviet Union and what it was like to live in Nazi Germany, those similarities were not accidental; they were because the situations were really very, very similar. In the Soviet Union workers worked for a wage just like in Germany, they were paid with money just like in Germany. The surplus value that they created was appropriated by the state instead of by private corporations; that’s the major difference. And of course there was totalitarian police-state control of the population.
So fascism is a form of state capitalism. Even today we have state capitalism in the United States and Europe. The state handing over its treasury to financial corporations, what is that but state capitalism? We need to try to understand the societies that we live in. We’ve been told a lot of lies and we need to get past mistaken ideas and we need to try to understand this situation.
Fascism is selected when the crises reach an extreme point, and the ruling class is afraid of losing control. The working class’s real enemy is capitalism itself, not the specific form that the capitalist class chooses at any given time. So getting rid of fascism, viewing our struggle as an anti-fascist struggle, to restore the fake democracy that may have preceded it in some places, is a losing strategy. We’re in a fight obviously to the death, we’re being killed by the millions worldwide, with capitalism in any and all of its forms. 9/11 demonstrates precisely what we’re up against. I would describe it as a ruling class gone mad, with bloodlust, ready to drown us in blood. Forgive me for the melodramatic nature of this, but I think that once in a while you need to speak starkly.
And what we have to do is fight back. Collectively, because we can’t fight back as individuals. We have to fight back collectively. This is a class war that we’re in. To do that we need to understand our history, the nature of our society, and we have to organize and collectively defend ourselves and try to create a post-capitalist society, to move beyond capitalism to a classless society, and a stateless society, and a society of equals. And get these masters off our backs.