The principal motivation for the power brokers' systematic crushing of uncooperative innovators can be stated another way. From the perspective of the rest of the world, these innovators introduce chaos into society. I do not mean for this to be understood as a metaphorical, approximate concept, but rather as a precise and mathematically meaningful concept. A characteristic of chaotic systems is that aspects of the system that are small at one time can determine very large aspects of the system at a later time. This is the butterfly phenomenon: turbulence from the fluttering of a butterfly in Brazil can (though is of course fantastically unlikely to) weeks later cause a hurricane to befall the eastern seaboard. Innovation is similar: a fleeting thought held in the head of a single individual can years later expand into a political and social revolution. Though butterflies in Brazil are beyond the reach of meteorologists, it is feasible to identify those rare individuals who are more likely to have such thoughts. Thus, they are constantly in danger. They threaten whatever world order the elites have constructed.
Frighteningly, men at the center of the oligarchy of elites have openly aligned themselves with regimes in which individualists and innovators were exterminated by the millions.
In his book Between Two Ages (1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski (then a professor at Columbia, and shortly thereafter, David Rockefeller protegé, founding director of the Trilateral Commission and National Security Advisor to his disciple, President Jimmy Carter, also a founding Trilateralist) said ``Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world,'' ``Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision,'' and ``The Soviet Union could have emerged as the standard-bearer of this century's most influential system of thought and as the social model for resolving the key dilemmas facing modern man.'' But from its outset, the Soviet Union with Lenin at its helm had ``changed Marxism from the doctrine of a highly organised and literate working class into one of state imposition of socialism by force, based on a despotic party and a police state,'' and the ``worst result of Lenin's bid for power has been the suppression of human freedom. He wrote in 1906: 'Great questions in the life of Nations are settled only by force.' Or, as Mao put it, 'all power comes from the barrel of a gun.''' (quoting Dr Eric Andrews and Cliff Cranfield). Stalin's purges, of course, included an extermination of individualists.
David Rockefeller (founder and honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission, the ``unelected if indisputable chairman of the American establishment'' (quoting Bill Moyers)) said of Maoist China, ``The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.'' Mao's Cultural Revolution also included an extermination of individualists. As noted by Jack Newell, ``The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal.''
John D. Rockefeller's direct support of and complicity with the Nazi democide, which shortly after his death metamorphosed into the attempted genocide of the disproportionately brilliant and innovative Jewish people (over 20% of Nobel Laureates between 1902 and 1995 were Jews), is an outstanding concrete example of elite alignment with mass extermination. New World Order arch-mage Henry Kissinger (consultant to Psychological Strategy Board architect Gordon Gray, political consultant to the House of Rockefeller and Nelson Rockefeller protegé, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration, and Secretary of State in the Ford Administration), in his role as hypercollectivist sociopolitical architect and as a chief inheritor of the Rockefeller Nazi ideological mantle, has pursued tantamount and unprecedented evils.
Barbara Marx Hubbard, theosophist, author, and ``futurist,'' has been exposing the dominant elite (in presentations at conferences, and in her books) to her ideology, which includes a mystical mandate to exterminate the one quarter (this is the proportion she arbitrarily describes) of humanity that is intractibly individualistic. It is madness to deny the ever-imminent danger to individualists. A ``Final Solution'' is always being planned.
Fear of chaos is not unique to the power brokers. It is much more common than that. It is, in short, an important example of fear of the unknown - in practical terms, it is fear of the unknowable. This fear is a classic characteristic of small minds and of those of meager confidence. It is often observed that investors tend to hate uncertainty: today, roughly half of the value of US stock markets is held by individual investors, and 45 percent of American households own stock directly or indirectly. Chaos of the type introduced by innovators produces very serious uncertainty for these investors, and they hate it. Thus, because of fear and short-term interest, the bulk of mainstream first-worlders, being small-minded, tacitly supports the neutralization, or even extermination, of uncooperative innovators. In fact, the ordinary feel offended and disgraced by these innovators, and for that the innovators are resented like no other group. The small-minded must become larger-minded if they are to realize that they, too, are slated for enslavement and capricious extermination - except that they have, as a rule, already resigned themselves to obedient slavery in exchange for survival. The power brokers are the total enemies of the innovators and the masses alike, but the masses cower and bow, signalling their surrender.
The cultural prejudice against chaos is evident in contemporary language itself. Diseases of the mind are routinely referred to as ``disorders,'' whether or not they present themselves as, or are caused by, an imbalanced abundance of randomness. Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), historically known as Multiple Personality DIsorder (MPD), is not a disorder at all, but is in fact an additional level of ordered mental arrangement. Obviously, calling all dysfunctions ``disorders'' stigmatizes chaos undeservedly. An unusually regular and orderly electrocardiogram (EKG) is an indication of nascent illness; certain elements of chaos in heart rhythms are indications of good health. Another term that propels the prejudice is ``unstable,'' often used as a synonym for ``insane.'' This use of that term must be condemned with equal haste. As Ilya Prigogine (Nobel laureate and Clubber of Rome) observes, "over time, non-equilibrium processes generate complex structures that cannot be achieved in an equilibrium situation." (Uncertainty: the key to the science of the future?). The very word ``establishment'' has for its root the Latin ``stabilis'', meaning stable - that is, the establishment is, even by straightforward etymological analysis, seen to be a force running counter to the non-equilibrium processes Prigogine discusses (evolution itself being the foremost such process).
Consider the most orderly and stable arrangement of space: completely devoid of matter or energy. The next most orderly is a purely repetitive, homogenous, isotropic arrangement of matter. Data sets representative of such spaces compress, even with naïve algorithms such as Lempel-Ziv variants, to a negligeable residue of information. As explained in my paper on consciousness, randomness is crucial to creativity, and creativity is itself chaotic. In short, the pursuit of order is intrinsically morbid. The pursuit of organization, which properly comprises a chaotic system that counter-balances distributed random inputs with an ordered scaffolding, is obviously just good architecture.
Above, the effect of chaos on ordinary citizens is treated - the recruitment of fear, the actuality of risk and change. The power brokers work to eradicate chaos both because of their own fear of it, and because they seek to eradicate the innovation it leads to (and the chaos which leads from innovation), insofar as that innovation and chaos directly threatens their hegemony. But there is a third motive, a corollary to this latter motive.
The ``Harvard Economic Research Project,'' begun in 1948 initially with Rockefeller Foundation money, was a continuation of World War II combat service support operations research. It and the school of system dynamics founded in 1956 by Jay Forrester at MIT's Sloan School led to models that allowed for the prediction and manipulation of economic and social system behavior. Chaos, and particularly the unbridled individual innovation it leads to, thwart the effectiveness of these models. Prediction becomes impossible, and attempts at manipulation are overwhelmed by the intrinsically more robust influence of true innovations.
The Harvard model held that economies are like mechanical or electrical systems. The unbridled innovator, therefore, amounts to an electron (or lever) with a mind of its own, that can get other electrons to follow it, brazenly flouting the supposed rules of the system. The MIT model is more generalized, treating economic and social components as generic mathematical abstractions, but there is no fundamental difference between the two schools, mathematically. (Please note that there is nothing inherently wrong with systematics - it is simply a science and methodology.) These models are sources of power for those in positions that allow them to manipulate key economic indicators, but only if the economy is predictable and fulfills the premises of the models.
Chaos in general, and innovators in particular, are thus targeted by these elite, in order to preserve the effectiveness of their models and levers (currency and interest rate manipulation, labor strikes, etc.) it provides them. Note that confusion among ordinary individuals - a lack of understanding of the way the world works, particularly its legal, political, economic, and cultural systems - is a sort of personal chaos which is actually encouraged by the elites. This confusion actually increases the statistical predictability of populations. The masses are stuck in mind-blowing traffic jams whose behavior (by dint of driver incompetence, or on the most bottlenecked stretches, simply as a consequence of numbers and bad roadway design) can be approximately modelled with simple differential equations, while the elite helicopter to and fro in uncluttered skies.
The conspirators wage a ``quiet war'' on the people of the world, but any nation or region that gains substantial immunity to the ``silent weapons'' and credibly imperils the plans of the conspirators faces the starker realities of economic warfare, subversive covert insurgencies, overt military subjugation, or even thermonuclear annihilation. The conspirators can also be expected to pursue a literal scorched earth policy if they sense their grip has slipped irreversibly. They control the nuclear and bioweapon arsenals. They target the warheads. They have the launch codes. Only by reciprocating the ``quiet war'' and eroding the conspiracy internally can the non-options of global slavery and global annihilation be averted.