::::::::
From <http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/intro2.html>:
[QUOTE]
A solitary innovator can have within his head all that is necessary
to transform the world so dramatically, that all the wealth and power
of an established industry - or, potentially, of a great proportion
of those with established interest in the whole economy - is voided.
Many of the machinations of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans,
Rothschilds, and their ilk, are responses to this reality, a reality
obviously inconvenient for them. The schism between these two types
of men - the innovators and the power brokers - is one of the
greatest divisions in the human race. The innovator, in an ordinary
work day, will personally progress designing or implementing
something lasting, be it a dam, a road, a skyscraper, an airplane, a
computer software system, or a work of art.
The power brokers, those who center their identities on their
established interests in that which has already been achieved, are
frequently morbid men of frequently great malice. In an ordinary work
day, such a man will make make phone calls and attend meetings, and
do little or nothing else of substance.
Power brokers seek to prosper without creating the means of
prosperity, often eroding it for others in order to gain relative
advantage, producing a deficit in the process, which is injurious to
others. Innovators seek to prosper by creating the means of
prosperity for themselves, or protecting it, producing a surplus in
the process, which is enjoyed by others.
The great innovators, intrinsically few in number as a consequence of
genetic and sociological circumstance, in large part drive the course
of the human experience on the scale of centuries. Days and years are
the domain of the second hander, but in an honest analysis of the
fabric of lifestyle, the constituents that run deepest are the ones
put there by the innovators, people of practically boundless means,
often independent or even solitary toilers. The innovators are the
great givers, the fountains of life. The power brokers are willing to
squash the whole of humanity, in order to reach and crush those few
great innovators who threaten their hegemony, innovators who are
often nameless and faceless until they already present a credible
threat to the power brokers. Many of those currently in positions of
influence and power pursue fundamentally tyrannical world government,
because they want to snuff out any process anywhere which has the
potential to erode or destroy their positions of advantage. Even
local socio-political evolution, left to its own devices, presents
such a potential, so it too is snuffed out to the greatest possible
degree, for example through engines of cultural imperialism.
In terms of evolutionary psychology, at the very nucleus of the
conflict between the innovators and the power brokers is a battle
over women. The innovators envision a society in which mates are
mutually chosen by free will, based on merit, where merit is a
measure of the degree to which an individual enables satisfaction,
innovation, and the freedom of others (in a word, prosperity). The
power brokers envision a society in which the powerful choose mates
who are substantially deprived of free will, and who base what
decisions they are let to make on the power of a prospective mate,
where power is a measure of the deprivation of free will the power
broker exercises as control over others. Indeed, it is precisely
because the practices of the power brokers (rape, seduction and
coercion by political power in the form of command authority, fame,
or monetary wealth, etc.) produce short term procreative dividends,
that there are people living today who instinctually practice the
predatory corruptions of the power brokers. The great innovators and
most effective power brokers have always been, are, and will always
be, mostly men. Thus, women are entangled in the middle, and the
battle between the innovators and the power brokers is a battle
between a system in which women are free (the innovators' society)
and one in which they are slaves (the power brokers' society). Women
are, nonetheless, a much lesser concern and occupation for the
innovators than for the power brokers - partly because other people
per se are not a consuming concern or occupation for them.
Theory Restated
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 social and economic
revolution. Though butterflies in Brazil are beyond the reach of
meteorological methods, 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
establishment has constructed to preserve its advantages.
A crucial asymmetry is on exhibit here. The establishment - or the
establishments, as it is not at all monolithic - can survive only by
exterminating all disruptive innovation everywhere all the time. In
contrast, any one of the many disruptive innovators - each of whom is
independent and scattered - can overthrow an establishment through
disruptive innovation. The prospects for an establishment's survival
are in fact vanishingly dim, in the long run.
People at the center of the western establishment oligarchy have at
times openly aligned themselves with (and less openly, directly
subsidized and partnered with) regimes in which individualists and
innovators were exterminated by the millions. These are their vain
attempts to exterminate all disruptive innovation everywhere all the
time.
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 establishment 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, ''futurist'', and 1984
Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, has been exposing the
establishment (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. There are always people
with established advantages, envisioning and planning a final
solution for the innovator problem, so to speak.
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. In fact, most DSM-IV
(American Psychiatric Association standard) mental illness involves
minds and brains that are more ordered than healthy minds and brains.
Chaos is healthy, and empowers consciousness. Order is morbid. 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). The establishment instinctually seeks to bring about a
circumstance in which all movement in the structure of societies,
economies, sciences, technologies, and arts, is arrested. This,
however, is nothing but Thanatos expanded to the whole of the world.
It is the establishment's instinctual desire for death - for extinction.
[END QUOTE]
