* rkm: Holocaust, Regionalism, and the End of Capitalism *


Richard Moore

Holocaust, Regionalism, and the End of Capitalism
Richard K. Moore
4 January, 2008


In Part 1 of this analysis, ³The Post-Bush Regime: a Prognosis², I developed 
these main themes:

€  The neocon agenda has been seriously reined in by our ruling clique of elite 
financial players. We are in for a Œnew story¹ ­ the ŒGore Agenda¹.

€  As the Industrial North continues to consume more and more energy and 
resources, and as resources decline, mass die-offs in the Global South are 
inevitable: we can expect to see the globalization of African-scale famines.

€  Our elite clique is in fact covertly expediting these die-offs by means of 
destabilization programs of various kinds. They are engaging in deliberate and 
selective genocide, as a way of managing the die-off process in the Global 

I would now like to bring in some economic considerations. Consider, for 
example, the state of the American economy. It is a total shambles: deeply in 
debt, operating at an astronomical deficit, and suffering from a chronic trade 
imbalance. The dollar is slipping in value, and could suffer collapse any time 
foreign holders start cutting their losses and dumping their dollars. On top of 
this we have the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which then led to a global crisis in
the world of credit and finance. By all indications, the US economy is headed 
for a deep recession or worse.

In fact, under the neocon regime, many of us were expecting a total economic 
collapse to occur, to be followed by martial law, perhaps even of the Gestapo 
variety. That seemed to be the whole point of the Œanti-terrorism¹ legislation 
and Homeland Security ­ to create the infrastructure of a fascist police state. 
My own view at the time was that these jackboot methods were the clique¹s answer
to an inevitable collapse. But with the neocon agenda reined in, and an 
optimistic new administration on the way, the prospect of martial law now seems 
distant. It doesn¹t fit with the new story. It is no longer in the cards.

This can only mean that our clique has found some other response to a collapse 
scenario, some other way to deal with an economy in shambles. And what other 
response really could there be, than to avoid a collapse altogether, and to 
instead engineer an economic recovery? That¹s the only way that America can keep
operating, in the absence of martial law. And besides, such a move provides a 
needed response to a critical political situation.

Under the neocons, Americans have increasingly been not only in dissent with 
administration policy, but have been losing faith in the system altogether. The 
loss of Constitutional rights, CIA torture, voting irregularities ­ these kind 
of things strike at the very heart of what America has always pretended to stand

It is never a good thing for rulers when folks start losing faith in the system,
particularly if jackboot methods are not available. It would be a very good move
for the clique to bring folks back onside, back to being happy campers. 
New-story rhetoric can help a bit, but only an economic recovery could bring 
back that feeling of, ³Aren¹t we lucky to be Americans!² That¹s how the clique 
likes it. A content flock is an easily managed flock. So evidently, based partly
on massive investment in Gore-agenda new technologies, we can look forward to a 
recovery program that will get America back on its feet.

In addition to investments, I think it is clear that massive government 
interventionism in the economy will also be required for a recovery program to 
succeed. In these kinds of situations there is always an important role to be 
played by government-funded programs that get people into employment and spur 
economic activity.

Given the dire state of our fundamental economy at the moment, these 
interventionist programs will need to be considerable, amounting to a kind of 
Œmini-New Deal¹. And as in the New Deal, we can expect some of these programs to
be of a social-welfare nature. Funding some kind of universal health care 
program, for example, would be one way to get some economic activity going, and 
it would also help in bringing the masses back onside. Perhaps some kind of real
solution to homelessness could be undertaken, and that would certainly be a 
massive undertaking.

Even the Federal Reserve has been calling for increased interventionism, to deal
with Œirresponsible lending practices¹. When we take into account that the Fed 
actively promoted such practices and thereby initiated the crisis, my guess is 
that the whole sub-prime fiasco was contrived in order to justify the kind of 
economic interventionism that will be needed to enable recovery.

Given the growth in the biofuels marketplace already, it is clear that 
conversion to renewable energy sources is going to be one of the fast track, 
government-driven programs. Already the White House was directly involved in 
negotiating an agreement with President Lulu of Brazil, whereby Brazil will 
embark on a massive biofuels production program.

The government has a lot of leverage, in controlling how aggressively biofuel 
production will be pursued. They could, for example, mandate that all gasoline 
and diesel must contain a higher percentage of biofuels, which would drive up 
the price of biofuels, and farmers would rush in to meet the mandated production
level. This shift to energy renewables will not be left to market forces alone. 
We¹ve gotten too many signals that Œnew energy sources¹ is going to be one of 
the flagship programs of the new administration, and promoting growth in the 
biofuels market is by far the quickest and easiest way for the administration to
achieve real successes in such a program.

Biofuels are an attractive crop to Brazilian farmers, or to any farmer in the 
Global South who has suitable land. They can get a good price on global markets 
relative to other agricultural products. And every farmer loves a strong and 
reliable market for his products, and for biofuels we have that in spades ­ all 
those cars, trucks, ships, and planes running around in the world. If global 
energy prices go up, that's all the better for the farmers; the biofuel prices 
track up along with them. For Lulu, closing a deal with Washington for biofuel 
production scores easy political points with the whole farming sector. But what 
does it mean for Brazil? And how much do the farmers really benefit?

For the Brazilian people, it means their ability to produce their own food will 
be reduced by the same amount that biofuel production increases. At the same 
time global food prices are rising sharply, due largely to biofuel production, 
so that importing food is no answer to the problem. If sufficiently many farmers
switch to biofuel production, there will be famine and starvation in Brazil. If 
the new administration pushes really hard for more biofuel production, as it 
seems they will be doing, they are in effect waging a campaign to starve as many
Brazilians to death as possible.

When you take away a people's land, their source of sustenance, for your own 
use, you are condemning them either to death, exile, or virtual serfdom on the 
land that was theirs. This is true whether you occupy the land, as we did when 
we Won the West, or whether you gain control over the land by other means, such 
as a strong market price for biofuels. As we run our fuel-efficient cars, and 
our Industrial North, increasingly on biofuels, we are as surely invading Brazil
as if we were doing it with covered wagons and the cavalry. To the extent we can
maximize the conversion of suitable land to biofuel production, to that extent 
we are pursuing a path of genocide in the Global South.

As regards the farmers, they will be little more than serfs, whether on their 
independent farms, or as laborers in industrial farming operations. As in all 
agricultural sectors these days, the farmer gets a subsistence price for his 
products, the consumer pays a premium price, and the middle men ­ the 
distributors and the financiers ­ get the lion's share of the profits from the 
overall transaction. The ultimate biofuels vision would turn the global South 
into one big biofuel plantation, and the only people living down there would be 
the plantation slaves and their bosses. Once again we'd have the Industrial 
North, and the Slave Plantation South, only this time the South would be 
producing something the North could use, instead of growing cotton for export 

Who knows, by following such an exploitive vision, it might actually be possible
for the automobile, much improved, to survive peak oil. Given people's 
attachment to their cars, they'll be able to rationalize whatever is required to
keep those cars purring along.

Keep in mind that it was only a minority of pioneers in frontier America who 
actually encountered the Indians, and who thought that 'the only good redskin is
a dead redskin'. The bulk of the population, back east, was comparatively 
liberal and sympathetic to the Indians. And yet they acquiesced in the 
systematic genocide, as their 'great nation' pursued its Œeminent domain. In 
general liberal Northerners have adjusted very well to imperialist excesses of 
all sorts, particularly if they perceived themselves as being well off. If it 
means people can keep their cars, they won't be in any mind to connect the dots 
to mass famines 'down there', which the media will be only to eager to blame on 
unfortunate natural causes.

I've been focusing overmuch on biofuels, I fear, as they provide such a rich 
picture of the nature of the Gore agenda. In fact, the appropriation of the 
resources of the Global South has been the hallmark of European imperialism from
the beginning, and a fully exploited South would not be devoted exclusively to 
biofuel plantations. There would also be mines, oil wells, cattle and coffee 
plantations, slum factory zones, etc, each area producing whatever it is most 
efficient at producing. What is special about the biofuel program is that it 
signals a final assault on the Global South, the launching of a final solution 
to the problem of exploiting the resources of the South.

Instead of interventions and intrigues, tinhorn dictators and market forces ­ 
instead of all these troublesome mechanisms of indirect resource management, we 
are now going for the jugular, the food supply. We are setting out to clear the 
land for our use, so that we can keep the engines of the Industrial North 
running. Most of the people on the land are for our purposes now redundant, what
Kissinger ­ author of that infamous Government report (NSSM 200) on depopulation
­ allegedly refers to as ³useless feeders².

We can see this final solution in operation already in Sub-Saharan Africa, where
millions of children die each year from disease and starvation, and the 
genocidal process is helped along by destabilizing interventions of various 
kinds, while the media blames it all on droughts and tribal conflicts. With this
new strife in Kenya we see the consequences of an ongoing intervention episode, 
as the Pentagon¹s new AFRICOM command seeks an excuse for a foothold in the Horn
of Africa.

In the decades following World War II the Industrial North experienced a boom 
period, under capitalism, based on opening up the Global South ('Free World') to
exploitation by capital generally, no longer restricted by the old colonial 
boundaries. Once again the North needs to find a way to more systematically 
exploit the resources of the Global South. The time has come, evidently, to take
a final-solution approach to that exploitation.

We need to be clear here: this is not a case of the people of the South being 
sacrificed so that the people of the North can survive. It¹s not about 
over-population per se. The people of the South are being sacrificed so the 
North can keep its exorbitantly wasteful systems going, not only its flagrant 
over-use of long-distance transport, but equally its water & energy-intensive 
agricultural methods.

While access to petroleum has been the most critical enabling factor in 
industrial societies for the past century, access to land in the South will 
become the most critical factor in the future. This will lead to a dramatic 
change in geopolitical dynamics: a resurgence of territoriality as a principle 
of economic well-being. If nation-sized plantation operations are necessary to 
keep the engines of the North running, then the nations of the North will be 
seeking to secure access to Southern territories, on a sufficient scale to 
supply their needs.

In particular, rising food prices and rising food scarcities will motivate 
Northern nations to secure territories in the Global South, in order to provide 
food for their own needs. In general, the more the North depends on a 
large-scale transfer of resources from South to North in order to continue 
operating, the more the securing of Southern territories will become an economic
imperative for nations in the North.

Such a territorial focus will naturally lead to regionalism, and a thoroughgoing
reversal of the tides of globalization. Already China is getting its region in 
order, with the SCO and related initiatives. China has long expressed the 
desire, nay the natural right, to regional hegemony, and it seems sincere in 
wanting only that; self-containment is a very long tradition in Chinese culture.
In the expansion of the EU into the former Soviet realms, we see the creation of
another viable regional block, even if it might have been created for other 
reasons, under an earlier game plan. Russia fits nicely into a game of 
territories, being so vast on its own, and with a wealth of resources that its 
neighboring blocks are eager to buy at market price. A reunion with some of the 
old Soviet Block to the south would make a lot of sense for both parties.

Interestingly enough, this regional picture is in many ways similar to the world
described by Samuel P. Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations. In his scenario
however, our own Anglo-American clique, along with the Pentagon, are supreme 
rulers of all, with each region being managed by a subservient Œcore state¹. It 
seems that Russia and China have risen to peer status much quicker than 
Huntington imagined they could. ³Today Iraq, Tomorrow the World!² does not seem 
to have panned out. I suppose when our grandkids study The Rise and Fall of the 
American Empire, the PNAC document and Huntington¹s book will be on the required
reading list, under the heading, their last great dream ­ how they were going to
conquer the world.

This brings us to the North American Union, and the new Amero currency.  
Canadians seem to be a lot more aware of the NAU than are folks in the US. To 
most Americans (by which I usually mean the US variety), the NAU is just another
conspiracy theory ­ ³If it¹s not on TV, it couldn¹t be true.² Canadians on the 
other hand have long felt colonized by the giant to the south, both culturally 
and economically. Particularly recently, with both free-trade treaties and 
heightened security malarkey, Canadians can see that they are becoming more and 
more integrated into a North American system of some kind. They have been much 
more alert to what's going on, and they've been tracking the somewhat covert 
progress of this other regional block, the North American Union, which is to be 
made up of Canada, the US, and Mexico, and which is to have a new currency, the 

Canada has lots of resources and relatively few people. It's got uranium, 
timber, water, wheat, claims to the Arctic and the newly opened Northwest 
Passage, and much else. Mexico brings to the party lots of cheap labor, lots of 
good agricultural land, some oil, and a variety of resources that can be more 
systematically exploited with the help of some investment in modernization. The 
NAU amounts to a colonial expansion on the part of the US, a bit like England 
absorbing Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in earlier days. On paper there might be 
some kind of equality in the arrangement, but in reality it will be the US 
operators and the US part of the economy that will get the lion's share of the 
benefits. For Mexico, the NAU may turn out to be a blessing nonetheless, if it 
spares them the holocaust being prepared for the Global South.

Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution cause us to consider two alternative 
possible futures for South America. The Bolivarian alternative would be by far 
the best one for the people of South America. This alternative would lead to 
South America as a regional block in its own right, with its own relatively 
adequate resource base, oil and all. This alternative would however save South 
America from the fate of the Global South, and hence would seriously reduce the 
total resource base available for exploitation by the Industrial North.

As much as I love and support Chavez, and pray for his noble democratizing 
efforts to succeed, I fear that a resurgence is very likely in covert 
interventions in the left-leaning South American upstart nations. Perhaps there 
will even be a return to the era of the dictators and the disappeared. The rest 
of the world, busy building their own regional havens, would be quite happy to 
tolerate US interventionism in South America ­ its traditional back yard ­ if in
return Washington reduces its meddling in the rest of the world's affairs, hence
another reason for the PNAC rein-in.

Our clique cannot afford to let South America achieve its liberation. In a 
regionalized world, an Industrialized North America needs South America as its 
own regional share of the Global South, along with whatever it can grab in 
Africa and elsewhere. The Monroe Doctrine lives on. The new biofuel program in 
Brazil is the harbinger of the onslaught to come.

Let us now consider the nature of a regionalized world, where the North is 
living off the resource base of the South, and where the South is partitioned 
into vast colonial territories ­ as in the old days of Grand Empire. We¹re 
probably talking about a comparatively peaceful world, as each regional block 
would be a major nuclear power, and its Southern territories would in fact be 
essential to its Œregional interests¹. There would be no independent territories
left in the South to squabble over, so we¹d have the strategic stability of the 
Cold War, without the proxy wars that might bring in the potential for 

In our existing regime of comparatively small nations, where the critical 
resources (eg oil) are concentrated in a few places in the world, geopolitics 
has been oriented around Œcontrolling the straits¹ ­ competing to control the 
critical resources themselves and the access routes to them. Power struggles 
have been inherent in geopolitical dynamics. In a regionalized world, where the 
critical resources (ie land) are much more uniformly distributed, there aren¹t 
any special straits to compete over. Competition and struggle are no longer an 
inherent part of geopolitical dynamics.

What happens to the notion of economic growth in such a world? If the engines of
the North depend on the resource flows from the South, and if the Regions of the
North are not competing over each other¹s Southern territories, then the rate of
Northern resource consumption will need to fall to the level of available 
inputs. The paradigm of growth no longer makes sense. This implies there will be
a major shift in Northern economic paradigms, and in the cultures themselves.

Instead of capitalism, whose core dynamic is growth, we will evolve toward a 
more feudal kind of economics, where control over resources is the measure of 
wealth, rather than the value of growth-oriented investments. Northern societies
will become more stable and static, and each generation won¹t be faced with new 
infrastructures, based on new technologies, requiring people to learn new kinds 
of jobs, migrate to new locations, and adapt to new residential and transport 

To a large extent, our economies and cultures will come to resemble those of the
Middle Ages. People will compete to rise in static hierarchies, and we may get a
more class-based society, where children tend to follow in their parent¹s 
footsteps. No doubt religions will change as well. Protestantism has always been
closely linked to growth and capitalism, and we are likely to see a return to 
something more like the Medieval Church, organized hierarchically, and teaching 
its congregations to be good sheep rather than to exhibit the uppity Protestant 
Ethic. And at the top of our own regional hierarchy will be the descendents of 
our current clique, behaving like monarchs and aristocrats of old, rather than 
being manipulators behind the scenes.

If we want to avoid this kind of future, and the holocaust that goes with, it is
up to us to take the initiative to do so, us ordinary people. There is no 
inherent reason why we cannot create sustainable societies, in both the South 
and the North, and base our exchanges on mutual benefit rather than 
exploitation. Our real problems are not about economics or resources, but rather
the fact that our societies, and their future paths, are controlled by cliques 
who are concerned only with their own self-interests.

Our challenge, and the only way to achieve a sensible future, is to establish 
genuinely democratic societies, where the wisdom and will of the people can be 
manifested to guide the course of our societies. What prevents us from doing 
this is the fact that we are divided against one another, and the fact that we 
have no idea of what a democratic society might look like. We have no experience
in that area. Our competitive electoral systems have nothing to do with 
democracy. They are instead efficient mechanisms to keep us divided and to 
enable power brokers at the top to control the political process. As voters, we 
are corralled into the hopeless dilemma of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Our first task, if we want to move toward our own democratic empowerment, is to 
abandon the myth that we already live in democratic societies. Only then can we 
can begin to learn what democracy is about and how to achieve it. That¹s been 
the focus of my own research and studies for the past five years or so:


newslog archives: 

Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework: 

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