PDA

View Full Version : What is the New World Order?



Vojvoda
Tuesday, November 18th, 2003, 10:09 PM
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins99/tim99-11-4.html

Excerpt: "This satanic plot (New World Order/One World Government) was launched back in the 1760s when it first came into existence under the name 'Illuminati' ('Enlightened'). This Illuminati was organized by one Adam Weishaupt, born a Jew, who converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest. At the behest of the then newly organized House of Rothschild, Weishaupt defected (Catholicism) and organized the Illuminati."

Moody
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003, 05:28 PM
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins99/tim99-11-4.html

Excerpt: "This satanic plot (New World Order/One World Government) was launched back in the 1760s when it first came into existence under the name 'Illuminati' ('Enlightened'). This Illuminati was organized by one Adam Weishaupt, born a Jew, who converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest. At the behest of the then newly organized House of Rothschild, Weishaupt defected (Catholicism) and organized the Illuminati."

I think this issue is of VITAL importance for us.
The crucial document is of course The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion.
This book must be read VERY thoroughly.
Here is an on-line version;

www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/illuminatiprotocols

gorgeousgal2k2
Sunday, November 23rd, 2003, 03:37 PM
I think this issue is of VITAL importance for us.
The crucial document is of course The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion.
This book must be read VERY thoroughly.
Here is an on-line version;

www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/illuminatiprotocols

wtf are you doing posting up a 100 year old Russian forgery?

i've read the protocols, and i found them dull, turgid and completely impossible to understand.

if you're going to write something like that, at least make it interesting.

Milesian
Sunday, November 23rd, 2003, 06:13 PM
wtf are you doing posting up a 100 year old Russian forgery?

i've read the protocols, and i found them dull, turgid and completely impossible to understand.

if you're going to write something like that, at least make it interesting.

The authenticity is debatable, but far from disproved.
Also, it was once commented that if they were a forgery then they are the most remarkably accurate predictions ever written, fictional or not.
They aren't so difficult to understand in my opinion, just uncannily relevant even after all this time.

Volund the Smith
Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 09:11 AM
I remember Bush Sr. talking about the "New World Order" back when he was in power. His son's in now but its the same program. Both were "bonesmen" which may or may not have ties to illuminati/masonry. personally i think the illuminati( bavarian or otherwise) is defunct. whereas the bones are definatly still an influence. the masonry is on the outs as well, as their recruitment is down,i recently seen a booth for "Scottish Rite Masonry" at a local plow match. Talking to the old fella he said no one seems interested anymore and that their average age in the lodge is 65 or older.

Turificator
Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 09:18 AM
Noam Chomsky on the NWO (1991 article): http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-berkeley.html

Siegfried
Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 09:25 AM
I remember Bush Sr. talking about the "New World Order" back when he was in power. His son's in now but its the same program. Both were "bonesmen" which may or may not have ties to illuminati/masonry. personally i think the illuminati( bavarian or otherwise) is defunct. whereas the bones are definatly still an influence. the masonry is on the outs as well, as their recruitment is down,i recently seen a booth for "Scottish Rite Masonry" at a local plow match. Talking to the old fella he said no one seems interested anymore and that their average age in the lodge is 65 or older.

Matt Herbens, who took over the the LPF (http://www.lijst-pimfortuyn.nl/) after Fortuyn's death, is involved in Masonry and is a member of the Dutch parliament. Pro-Jewish, anti-Islam.
Once you start looking into the backgrounds of various Western politicians, you'll often find ties with various Jewish, Masonic and otherwise secretive groups. This has nothing to do with paranoia, but is a simple fact. We are ruled by people with a secret agenda. Jew Watch (http://www.jewwatch.com) is very informative in this respect.

Kvasir_
Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Listen to MYRON C. FAGAN and his exposÚ on the Illuminati and Council on Foreign Relations. These were recorded in the late 60┤s on three LP Records, the files are in mp3 format.
http://100777.com/node/view/361

Volund the Smith
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 06:44 AM
Thanks Siegfreid i have it bookmarked now, it does warrent alot more study.
However, I didn't mention paranoia once in my post but i'm not here to split hairs either. Again thanks for the link.

14!

Siegfried
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 09:18 AM
Thanks Siegfreid i have it bookmarked now, it does warrent alot more study.
However, I didn't mention paranoia once in my post but i'm not here to split hairs either. Again thanks for the link.

I'm sorry if the quote gave you the impression the paranoia-thing was aimed at you - it wasn't. :) Just a general remark.

MarquisKobold
Saturday, October 16th, 2004, 01:39 PM
And what do you think about the Illuminati financing Hitler and his ascense to power?

I mean, lots of Skadi posters are NS, what's your opinion on that?

Zvonimir
Saturday, October 16th, 2004, 03:14 PM
And what do you think about the Illuminati financing Hitler and his ascense to power?

I mean, lots of Skadi posters are NS, what's your opinion on that?

I think I want proof not romers.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 06:56 AM
The Illuminati were very anti-Nazi. In fact, the Illuminati mobilized opposition to Hitler in Britain, America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. Do you want to identify the Illuminati? Look and find who is now whispering in George W. Bush's ear. Today, we just call them Neo-Cons, their most recent incarnation.

But Hitler didn't need the Illuminati. He had something far better. He had Dr. Hjalmar Schact. Dr. Schact was the financial wizard who took Germany from the Depression, in 1933, to a positon of economic dominance by 1936. He did this using NS economics--no magic, no borrowing, no Illuminati.

NS economics is no secret. My friend Greg Rowe wrote a whole novel explaining how it works on the Folk level called "The Device".

MarquisKobold
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 02:54 PM
Well, i think that national socialism and communism were puppets of the Illuminati created to destroy europe in the WW2 (divide and conquer), as nowadays are zionism (they are clearly in the USA government) and islamic terrorism (remember those famous conspiracy theories about the CIA being behind the attacks on the WTC?), and this struggle could lead to WW3.
It is well known that Hussein got weapons from the americans, they "secretly" create the enemy to justify their fight for the "Free World" and create a global government.
The Illuminati have no morals and no political beliefs, they just create a problem and then they bring the solution to it.

gorgeousgal2k2
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 10:01 PM
The New World Order only came about really after the second world war, or even more recently if you believe some people. It wasn't some secret conspiracy that took control without anyone knowing, and by "brainwashing" everyone. People - politicians, the ordinary people - took part in it and colluded in it willingly.

There is no secret society with enough power to single-handedly manage the world on it's own. My maternal grandfather - a Christian - was a Freemason for a few years, he gave it up. It is nothing but a club where men get together to dress up and do silly rituals. Those who blame it on secret societys which have very few members and even less influence are totally missing the point.

There is a sort of conspiracy, but the men at the top are not the only ones who are responsible for it. And it is not responsible for everything. Human greed and the desperation for material things is the reason why people willingly collaborate with it.

Look around you...sometimes people are so busy looking for "secret knowledge" they miss the most obvious manifestations of the NWOs power, they probably see things every day and think nothing of them simply because they have been brought up to believe in them every day, think nothing of them, and accept them as part of the way in which they live.

MarquisKobold
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 10:46 PM
The New World Order only came about really after the second world war, or even more recently if you believe some people. It wasn't some secret conspiracy that took control without anyone knowing, and by "brainwashing" everyone. People - politicians, the ordinary people - took part in it and colluded in it willingly.

There is no secret society with enough power to single-handedly manage the world on it's own. My maternal grandfather - a Christian - was a Freemason for a few years, he gave it up. It is nothing but a club where men get together to dress up and do silly rituals. Those who blame it on secret societys which have very few members and even less influence are totally missing the point.

There is a sort of conspiracy, but the men at the top are not the only ones who are responsible for it. And it is not responsible for everything. Human greed and the desperation for material things is the reason why people willingly collaborate with it.

Look around you...sometimes people are so busy looking for "secret knowledge" they miss the most obvious manifestations of the NWOs power, they probably see things every day and think nothing of them simply because they have been brought up to believe in them every day, think nothing of them, and accept them as part of the way in which they live.
Yes, we are colaborating every day with the new order and whatever societies or companies are responsible of it. We get paid by the company we work for and then spend that money in products offered by the same company, it's a nightmare.
I dont see an inminent solution to all this, maybe would help to stop borrowing money to buy shitloads of useless stuff...

I agree with you that there is a bit of hysteria about secret societies being very dark and creepy, most people have a very hollywood-esque image of secret societies, but hey, im not denying that those societies exist and have some kind of power.

By the way, and if it's not asking too much, what grade reached your grandfather?

gorgeousgal2k2
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 10:48 PM
he was just a lay member for a few years.

MarquisKobold
Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, 11:17 PM
Well, some people say that freemasons dont get into 'serious' stuff until they reach the 33th grade. Anyway i dont really know much about freemasonry grades so i will shut up.

Milesian
Sunday, October 24th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Well, some people say that freemasons dont get into 'serious' stuff until they reach the 33th grade. Anyway i dont really know much about freemasonry grades so i will shut up.


33rd degree is the top level. I'm pretty certain they understand what it's about before they get to that stage. Once a Mason gets past the first three degrees (and the vast majority don't), then they are slowly allowed into the secrets (which are basically there to know even for non-Masons).

gorgeousgal2k2
Sunday, October 24th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Actually I just asked my mum about it, and she said that he did eventually become Master of the Lodge (in a small mining village in Namibia) ;) However, he only joined it because he was bored and there was nothing else to do :D and he gave it up when he moved away...

Milesian
Sunday, October 24th, 2004, 10:40 PM
Actually I just asked my mum about it, and she said that he did eventually become Master of the Lodge

Yeah, Master Mason (3rd degree). Most Masons do not go beyond that, and many don't even know there is anything beyond the regular blue lodge



(in a small mining village in Namibia) ;) However, he only joined it because he was bored and there was nothing else to do :D and he gave it up when he moved away...


Pffft....a likely story ;) :lol

Tripredacus
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 09:05 AM
was launched back in the 1760s when it first came into existence under the name 'Illuminati' ('Enlightened').

This is incorrect. The "Illuminati" had existed before that point, by at least 300-500 years prior to the 1760s. It became known by that name by Weishaupt, but he was used by the group to reveal its existance. The society previous to the name Illuminati was first formed by the Knights Templar.


And what do you think about the Illuminati financing Hitler and his ascense to power?

It makes me wonder sometimes. I am not sure whether I believe that or not. While it is true that Society powers had financed Nazi Germany (Bank of America, IBM etc) I am not certain that the idea of Hitler being a member of the Society and purposefully leading Germany into a war of defeat is true. Of course then again, the results of the war do show that it had gone according to "plan." And by this I mean that there were many things that the League of Nations tried to get made into "law" but were refused, so then this "manufactured war" was created, and in the aftermath, they got what they wanted. Originally, the plan (or still is actually) to create a Unified Europe, and then Europe said no. So Germany wanted to create a unified Europe (forcibly) and Europe said no. But now today there is a unified Europe. The plan is to also create Unions of Asia, America and Africa.


The Illuminati were very anti-Nazi.

It may appear that way but that is incorrect. Like all Illuminati operations, they back both sides of a conflict in order to control it properly. Then their false intentions are brought to light (aka backing only one side.) This also happens to this day. Those who have escaped from the Illuminati have reported that the highest group speaks German and is highly nazi-oriented. The ideal of the master race is still fresh in their minds and they hate anyone who is not of their class. It has also become known to me that they may/do accept Jews to join them, but they have to renounce their religion beforehand.


Do you want to identify the Illuminati? Look and find who is now whispering in George W. Bush's ear.

The Illuminati has lost control of the United States and George W Bush. It can be seen because the greatest control agent of the NWO, the United Nations, is losing its power because the United States is acting against it. Also notice that Tony Blair is going to be impeached (if it hasn't already started, a bid to impeach him passed Parliament a couple weeks ago) because he is backing the United States.


There is no secret society with enough power to single-handedly manage the world on it's own.

Of course not. When people think of the Illuminati, they think of it as being THE group that controls the world. This is not true. It has it's lower level organisations that also help out. There are other groups out there as well, most of which do not have names.


It is nothing but a club where men get together to dress up and do silly rituals.

Freemasonry was created as a way to ligitimise Masonry. Freemasons can get to the very top of their order and still no nothing of what the Masons do. They are watched very carefully however. If it is determined that a high level Freemason is worthy of a further promotion about 33rd degree, it is done. And then that person moves out of Freemasonry and into the parent organisation.


they miss the most obvious manifestations of the NWOs power

This is a good point that I would like to comment on. The regular person normally scoffs at anything conspiracy related. Certain subjects and authors are immediately blacklisted by people. The important thing that they are missing is what is between the lines. Of course it is not possible (with enough research) to believe everything that comes out of the "conspiracy" camp because the "facts" do not line up. What is important is that a lot of the facts are researched very well and can be substantially backed up. But people do not see this because since it falls into the conspiracy category, it must be fiction until proven otherwise. So what I suppose I am saying is while the aim or conclusion of information in "conspiracy theories" may be incorrect or invalid (it is a POV thing that I respect however) that does not mean that the points that led to that conclusion are incorrect.

FadeTheButcher
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 12:37 AM
Some fascinating details. The New Rome meets the new barbarians. LOL I can only imagine norcalnative1979 being struck down from above by a ZOG deathstar. Itz coming. :laugh: :icon_evil

"One unusual aspect of American militarism in the twenty-first century is that the government has elaborate plans to exert world dominance not merely through a vast military machine on this planet but through the control of space. The first hint of such aspirations could be found in the aerial bombardment of Serbia from March 24 until June 3, 1999. Pilots, including some in B-2 stealth bombers whose bombs runs took them from Missouri to the Balkans and back, flew more than 36,000 sortries over Serbia. In the course of this campaign only two aircraft were shot down and not a single American combat casuality occurred. General Richard B. Myers, then head of the U.S. Space Command, commented that Kosovo was "a space-enabled war," "a new benchmark" for the future. Military satellites and a space-based global positioning system had allowed U.S. aircraft to launch more or less precise bombing and guided-missle attacks that kept soldiers and airmen far from danger. In August 2001, President George W. Bush named mayers to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first officer from such a background to be entrusted with the nation's highest military post.

The next space-enabled war followed less than a month after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Americans began high-altitude bombing of Afghanistan, a country already so devastated by over two decades of war that the dislodging of the repressive Taliban regime proved relatively easy. Despite Pentagon reports of only occasional "collateral damage," the United States killed at least as many civilians in Afghanistan as the terrorist attacks had killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nonetheless, the military claimed a great victory, with almost no American casualties, and further vindication for its new high-tech, space based mode of war making.

In 2001, President Bush appointed Peter Teets, former chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin, undersecretary of the air force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), in budgetary terms our largest intelligence agency. At the eighteenth annual National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in April 2002, Teets was joined by General Ed Eberhardt, General Myers's successor at the Space Command, in scoring the message that the United States can control the world through a planned domination of space and that it intends to ensure that domination.

Teets and Eberhardt emphasized the role of space in the victory over the Taliban, arguing that satellites were heavily used in the war and that they "allowed for extremely precise bombing by fighters and unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan." Eberhardt asserted that the provision of broadband services from space was as important to soldiers as providing them with intelligence. "We in Space Command provided [General] Tommy Franks [commander in Afghanistan] seven times the bandwidth that was provided to [General] Norman Schwarzkopf, and an individual soldier had 322 times the bandwidth that was available in Desert Storm." Jeff Harris, a former director of the NRO and now an executive at Lockheed's Space Systems Company, told the convention, "The U.S. must now act regularly in a preemptive and proactive way around the globe, using space-based resources for local skirmishes . . The U.S. military should make all potential adversaries unquestionably afraid of U.S. capabilities." Undersecretary Teets derided any talk of cooperation with NATO or the United Nations or other forms of "burden-sharing" or "multilateralism." The United States, he said, should be proud of its unilateral capabilities and should exploit "our space supremacy, our space dominance, to achieve warfighting success." More than anything else, it is this cybertech military prowess that is fueling a rethinking of the entire military establishment and its missions.

Even prior to the Afghan war, a group of right-wing "defense intellectuals" had started to advocate a comprehensive new strategy for global domination. Many had served in earlier Republican administrations and most of them were again given high appointive positions when George W. Bush became president. They focused on plans for the next decade or two in much the same way that Captain Alfred T. Mahan of the navy, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt had emphasized sea power, Pacific bases, and a two-ocean navy at the end of the nineteenth century. Rarely taking the public into their confidence, the members of this new clique were masters of media manipulation, something they acknowledged they had "learned" as a result of bitter experience during the Vietnam War. The terrorist incidents of 2001, much like the sinking of the battleship Maine in 18989, gave a tremendous boost to their private agenda. It mobilized popular sentiment and patriotism behind military iniatives that might otherwise have elicted serious mainstream doubts and protests.

The determination to militarize outer space and dominate the globe from orbiting battle stations armed with an array of weapons includes high-energy lasers that could be directed toward any target on earth or against other nations' satellites. The Space Command's policy statement, "Vision for 2020," argues that "the globalization of the world economy will continue, with a widening gulf between "haves" and "have-nots," and that the Pentagon's mission is therefore to "dominate the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments" in an increasingly dangerous and implicitly anti-American world. One crucial goal of policy should be "denying other countries access to space."

Such an aggressive attempt to ensure unilateral military hegemony requires that this country abandon all arms control agreements and constraints, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which placed limits on the militarization of space, since space is inherently global. (Satellites do not remain within national boundries.) The logic behind the weaponization of space is an ancient one implicit in virtually all imperialist projects -- the need to protect some territory or capability whose vulnerability has been exaggerated and where alternatives to military options have not even been considered."

Johnson, pp.79-81

SouthernBoy
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 12:42 AM
..sooner or later. :)

FadeTheButcher
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 12:49 AM
LOL all jokes aside, some of this technology is pretty fascinating. I will try to find some information about it.

SouthernBoy
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 01:11 AM
If we control space, that will become the ultimate "kiss my ass" day to everyone else. I have always been a more see the bigger picture type of person. The truth is if we control the moon noone will be able to refuel for a longer, more questionable journey.

FadeTheButcher
Saturday, January 15th, 2005, 01:41 AM
"During the summer of 2002, the Bush administration direct lawyers in the Department of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act and any other laws that might restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement. At the time, the Defense Department was creating a new regional command to defend North America, comparable to those for Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific. The Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, is intended to better position the military to respond to terrorism close to home and to prevent the introduction of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons into the United States. (Even during Wolrd War II, the federal government did not create a centralized command for the American mainland, because of concerns that it become the basis of a military dictatorship.) The command's jurisdiction included the United States, Mexico, Canada, and Cuba. Neither the Mexicans, the Canadians nor, of course, the Cubans were consulted. The new headquarters, like that of the other regional "CINCs" (commanders in chief), will exist largely outside either the civilian or the military chains of command. CINCs are, in fact, comparable to Roman proconsuls, expect that the men assigned to that post in the Roman Republic had already held the highest office in the realm, that of control, and were deeply trusted civilians and military veterans. . . .

In the Middle East (CENTCOM), the Pacific (PACOM), Europe (EUCOM), and Latin America (SOUTHCOM), the CINCs oversee such things as intelligence, special operations, space assets, nuclear forces, arms sales, and military bases; and they produce what are called "theater engagement plans." These are essentially mini-foreign policy statements for each region and include explicit programs to cultivate close relations with local military organizations. This is done chiefly by deploying approximately 7,000 Special Forces soldiers in 150 countries to trai nlocal militaries in what is called "foreign internal defense" (FID) -- in many cases merely a euphemism for the techniques of state terrorism. The training missions allow the United States to spy on these countries, sell them weapons, and encourage their armies to carry out policies the Pentagon favors. Everything is done very quietly and with virtually no political oversight.

Over time, the CINCs have become more influential in their regions than ambassadors. When General Anthony C. Zinni of the marines was head of CENTCOM, he had twenty ambassadors serving under him and a personal political advisor with ambassadoral rank. PACOM (also known as CINCPAC) supervises the affairs of forty-three countries. Each CINC has at his disposal virtually unlimited funds, his own airplanes and helicopters, and numerous staff officers. A CINC reports directly to the president and the secretary of defense, avoiding the service chiefs and the normal chain of command.

When, in October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf carried out a military coup d'Útat in Pakistan, President Clinton telephoned to protest and asked to be called back. Musharaff instead called General Zinni and reportedly began, "Tony, I want to tell you what I am doing." General Zinni ignored the congressional ban on foreign aid to a country that has undergone a military coup and emerged as one of Musharaff's strongest supporters before 9/11. It was also Zinni, and not officals of the State Department, who made the decision to refuel warships in the Yemeni port of Aden, where, on October 12, 2000, suicide bombers attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen sailors.

Johnson, pp., 121-125

Some info here on the conquest of Bulgaria.

"Not coincidentally, in February 2003, the United States also began to build two new military bases at Burgas. On November 14, 2001, the Bulgarian parliament ratified an agreement giving the United States overflight and transit rights for the war in Afghanistan; when Turkey withdrew its support of Washington's 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States turned to Sofia for a permanent installation, to which the Bulgarians agreed. The air force took over much of Bulgaria's International Airport, one of three commerical airports in Bulgaria, and flew in numerous construction crews to build a garrison at a nearby beach for American military personnel. It is called Camp Sarafovo. The large number of airmen who arrived seemingly overnight are the first foreign troops to commandeer the Burgas airport since the Luftwaffe seized it in 1943. During the second Iraq war, the United States flew KG-10 and KC-135 aerial refueling missions from Burgas to support air operations over Baghdad. The port of Burgas in home to the country's largest oil refinery and, under the terms of the Bulgarian-American agreement, supplies all the fuel required by the air force. Just a few hundred miles up the Black Sea coast, at the Romanian port of Constanta, the air force is building a similar base complex. Constanta is the center of Romania's large oil industry. The Afghan war and second Iraq war turned out to be splendid opportunities for the United States to consolidate its oil strategy for the Balkans, the first stage of which was Camp Bondsteel."

Johnson, p.146

Some info here on American scientific and technological predominance.

The Science Gap

Many industries, such as computers, aerospace, motor transportation, oil and gas, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications, rely on scientific advances, as do defense contractors. Thus a prosperous economy and a powerful military require strong science.

The United States, which accounts for two-thirds of Nobel Prizes awarded and almost half of OECD-area research-and-development spending, is the world's number one scientific power. This reflects the wealth of the United States and the quality of its universities. In turn, American science makes it possible for the United States to lead in most technologies, strengthening the U.S. economy and guaranteeing the U.S. military a technological advantage. American scientific discoveries, however, are widely disseminated overseas, and many foreigners work in American scientific establishments. Thus the American science enterprise is nog only a U.S. asset but also, like universities, an international public good, especially for the nations of the American empire that are tied to the United States through economic interaction and military alliances.

Although mankind has studied science for millennia, the institutionalization of research for technological and economic progress is a recent phenomena. The Industrial Revolution's innovations were the work of gifted men who excelled at tinkering with machinery but lacked formal scientific education. By 1900, however, a paradigm change had occurred. A thorough and methodical scientific training certified by an advanced university degree became a requirement for scientists and engineers who devised new technologies and built new industries. Scientific education itself became more institutionalized. Laboratory usage was perfected in Germany where it was integrated with teaching procedures, "making it a key part of the combined research and instructional program leading to the doctorate." Due to the increased reliance on institutionalized science in industry, Germany's superior academic research and its unparalleled universities altered the industrial league tables in Europe in its favor when it overtook Britain in the years before World War I.

The role of scientific research for new developments in industry and commerce is now taken for granted. Science plays a key role in inventing new manafacturing processes and products, but the service sector is equally dependent on state-of-the-art research. Logistics, telecommunications, and many financial services would not be posisble without the modern data processing made possible by the semiconductor and software industries. Medicine, which relies on the tens of billions of dollars spent annually on scientific research, is also highly dependent on scientific advances for progress. Mathematics plays an essential role in fields as different as medical magnetic imaging devices, weather forecasting, the design of new financial instruments, and cryptology.

The developed world has a quasi monopoly when it comes to scientific research. Almost all Nobel laureates in the natural sciences and economics are affiliated with institutions from the rich countries. Approximately 90 percent of the winners of other prestigious scientific prizes come from the developed nations of North America, Europe, and Japan. Nearly all the leading graduate programs in the sciences are in the developed world, as are the best corporate research laboratories and scientific journals. Sophisticated private-sector research is very rare in poorer nations.

The research and development that takes place in more developed countries is also more advanced, and there is much more of it. For example, data on U.S. patents for all sectors show the domination of OECD nations. Similarly, scientific and technical articles in major international journals are predominantly written by authors based in North America, Europe, and the Pacific rim Liberal economies.

As a result of this scientific imbalance, and of other obstacles as well, technology-intensive activities are generally located in the developed world. Thanks to the legacy of the Soviet military-research complex, Russia has an established scientific establishment. But the Russian government, which can barely raise taxes, cannot direct massive resources to researach establishments on a scale comparable to the Soviet regime that exercised total control over the economy. Russia suffers from other handicaps. First, many of Russia's best scientists immigrated to the West or to Israel. Second, the most advanced region of the Soviet Empire, Central Europe, is now within NATO, and Moscow also lost the Baltics and Ukraine. Third, even before its collapse the Soviet Union was losing the scientific race in areas that are of growing importance to the economy -- for example, electronics -- and failed to invest in sectors that were not relevant to military power, such as biology and medicine. China now has some first-rate research programs, but not on a scale comparable to those of the world's richest nations.

An advanced research establishment necessitates sophisticated logistical arrangements, ranging from intellectual property law to grant-making processes. The institutional gaps that undermine the economic performance of the third world (as we saw in Chapter 1 and 4) thus hinder the development of its scientific base. Moreover, a strong scientific infrastructure requires a rich economy to thrive. The dominance that first-world nations enjoy in science and technology will therefore remain strong in the decades to come. The Soviet Union demonstrated that totalitarianism could partly compensate for poverty if the regime decided to invest massively in science. But even a totalitarian state would require a long time to develop a strong scientific base, and the Soviet experience showed that it could maintain a first-rate scientific cadre only in a few areas related to military research. The autocratic centralized nature of totalitarian states allows them to focus on a few specific areas but makes it impossible to develop a broad-based science and technology base.

Given the handicaps of the third world, the world at large looks to the developed nations -- primarily in Europe, North America, and the rich countries of the Pacific rim -- for scientific achievements. By the second half of the nineteenth century, the United States was already ahead of Europe in many process technologies, such as small-arms manafacturing, and by the 1880s the United States was the largest and most efficient steel producer, though "most of the key discoveries and inventions bearing on steel production were being made in Europe." The United States was thus strong in applying science to manafacturing and industrial engineering but lagged behind Europe in basic research. At the start of the twentieth century, most of the world's great scientists were still in Europe. As of 1920 only three researchers based in the United States had ever been awarded Nobel Prizes in science or medicine. American industry had the advantage of a strong cadre of technicians and engineers, but not until the massive inflows of European scientists fleeing Hitler and World War II did the United States reach the pinnacle of science.

American scientific preeminence is undeniable. Bibliometrics indicate that American institutions lead the field in most disciplines, both in numbers of articles published and in impact factor. In science and engineering, as we observed in the section on universities, American scientific articles enjoy a high degree of relative prominence (1.35 compared with 0.98 for Western Europe), and the United States is also by far the largest source of published papers in scientific journals. Besides writing many articles, researchers from the United States lead in most scientific prizes. Foreign scholars study in the United States because that is where they can undertake pathbreaking research. An illustration of the reputation of American science is that "some German researchings jokingly add 'iAg' -- in Amerika gewesen (been in America) -- to their abbreviated titles" to enhance their credentials.

Another way to measure scientific achievements is to analyze patenting activity. Patents generally require scientific research and are frequently the intellectual-property building blocks of high technology products or services. The American share of patents registered in the United States has grown slightly, after bottoming out around 1990, and stands at more than 50 percent. The United States accounts for 42 percent of the patents filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization, well ahead of Germany's 13 percent and Japan's 10 percent.

In the pharmaceutical sector, an industry that lives on scientific discoveries, the United States is the world leader. The modern pharmaceutical industry originated in Europe, especially in Germany and Switzerland. But today the United States leads in pharmaceutical reseach and discoveries. The United States also holds a preeminent position in math. This is demonstrated by the many foreign-educated holders of bachelor's degrees who move to the United States for graduate math education. Nevertheless, it should be added that the American position in math is not as strong as in other disciplines and that it could decline in the future.

The United States scientific enterprise is backed by massive financial resources. During the Second World War, the United States invested heavily in military-related research. The Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb was the most famous, and costly, of these programs, but by no means the only one. Since 1945 government funding has continued, though scientists would like even more generous government support. In the 1990s the United States accounted for about 45 percent of OECD-area spending on research and development, and since 1982 the U.S. share relative to the othe G7 nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom -- has been relatively stable. Thus almost half of the rich world's research and development takes place in the United States; second-ranked Japan accounts for only about 20 percent of OECD research expenditure. Although Japan spends a higher proportion of GDP on research and development (3.01 percent) than does the United States (2.63 percent), the United States devotes a greater share of national income ot this purpose than its main European partners (from 1.04 percent for Italy and 2.38 percent for Germany). In sum, the United States spends as much on research and development as Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy combined.

What accounts for America's leadership in science? The wealth of the United States obviously plays an important role. Good science is expensive, and U.S. national income is by far the world's largest. The scale of the U.S. market further ensures a large pool of customers and suppliers for the commercialized output of scientific research. The United States accounts for 50-70 percent of the global market for many high-technology products and sets the standards for the rest of the world. The U.S. scientific enterprise enjoys other advantages. First, it has more world-class universities than any other country. Second, the large number of actors in every field ensures a diversity of sources of funding and a competitive environment for researchers. Third, the openness of the United States to outsiders has brought tens of thousands of highly skilled foreign scientists and engineers.

The European Union has an economy the size of the United States' but it is still not a fully integrated economic area. Government funded research and development there frequently suffers from duplication, or triplication, among fifteen separate nation-states (twenty-five starting in 2004). Factors detailed in other chapters, especially differences in university performance, play a role in explaining America's lead in science. Moreover, the greater difficulties in creating a business and lack of solid university-business ties limit the ability of scientists to commercialize discoveries. This in turn may deprive European scientists of the economic incentive to innovate that thier American counterparts enjoy.

Japan is by far the world's second largest economy, and the Japanese economy and population are much larger than those of any European state, but bibliometric surveys and comparisons of laureates in scientific prizes put Japan roughly at the same level as the big European countries. This can be attributed to Japan's having "never built up a publically funded R&D infrastructure comparable to" the European and American ones, as well as to the lack of research focus of its universities. Moroever, research in Japan has been much less reliant than that in the United States on competitive merit-reviewed funding. Funding in Japan had historically been granted regardless of achievement, a process that hurt the quality of research. In the past few years Japan has made efforts to strengthen its scientific capabilities, but it is still weaker in that regard than a country with an economy of more than $4 trillion, 127 million well-educated citizens, and some of the world's best performing industrial giants might be.

Nothing is more international than science. Many discoveries today cannot be claimed by a single country; research may have been conducted in laboratories in several different nations by scientists from an even larger number of countries. But some countries contribute more than others to this global enterprise, and no nation makes a greater contribution than the United States. The preeminence of American scientific research is a reflection of American wealth and power but also contributes to it. One reason the United States is the only superpower on the planet is that it has the world's most powerful science base. Scientific power directly upholds American military might by providing the Pentagon and its suppliers with the advanced weaponry that modern militaries require. Scientific excellence also serves the American economy, giving American businesses access to new technologies. Less tangibly, American science contributes to the prestige of the United States because U.S. scientists and laboratories are held in high esteem throughout the world.

Nevertheless, as in the case of the "university gap," we should realize that the "science gap" does not relegate Europe and Japan to second-class status. Scientific discoveries made in America are exploited by businesses in Europe and Japan through several mechanisms. First, foreign corporations can set up American research facilities to tap into U.S. scientific capabilities. Second, overseas investors can acquire U.S. technology companies. Third, American patents and technology can be brought or licensed by foreign corporations. Fourth, overseas students and researchers working in American laboratories can take advantage of the country's research facilities. A strong science base is an asset to the United States, but it does not automatically ensure a wide gap in economic performance between America and the rest of the developed world. Japan, despite its relative paucity of scientific achievements, has some of the world's leading electronic and automative firms. Japan's economic problems have many roots, but weak science is not among them. Europe may not be the equal of America in science, but it is a major player in aerospace, from launching satellites to building commercial airliners. Italy, which plays a minor role in scientific research, has some of the most competitive small and medium-sized industrial firms in the world. But given the importance of military power for the United States' role in the world, a superior science base is essential because it is not possible to maintain a position of technological dominance in military affairs without conducting a vast amount of research and development in the United States itself. Consequently, in order to remain the world's only superpower, the United States requires an indigenous scientific capability that is second to none. Retaining it requires sustained funding and effective -- as opposed to sclerotic -- organizations. It may be that, as some have argued, government support for scientific research should be significantly increased to allow the United States to retain its position.

But besides making America strong, American scientific excellence is an international public good, especially for the nations of the American empire that enjoy close ties with America's scientific establishment. This is illustrated by the research and development undertaken across national borders. About $37 billion of research and development is performed either by American firms overseas or by foreign corporations in the United States. Science as an international public good is not uniquely an American phenomenon. Although the United States is the science leader, there are numerous outstanding laboratories and researchers overseas. Thanks to the international regime maintained by the American empire, Americans can benefit from the research of these foreign scientists. Thus American science helps throughout the world, while non-U.S. research contributes to the welfare of the American economy as well.

It could be argued that the openness of American science undermines the United States. Unfriendly nations use American science to develop military projects aimed at thwarting American power. American scientific discoveries are also used to strengthen the economies of unfriendly nations. But on balance, the international dimension of American science strengthens American goals.

William E. Odom and Robert Dujarric, America's Inadvertant Empire (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2004), pp.188-194