New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Andrew Gavin Marshall: Debt
Dynamite Dominoes: TheComing FinancialCatastrophe

 

 
 

Introduction

We are in the
midst of the most explosive development in all of human history.
Humanity is experiencing a simultaneously opposing and conflicting
geopolitical transition, the likes of which has never before been
anticipated or experienced. Historically, the story of humanity
has been the struggle between the free-thinking individual and structures
of power controlled by elites that seek to dominate land, resources
and people. The greatest threat to elites at any time – historically
and presently – is an awakened, critically thinking and politically
stimulated populace. This threat has manifested itself throughout
history, in different places and at different times. Ideas of freedom,
democracy, civil and human rights, liberty and equality have emerged
in reaction and opposition to power structures and elite systems
of control.

The greatest
triumphs of the human mind – whether in art, science or thought
– have arisen out of and challenged great systems of power
and control. The greatest of human misery and tragedy has arisen
out of the power structures and systems that elites always seek
to construct and manage. War, genocide, persecution and human degradation
are directly the result of decisions made by those who control the
apparatus of power, whether the power manifests itself as intellectual,
ecclesiastical, spiritual, militaristic, or scientific. The most
malevolent and ruthless power is that over the free human mind:
if one controls how one thinks, they control the individual itself.
The greatest human achievements are where individuals have broken
free the shackles that bind the mind and let loose the inherent
and undeniable power that lies in each and every individual on this
small little planet.

Currently,
our world is at the greatest crossroads our species has ever experienced.
We are in the midst of the first truly global political awakening,
in which for the first time in all of human history, all of mankind
is politically awakened and stirring; in which whether inadvertently
or intentionally, people are thinking and acting in political terms.
This awakening is most evident in the developing world, having been
made through personal experience to be acutely aware of the great
disparities, disrespect, and domination inherent in global power
structures. The awakening is spreading increasingly to the west
itself, as the majority of the people living in the western developed
nations are thrown into poverty and degradation. The awakening will
be forced upon all people all over the world. Nothing, no development,
ever in human history, has posed such a monumental threat to elite
power structures.

This awakening
is largely driven by the Technological Revolution, which through
technology and electronics, in particular mass media and the internet,
have made it so that people across the world are able to become
aware of global issues and gain access to information from around
the world. The Technological Revolution, thus, has fostered an Information
Revolution which has, in turn, fed the global political awakening.

Simultaneously,
the Technological Revolution has led to another unique and unprecedented
development in human history, and one that is diametrically opposed,
yet directly related to the global political awakening. For the
first time in human history, free humanity is faced with the dominating
threat of a truly global elite, who have at their hands the technology
to impose a truly global system of control: a global scientific
dictatorship. The great danger is that through the exponential growth
in scientific techniques, elites will use these great new powers
to control and dominate all of humanity in such a way that has never
before been experienced.

Through all
of human history, tyrants have used coercive force and terror to
control populations. With the Technological Revolution, elites increasingly
have the ability to control the very biology and psychology of the
individual to a point where it may not be necessary to impose a
system of terror, but rather where the control is implemented on
a much deeper, psychological, subliminal and individual biological
manner. While terror can prevent people from opposing power for
a while, the scientific dictatorship can create a personal psycho-social
condition in which the individual comes to love his or her own slavery;
in which, like a mentally inferior pet, they are made to love their
leaders and accept their servitude.

So we are presented
with a situation in which humanity is faced with both the greatest
threat and the greatest hope that we have ever collectively experienced
in our short human history. This essay, the third part in the series,
“The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom,”
examines the ideas behind the global scientific dictatorship, and
how it may manifest itself presently and in the future, with a particular
focus on the emergence of ‘new eugenics’ as a system of
mass control.

Free humanity
faces the most monumental decision we have ever been presented with:
do we feed and fuel the global political awakening into a true human
psycho-social revolution of the mind, creating a new global political
economy which empowers and liberates all of humanity; or… do we
fall silently into a ‘brave new world’ of a global scientific
oppression, the likes of which have never before been experienced,
and whose dominance would never be more difficult to challenge and
overcome?

We can either
find a true freedom, or descend into a deep despotism. We are not
powerless before this great ideational beast. We have, at our very
fingertips the ability to use technology to our benefit and to re-shape
the world so that it benefits the people of the world and not simply
the powerful. It must be freedom for all or freedom for none.

What is
the ‘Scientific Dictatorship’?

In 1932, Aldous
Huxley wrote his dystopian novel, Brave New World, in which
he looked at the emergence of the scientific dictatorships of the
future. In his 1958 essay, “Brave New World Revisited,”
Huxley examined how far the world had come in that short period
since his book was published, and where the world was heading. Huxley
wrote that:

In politics
the equivalent of a fully developed scientific theory or philosophical
system is a totalitarian dictatorship. In economics, the equivalent
of a beautifully composed work of art is the smoothly running
factory in which the workers are perfectly adjusted to the machines.
The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire
to clear up a mess. The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification
for despotism.

Huxley explained
that, “The future dictator’s subjects will be painlessly
regimented by a corps of highly trained social engineers,”
and he quotes one “advocate of this new science” as saying
that, “The challenge of social engineering in our time is like
the challenge of technical engineering fifty years ago. If the first
half of the twentieth century was the era of technical engineers,
the second half may well be the era of social engineers.” Thus,
proclaims Huxley, “The twenty-first century, I suppose, will
be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and
Brave New World.”

In 1952, Bertrand
Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social
critic wrote the book, “The Impact of Science on Society,”
in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological
revolution, was changing and would come to change society. In his
book, Russell explained that:

I think the
subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.
Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced
study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether
they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is,
of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but
hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based
upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been
enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda.
Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’.
Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the
cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential
in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a
speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you
will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth
century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in
books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments
on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band
do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train
of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able
to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young
and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject
will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under
a scientific dictatorship.

Russell went
on to analyze the question of whether a ‘scientific dictatorship’
is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated:

Apart from
the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be
unstable. After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries
known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely
subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature
that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the
whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than
it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When
the government controls the distribution of food, its power is
absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces.
And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges
of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement
of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern
scientific dictatorship.

Drawing on
the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley – of people loving
their servitude – Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific
dictatorship:

It is to
be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give
governments much more control over individual mentality than they
now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that
education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils
have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest
of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their
schoolmasters would have wished… Diet, injections, and injunctions
will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character
and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable,
and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically
impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves
happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

Russell explained
that, “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion
depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children
go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government,
the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary
to official orthodoxy.” Russell later proclaimed in his book
that, “a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there
is a world government.” He elaborated:

Unless there
is a world government which secures universal birth control, there
must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of
defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the
present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no
reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself
believe that this is possible. The two great wars that we have
experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts
of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more
in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of
powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government
of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that
the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific
warfare becomes impossible – that is until science is extinct.

Russell explains
that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any
world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, “Gradually,
by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers
and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.
A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized
insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

In a 1962 speech
at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley spoke about the real world becoming
the ‘Brave New World’ nightmare he envisaged. Huxley spoke
primarily of the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ that focuses on
‘behavioural controls’ of people. Huxley said of the ‘Ultimate
Revolution’:

In the past,
we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing
the environment in order to change the individual. There’s
been the political revolution, the economic revolution . . . the
religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at
the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings
you did achieve – at one remove – an effect upon the
human being.

Today, we
are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the
‘Ultimate Revolution’ – the ‘Final Revolution’
– where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows.
Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies
has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally
been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been
known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with
more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes
with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and
error – finding out what the best ways of using torture,
imprisonments, constraints of various kinds . . .

If you are
going to control any population for any length of time, you must
have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult
to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function
for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring
in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent
to what is happening to them.

Well it seems
to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are
now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing
a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling
oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always
exist – to get people to love their servitude. This is the
ultimate in malevolent revolution…

There seems
to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate
Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to
enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought
not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . .

I am inclined
to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future –
and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in
many parts of the world – will be probably a good deal nearer
to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They
will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms
in the scientific dictators, but simply because the ‘brave
new world’ pattern is probably a good deal more efficient
than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state
of affairs in which they are living – the state of servitude
– if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much
more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable
society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and
firing squads and concentration camps.

In 1961, President
Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation in which
he warned of the dangers to democracy posed by the military-industrial
complex: the interconnected web of industry, the military, and politics
creating the conditions for constant war. In that same speech, Eisenhower
warned America and the world of another important change in society:

Today, the
solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed
by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead
of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution
in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved,
a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual
curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of
new electronic computers.

The prospect
of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment,
project allocations, and the power of money is ever present –
and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding
scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public
policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological
elite.

In 1970, Zbigniew
Brzezinski wrote about “the gradual appearance of a more controlled
and directed society,” in the “technetronic revolution”;
explaining:

Such a society
would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power
would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered
by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would
not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest
modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping
society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances,
the scientific and technological momentum of the country would
not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

New Eugenics

Many sciences
and large social movements are directed by the same foundations
and money that financed the eugenics movement in the early 20th
century. The Rockefeller foundations, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Harriman,
and Morgan money that flowed into eugenics led directly to ‘scientific
racism,’ and ultimately the Holocaust in World War II. Following
the Holocaust, Hitler had discredited the eugenics movement he admired
so much in America. So the movement branched off into forming several
other social engineering projects: population control, genetics,
and environmentalism. The same foundations that laid the foundations
for eugenic ideology – the belief in a biological superiority
and right to rule (justifying their power) – then laid the
foundations for these and other new social and scientific movements.

Major environmental
and conservation organizations were founded with Rockefeller and
Ford Foundation money, which then continued to be central sources
of funding to this day; while the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was
founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother,
who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society. Prince
Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization’s first
president. Prince Bernhard also happened to be one of the founders
of the elite global think tank, the Bilderberg Group, which he co-founded
in 1954; and he was previous to that, a member of the Nazi Party
and an SS officer. Sir Julian Huxley also happened to be the first
Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled,
“UNESCO: It’s Purpose and its Philosophy.” In it,
he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO:

is to help
the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy
and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This
is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the
scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become
available, and also the first time that man has had the means
(in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of
laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare
of the entire human species…

At the moment,
it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic
instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead
weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability,
and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species,
will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved.
Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy
will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,
it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem
is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is
informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable
may at least become thinkable…

Still another
and quite different type of borderline subject is that of eugenics.
It has been on the borderline between the scientific and the unscientific,
constantly in danger of becoming a pseudo-science based on preconceived
political ideas or on assumptions of racial or class superiority
and inferiority. It is, however, essential that eugenics should
be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already
indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving
the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent;
and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of
a truly scientific eugenics…

It is worth
pointing out that the applications of science at once bring us
up against social problems of various sorts. Some of these are
direct and obvious. Thus the application of genetics in eugenics
immediately raises the question of values – what qualities
should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future?

On page 6 of
the UNESCO document, Sir Julian Huxley wrote that, “in order
to carry out its work, an organisation such as Unesco needs not
only a set of general aims and objects for itself, but also a working
philosophy, a working hypothesis concerning human existence and
its aims and objects, which will dictate, or at least indicate,
a definite line of approach to its problems.” While much of
the language of equality and education sounds good and benevolent,
it is based upon a particular view of humanity as an irrational,
emotionally driven organism which needs to be controlled. Thus,
the ‘principle of equality’ becomes “The Fact of
Inequality”:

Finally we
come to a difficult problem – that of discovering how we
can reconcile our principle of human equality with the biological
fact of human inequality… The democratic principle of equality,
which is also Unesco’s, is a principle of equality of opportunity
– that human beings should be equal before the law, should
have equal opportunities for education, for making a living, for
freedom of expression and movement and thought. The biological
absence of equality, on the other hand, concerns the natural endowments
of man and the fact of genetic difference in regard to them.

There are
instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they
cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity.
Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of
educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane
before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full
implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been
drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very
relevant to Unesco’s task.

Many of these
“genetic inequalities” revolve around the idea of intellectual
superiority: the idea that there is no equality among the intellectually
inferior and superior. That inequality is derived from human biology
– from genetics; it is a “human fact.” It just so
happens that elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to
view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no
social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite.
So eugenics must be employed, as the UENSCO paper explains, to address
the issues of raising human welfare to a manageable level; that
the time will come where elites will need to address the whole of
humanity as a single force, and with a single voice. Eugenics is
about the social organization and control of humanity. Ultimately,
eugenics is about the engineering of inequality. In genetics, elites
found a way to take discrimination down to the DNA.

Genetics
as Eugenics

Award-winning
author and researcher, Edwin Black, wrote an authoritative history
of eugenics in his book, “War Against the Weak,” in which
he explained that, “the incremental effort to transform eugenics
into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure,”
with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen
in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist,
and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation. While
not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement
“claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment.”

In a 2001 issue
of Science Magazine, Garland Allen, a scientific historian,
wrote about genetics as a modern form of eugenics. He began by citing
a 1998 article in Time Magazine which proclaimed that, “Personality,
temperament, even life choices. New studies show it’s mostly in
your genes.” Garland explains the implications:

Coat-tailing
on major advances in genetic biotechnology, these articles portray
genetics as the new "magic bullet" of biomedical science
that will solve many of our recurrent social problems. The implication
is that these problems are largely a result of the defective biology
of individuals or even racial or ethnic groups. If aggressive
or violent behavior is in the genes, so the argument goes, then
the solution lies in biomedical intervention – gene therapy
in the distant future and pharmacotherapy (replacing the products
of defective genes with drug substitutes) in the immediate future.

By promoting
such claims, are we heading toward a new version of eugenics?
Are we getting carried away with the false promise of a technological
fix for problems that really lie in the structure of our society?
My answer to these questions is "yes," but with some
important qualifications that derive from the different historical
and social contexts of the early 1900s and the present…

The term
eugenics was coined in 1883 by the Victorian polymath Francis
Galton, geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles
Darwin. It meant to him "truly- or well-born," and referred
to a plan to encourage the "best people" in society
to have more children (positive eugenics) and to discourage or
prevent the "worst elements" of society from having
many, if any, children (negative eugenics). Eugenics became solidified
into a movement in various countries throughout the world in the
first three decades of the 20th century, but nowhere more solidly
than in the United States and, after World War I, in Germany.

While genetic
traits such as eye colour and the like were proven to be hereditary,
“eugenicists were more interested in the inheritance of social
behaviors, intelligence, and personality.” Further:

American
eugenicists also strove to disseminate the results of eugenic
research to the public and to lawmakers. They supported the idea
of positive eugenics [encouraging the ‘best’ to become
better], but focused most of their energies on negative eugenics
[to encourage the ‘worst’ to become fewer]. Eugenicists
wrote hundreds of articles for popular magazines, published dozens
of books for the general (and some for the scientific) reader,
prepared exhibits for schools and state fairs, made films, and
wrote sermons and novels.

American eugenicists,
fully backed by the financial support of the major American philanthropic
fortunes, passed eugenics legislation in over 27 states across the
United States, often in the form of forced sterilizations for the
mentally ‘inferior’, so that, “By the 1960s, when
most of these laws were beginning to be repealed, more than 60,000
people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes.” As Garland
Allen wrote:

For the wealthy
benefactors that supported eugenics, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller,
Harriman, and Kellogg philanthropies, eugenics provided a means
of social control in a period of unprecedented upheaval and violence.
It was these same economic elites and their business interests
who introduced scientific management and organizational control
into the industrial sector…

[In 1994]
we saw the resurrection of claims that there are genetic differences
in intelligence between races, leading to different socio-economic
status. Claims about the genetic basis for criminality, manic
depression, risk-taking, alcoholism, homosexuality, and a host
of other behaviors have also been rampant in scientific and especially
popular literature. Much of the evidence for such claims is as
controversial today as in the past.

We seem to
be increasingly unwilling to accept what we view as imperfection
in ourselves and others. As health care costs skyrocket, we are
coming to accept a bottom-line, cost-benefit analysis of human
life. This mind-set has serious implications for reproductive
decisions. If a health maintenance organization (HMO) requires
in utero screening, and refuses to cover the birth or care of
a purportedly "defective" child, how close is this to
eugenics? If gene or drug therapy is substituted for improving
our workplace or school environments, our diets and our exercise
practices, how close is this to eugenics? Significant social changes
are expensive, however. If eugenics means making reproductive
decisions primarily on the basis of social cost, then we are well
on that road.

Genetics unleashes
an unprecedented power into human hands: the power of unnatural
creation and the manipulation of biology. We do not yet fully understand
nor comprehend the implications of genetic manipulation in our food,
plants, animals, and in humans, themselves. What is clear is that
we are changing the very biology of our environment and ourselves
in it. While there are many clear and obvious benefits to genetic
technology, such as the ability to enhance ailing senses (sight,
hearing, etc.) and cure diseases, the positive must be examined
and discussed with the negative repercussions of genetic manipulation
so as to better direct the uses of this powerful technology.

Debates on
issues such as stem-cell research and genetic manipulation often
focus on a science versus religion aspect, where science seeks to
benevolently cure mankind of its ailments and religion seeks to
preserve the sanctity of ‘creation’. This is an irrational
and narrow manner to conduct a real debate on this monumental issue,
painting the issue as black and white, which it most certainly is
not. Science can be used for good as well as bad, and human history,
most especially that of the 20th century, is nothing if not evidence
for that fact. Incredible scientific ingenuity went into the creation
of great weapons; the manipulation of the atom to kill millions
in an instant, or the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons.
The problem with the interaction of science and power is that with
such great power comes the temptation to use and abuse it. If the
ability to create a weapon like an atom bomb seems possible, most
certainly there are those who seek to make it probable. Where there
is temptation, there is human weakness.

So while genetics
can be used for benevolent purposes and for the betterment of humankind,
so too can it be used to effectively create a biological caste system,
where in time it would be feasible to see a break in the human race,
where as human advancement technologies become increasingly available,
their use is reserved to the elite so that there comes a time where
there is a biological separation in the human species. Oliver Curry,
an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics predicted
that “the human race will have reached its physical peak by
the year 3000” and that, “The human race will one day
split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling
elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.”
Such was the plot of H.G. Wells’ classic book, The
Time Machine
. Wells was himself a prominent eugenicist at
the turn of the 20th century. While this would be a long time from
now, its potential results from the decisions we make today.

Read
the rest of the article

July
15, 2010

Andrew Gavin
Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy
and History at Simon Fraser University.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts