Hello I was just doing a search on "shadow governments" and i came across this interesting article written in 1988. The guy who wrote was recalling
a seminar he attened in 1969. These are two excerpts I found very interesting.
LOSS OF JOBS — LOSS OF SECURITY
Again, the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the
notion that the world isn't a terribly reliable place. The United States
was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology,
education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to
be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would
be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was
that we had had enough environmental damage from smokestacks and
industrial waste and some of the other people could put up with that for
a while. This again, was supposed to be a "redeeming quality" for
Americans to accept. You took away our industry but you saved our
environment. So we really didn't lose on it.
[ASIDE] POPULATION SHIFTS TO ELIMINATE "TRADITIONS"
And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs
as a result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and
particularly population shifts would be brought about. This is sort of
an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I forget it. Population
shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move
into the Sun Belt. They would be, sort of, people without roots in their
new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place where
there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to
changing traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended
family – where they had roots. Things like new medical care systems. If
you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself
to the South Sun Belt or Southwest, you'll be more accepting of whatever
kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you
would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and
the support of your family. Also in this vein it was mentioned – he used
the plural personal pronoun "we" – we take control first of the port
cities... New York, San Francisco, Seattle... the idea being that this
is a piece of strategy. The idea being that if you control the port
cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the HEARTLAND in
between has to yield.
I can't elaborate more on that but it is interesting, if you look
around the most liberal areas of the country – and progressively so –
are the seacoast cities; the heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have
maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and
relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When
you take away industry, and people are unemployed and poor they will
accept whatever change seems to offer them survival; and their morals
and their commitment to things will all give way to survival. That's not
my philosophy. That's the speaker's philosophy.
WORLD CITIZENS — WORLD SPORTS
Anyhow, going back to industry. Some heavy industry would remain.
Just enough to maintain a sort of a seedbed of industrial skills which
could be expanded if the plan didn't work out as it was intended. So the
country would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort
of a contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the worldwide
specialization would be carried on.
But, perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all of this is
that with this global interdependence then national identities would
tend to be de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one
or another elements in its life. We would all become citizens of the
world rather than citizens of any one country.
And along these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the
United States was to be changed, in part as a way of de-emphasizing
nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be emphasized and pushed
in the United States and this was of interest because in this area the
game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends
who attended an elementary school other than the one I attended where
they played soccer at their school, and they were a real novelty. This
was back in the 50's. So to hear this man speak of soccer in this area
was kind of surprising.
Anyhow, soccer is seen as an international sport and would be
promoted and the traditional sport of American baseball would be
de-emphasized and possibly eliminated because it might be seen as too
American. And he discussed eliminating this. One's first reaction would
be well, they pay the players poorly and they don't want to play for
poor pay so they give up baseball and either go into some other sport or
some other activity. But, he said that's really not how it works.
Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to make the salaries
go very high.
The idea behind this was that as the salaries got ridiculously high
there would be a certain amount of discontent and antagonism as people
resented the athletes being paid so much, and the athletes would begin
more and more to resent among themselves what other players were paid
and would tend to abandon the sport. And these high salaries then also
could break the owners and alienate the fans. And then the fans would
support soccer and the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields.
It wasn't said definitely this would have to happen, but if the
international flavor didn't come around rapidly enough this could be
There was some comment along the same lines about football, although
I seem to recall he said football would be harder to dismantle because
it was so widely played in colleges as well as in the professional
leagues and would be harder to tear down. There was something else also
about the violence in football that met a psychological need that was
perceived, and people have a need for this vicarious violence. So
football, for that reason, might be left around to meet that vicarious
you can read the rest for your self