The Second Pax Britannica

I will start to bring together the factors which I see as involved in the Twin Towers disaster.

Technology-free leaders in the USA drew technology-free leaders in the USSR into a hi-tec MAD which was highly structured. Thus, there were shared (technical) assumptions about the nature of the threatened conflict. These shared assumptions were supported by what finally came to be known as the military/industrial/scientific complex (MISC), not just the first two terms military/industrial.

The "Defence Industry" is a long term major scam operated against the taxpayer in Britain. See The major player in Britain was GEC (sometimes called "Marconi"). Admirals would take early retirement and move on to directorships in GEC. Cabinet ministers would move on from government straight into becoming Chief Executive of GEC. I was employed on four phoney weapons projects, each costing the taxpayer one billion pounds, and some of them being abandoned ten years after I flagged up that the weapons could never work. The situation is similar in the USA.

I have written that it is obvious that Weinstock, head of GEC, was not operating a major serial scam against the taxpayer because he accompanied the Queen alone in her carriage on the way to Epsom races while his wife accompanied the Duke of Edinburgh alone in the next carriage.

When PM Margaret Thatcher went to Saudi Arabia "batting for British Industry", it was solely to encourage the Saudis to buy British hi-tec weapons, not lo-tec rifles or non-military products. Her son was the agent for the weapons companies. See the book "Thatcher's Gold" about her son's arms trading activities. Although not very bright, he is now a multi-millionaire. When she introduced her son to the Emirs, they assumed that it was a (in the Middle East or Africa) normal procedure for getting a portion of the inter-state weapons trading money into the personal hands of a political leader's family.

One report said that the price paid for a Tornado aircraft could vary by as much as a factor of two depending on which customer, the commissions (to Thatcher or to the Saudi Emir's nephew or to Saddam Hussein's nephew) on a 50 million pound aircraft were so enormous. They are sold in batches of perhaps six or 20.

Let us assume that six Tornadoes are sold, starting price 300,000,000. It would be impracticable to do such a large deal selling rifles, because this would involve perhaps 30,000,000 rifles, which would arm more than the total Saudi population. Where would they be stored? Such an event did happen in the over-purchase of cement (for the commissions) in West Africa which cement was finally dumped in the sea (before it could solidify in the ships' holds) and blocked the capital's harbour. The purchase of lo-tec weapons on the scale needed to fund the royal family's home building projects (one identical home in every city in Saudi Arabia) would also cause disruption. (Each royal family has an identical palace in each Saudi city.) This is why hi-tec arms trading is preferred, or in fact is the only practicable kind of arms trading. The mysterious hi-tec dimension conceals the fact that the process has nothing to do with military effectiveness, but is merely to increase and to conceal the scale of the commissions. The result is that Africa and the Middle East (and even the USA) are swamped with unpractical, non-maintainable hi-tec objects which everyone assumes relate to the country's defence.

MISC will need to ensure that the attacks in the mountains of Afghanistan cause the loss of vast quantities of very expensive ordinance, so creating the lucrative re-orders. The justification will be the avoidance of body bags in Washington. Thus, the use of mercenaries threatens the whole MISC complex.

Mary Kaldor, "The Baroque Arsenal", pub Deutsch 1982 and Sphere Books, London, 1983, is an important contribution. She argues that the country with lower-tec weaponry wins the wars, citing various instances. (The turkey shoot outside Kuweit after the war was shown on TV as a fraudulent propaganda exercise to create the pretence that fancy weapons work. The media lied when they claimed that Patriot used in Israel was effective, which it was not. Similarly, SW2 (Son of Star Wars) trials failed, and SW2 will not be effective, for reasons obvious to an experienced technocrat like me.) Fenner Brockway, "Death pays a Dividend", was a 1920s discussion relevant to the present argument. I once heard him speak. Arms salesemen get a country to buy more advanced arms by kidding them that their neighbours have them.

This situation reached its apex with the Twin Towers disaster, although there is further to go, towards biological things like Anthrax. The key paradox is that the USA and the UK will continue to favour hi-tec weaponry and to suppress cheaper alternative approaches, for instance the U-plane. This is because such over-cheap weapons undermine the economic scale of the weapons "industry" (which is called "the defence industry"), and the scale of the resulting commissions. (Generally, company profits in the weapons industry are poor, and are not the primary motivator. Research reports are available which say that the return on capital invested in the defence industry is generally one quarter of the return in industry in general. I also know that if a hi-tec company sets up a defence industry branch, this poisons the rest of the company and reduces its profitability in general. The fraudulence of the cost-plus ethos of that branch undermines the commercial competence of its other branches, even though a company strives to insulate the rest of the company.)

If Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden built the U-plane, he would take military control of the world, for instance with a U-plane concealed in the sand 1,000 feet down on the sea bed 25 miles offshore from New York. However, neither he nor the US will build it, because it would undermine the career paths (of US technocrats or) of Saddam Hussein's own weapons technocrats, who have to mirror US weaponry in order to be employable in the USA (as was Braun) when Saddam disappears. The survival of the USA rests on the failure (for personal reasons) of Saddam's technocrats to inform Saddam on the ideal weapons that he should use, or perhaps on his technocrats' strategic incompetence or suppression.

When four RAM production lines were being shut down in the UK because of a collapse in the world price of RAMs, technology-free Peter Mandleson was despatched to them to discuss alternative uses of the production lines. (The European market for RAMs is similar in size to the UK GDP. This is a big market.) Although Catt Spiral had received government financial support and has successfully come to market, it was not possible to advise that Spiral and Kernel, its follow-on product, were specifically designed to run on a standard RAM production line, and could save 4,000 jobs and an investment of 4 billion pounds sterling. Technocrats are excluded from such decision making, or even from supplying information to the decision makers. (This is not conspiracy. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus will always vote to exclude engineers from the Commons. There were 4 engineers and 100 lawyers among MPs.)

The specifications of the "weapons" that I was employed by GEC to "design" were patently absurd, and the weapons could never work. However, there was no procedure for the technically competent or even the technically literate to partake in any way in weapon specification. This would undermine the hegemony of technology-free Thatcher, Saddam Hussein, Blair, Michael Foot and the rest. In fact, major hi-tec development scandals are needed to further discredit the technocracy and keep political control totally out of the hands of technocrats.

The Twin Towers disaster has undermined the rhetoric and mythology of the military/industrial/scientific (MISC) complex by making it glaringly obvious that the whole hi-tec scam which purports to be about defence is in fact a cover for corrupt kick-backs. The lack of a technical dimension to the media also became obvious, with discussion of the mechanism of progressive collapse withheld (through total media technical ignorance) from the millions round the world who were watching the Twin Towers progressive collapse on TV live as it happened. (Recently, not one single Defence correspondent of our major newspapers had any technical qualifications, and "Tomorrow's World", a BBC TV series about new inventions, had nobody on its staff with technical qualifications). (The justification for excluding technocrats from the media (and possibly from politics) is that no technocrats can communicate. This includes myself, who had a best seller on a non-technical subject published in seven languages. This article further proves my incompetence when it comes to my attempts to communicate.)

Recently the London Daily Telegraph leader said that the issue of whether to build Star Wars 2 (SW2) was not a technical one. A technology-free Establishment clung to the fiction that whether or not a Star Wars shield should be built did not depend on competent reports as to its viability. After Twin Towers, things will become more absurd, with Twin Towers being used to gain support for Star Wars 2 when it is obvious that the attack will come from within the Star Wars shield. (However, I should again mention that SW2 will not even stop conventional long range missiles. SW2 trials off Los Angeles have fraudulently been claimed to have been successful, see for instance the latest issue of the US's ifw journal.)

The military/industrial/scientific complex will have to use Twin Towers as a false pretext to justify SW2 because otherwise, realistic, properly reasoned, low cost weapon development will undermine the financial viability of defence companies that possibly financed Brown's presidential election success. The Twin Towers is a glaring statement that the emperor of hi-tec monster weapons has no clothes, but this must not be noticed if MISC is to survive. (I was employed on the "design" of Stingray, a torpedo so full of hi-tec gadgets that there was no room for the explosive. I guarantee that is will never work in anger. The Attorney-General arranged for me to meet the chief rogues in the MoD to discuss its technical viability, and I then reported on their treasonous attitude, see They could be expected to take early retirement and move to directorships in GEC.) This was a perfect example of a weapon designed to maximise commissions for such as Douglas Hurd, crook Aitken or Thatcher's son. Inside GEC, I was told (in 1972) by a senior official that loss of a 9 foot long Stingray would cost the taxpayer 250,000 pounds sterling. They were already too expensive to fire. Already, test results were being falsified.)

Will technology-free media staff continue to block access to the media by technocrats like me while skyscrapers near to them collapse and they and their friends are killed? I think they will, because they see no alternative if they want to survive professionally as long as they can, as the technical dimension to their real work is brought closer and closer to their doorsteps and to their crematoria.

The complaint by Iran that the US was not intervening enough in Yugoslavia (to protect Muslims) heralded the move to the new colonialism. Bin Laden destroyed the integrity of Afghanistan's borders, and leaves the country totally exposed to foreign intervention. (He created, or at least validated, the global village.) This is the thrust which ends the interregnum, which I call "The Idi Amin phase" between the old colonial era, sometimes called "Pax Britannica", and the new "Pax USA/Nato/UN/UK - ica." The punitive expedition against Bin Laden into the inner reaches of Afghanistan is exactly the same as the punitive expeditions on which my soldier father travelled (and similar expeditions which involved the RAF airman T E Lawrence) into the interior of Afghanistan, in reprisal, not against the damage to NY, but in reprisal against the hillmen raiders stealing too many cattle from the native farmers in the lowlands in what is now called Pakistan. The use of mercenaries is today mandatury.

The Mayor of New York is studying the behaviour of Londoners during the blitz. Much more importantly, we must all (Christians and Muslims) study the relative merits of colonial regimes, and take the best of the best regime, which was the British, as our model for the future. See This includes the restoration of the concepts of Mandate, mercenaries, taxation of the locals whom we are pacifying (usually called "capitalist exploitation"), and reprisal. Many lives were lost in Yugoslavia because our intervention did not follow giving a mandate to one country, so that we operated as a committee. East Timor gained an Australian intervention mandate by accident, because of its inaccessibility, so the Yugoslavia error was not repeated.

It is most important to analyse, as soon as possible, Bin Laden and Afghanistan's destruction of the integrity of national boundaries, so that we proceed rationally and efficiently into the third phase, when we do our best to maintain the peace in the world, without carrying false, destructive dogma about colonialism.

Ivor Catt 17sep01 (revised 17sep01)


The USSR in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam attempted to impose irrelevant criteria like Marxism, or Freedom and Democracy, during their incursions. There was a total lack of the pragmatism of the British Empire, and respect for the world view of the locals. In Vietnam, the US's satraps were chosen appallingly, one wearing a baseball cap and black silk airforce uniform. Their failure in colonial activity caused them to be more, rather than less, hostile to the idea of studying the precepts of competent colonialism amply demonstrated by the British a century before. Today, they still have to ignore the lessons of British colonialism because of the humiliation that comparison with their crass attempts will demonstrate. Americans today are further encouraged to ignore the colonial precedent by anti-American left wing propaganda which would have it that my father (and T E Lawrence ) were in the Middle East in the early twentieth century solely to exploit the natives, and that the riots in Cairo which so terrified my mother were caused by her.

Recent suggestions that the indigenous tribes in England often welcomed entry into the Roman Empire have a bearing on what I am saying. The Romans respected the local gods. Also, our present culture is unable to handle the assertion that a large minority of Jews fought on the side of the Romans during their war in Palestine leading to the massacre of Jews by Romans (?and Jews?) in Massada.

(It appears that the US supported Bin Laden to be their satrap in Afghanistan, but then abandoned him when the Russians withdrew. It appears that the resentment of an abandoned satrap can be massive. Earlier, of course, the US took the wrong side, against female equality, because the Russians were on the side of sex equality. This is the mess the USSR and the US created by believing that the issue in Afghanistan was between their own fixations, Marxism versus Democracy. In India, the British had to address key questions, for instance whether to suppress suttee. The thought of the US leaders of their incursion into Vietnam, even thinking about their even attempting to read about issues like suttee, and what to do about it, is hilarious. The CIA were more competent, but their analysis of Vietnam was ignored by the US government. One thinks of Genghis Kahn doing flower arrangement as a similar farce.)

Ivor Catt 17sep01