http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/26/the-new-world-order-a-map.html
The propaganda is becoming bolder. The article is by Joel Kotkin, an adjunct Fellow with the Legatum Institute of London, and the jist of it is that the importance of national borders has become far less significant due to the rise of "tribal ties" based upon race, ethnicity, and religion. Kotkin/Newsweek provide a world map delineating the suggested new "groupings" of what are now nations. As an example, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are combined into what Kotkin calls "New Hansa". Canada and the USA become the "North American Alliance". And so on.
The Legatum Institute is a London-based think tank and is part of the Legatum Group, a private global investment firm headquartered in Dubai. Legatum as a whole promotes globalization and so-called "free trade". [For poor countries, it's not free and it's not trade; rather, it is extortion. For wealthy countries, it is the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper crust.]
The Newsweek article goes into some detail as to why Kotkin's groupings make sense, but then ends somewhat abruptly. As far as I can tell, the purpose of the piece seems to be the instilling of the idea that the concept of nation-states is on the demise, and that we should consider the more logical proposition of regional groupings. One can hypothesize that, further down the road, other articles will appear in the mainstream Corporate Media reinforcing that idea. We further can hypothesize that sometime later the idea of a world governing body to coordinate "regions" will be proposed. It's all about the planting of intellectual seeds, making world governance appear to be reasonable.
Kotkin is the author of Tribes, and another book, The Next Hundred Million.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Last Bastion
In my opinion, the last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.
The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...
"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).
So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.
All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.
The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...
"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).
So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.
All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Globalization: Part III, Philosophical Foundations
In the Scientific Method of Inquiry, there is a very significant difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The hypothesis is an educated guess, a proposed solution to a problem, and is generated after gathering information and making observations relevant to the problem. Prior to that, the first step is to identify the problem. The theory is a tested hypothesis with positive, repeatable results. A theory must stand the test of time before it is accepted as "fact". The Media often misuse the word "theory", as in their use of "conspiracy theory". My best guess is that 99% of all so-called "conspiracy theories" are, in fact, conspiracy hypotheses. A hypothesis is not "proven", even though it may contain some suggestive or even substantiating evidence. Any hypothesis can be based upon very little actual evidence; a theory is an entirely different matter.
I mention all of the above because what follows below is my hypothesis regarding Globalization. The problem I'm attempting to solve is: what caused Globalization, what brought about the ongoing process, what motivates the people involved? There's more to it than simply more profit, more power, and/or a more streamlined business atmosphere. By the way, I do NOT believe that it's a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of individuals and groups with similar interests and mutual goals working sometimes independently, sometimes cooperatively, to attain their objectives.
The first condition responsible for Globalization is the ongoing Neo-Imperialism of both the USA and the UK. We Americans like to think that our nation is not imperialistic. Scholars are divided on the question. Our history is suggestive of a definite imperialistic tendency, and we love the phrase, "Manifest Destiny". Consider these acquisitions of territory: Louisiana Purchase (1803, from France); Florida (1819, from Spain); California and the Southwest (1848, from Mexico); Alaska (1867, from Russia); Hawaii (1898, from natives); Cuba (temporarily), Guam, the Philippines (1898, from Spain); and, if you agree with Chalmers Johnson (former CIA analyst), our 800 military bases currently around the world may be considered neo-imperialistic "colonies" of a sort. All this is not even considering the conquering of American Indians. [According to Russell Means (formerly of AIM, the American Indian Movement) and John Echohawk (of NARF, the Native American Rights Fund) there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term, "American Indian".] Some of the above territories were acquired peacefully, others by war. Finally, in 1898 Mark Twain founded the Anti-Imperialist League, mostly because of our involvement in the Spanish-American War. That seems to suggest that at least some people considered the USA to be imperialistic.
Along with our Neo-Imperialism, there is the concept of American Exceptionalism---the belief that we are more special, of greater good, than other nations. So, the argument goes, if we are in any way imperialistic, it is a benign Imperialism and for the good of the world. That concept is so indoctrinated/ingrained into our consciousness that few Americans ever question it. It is probably found in most of us, especially those who are the public and private Powers-That-Be. Included lately is the belief that we have some sort of Divine Right and Duty to "spread Democracy" around the world...even if people do not want our help. [The majority of Afghan people now want us to leave their country; that same majority does not support the corrupt Karzai government.] This mindset partly is what gives rise to the "American Empire", a controversial term representing our 800 global military bases and our securing of access to foreign resources.
The next piece of the puzzle is Neoliberalism; unfortunately, scholars can't seem to agree on the definition of it. The history either, for that matter. My best estimation is that Neoliberalism is an economic (and, some would say, social policy) theory driven by privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization on a global scale. Most of the world has been familiar with the term for at least twenty years, except for Americans. Supposedly, the first test of it as a hypothesis was in Pinochet's Chile in 1973, after the CIA overthrow of Allende; also supposedly, it was a resounding success...depending on how one defines success. It also is the basis for the Washington Consensus, which was brought about largely by Reagan and Thatcher. One might think Neoliberalism merely is some sort of re-packaging of Conservatism, but because it involves mega corporations working closely with national governments and international agencies, it is more akin to Fascism than anything else. Organizations (such as the WTO, IMF, etc.) made up of corporatists and international bankers are telling countries how to operate, rather than the reverse.
That brings us to Supranational Corporatism, involving the Crony Capitalists of transnational mega corporations and their government cohorts. Crony Capitalism is not genuine Capitalism. Instead, it is a collusion of CEOs and their cronies in the government to bring about less and less competition in the global business arena. Together they create a Fascist framework to support activities that virtually erase national borders, eliminate smaller competitors, and marginalize national governments. Because of the supranational corporatists, we are moving gradually toward a feudal-like society with only two classes---the super rich and the poor. International bankers aid and abet the culprits by manipulating money and economies via central banks, creating economic bubbles and crashes that facilitate the looting of commoners. During the last crisis in America, the "Too-Big-To-Fail" companies became even larger, as in the cases of the recent bank mergers and buy-outs.
The corporatists have been influenced in a most significant way by the philosophies of Neo-Imperialism, American Exceptionalism, and Neoliberalism. Globalization is a logical extension of "Manifest Destiny" to the mind of a corporatist, and who better to run the world than American elites, they ask themselves. It's also reassuring (probably on a subconscious/unconscious level) that whatever Americans do must be good for the world.
In the process, the corporatists have become haughty, deceitful, and disrespectful of We the People. Some of them refer to us as "the small people"; their arrogance is palpable. It's important to understand that the transnational corporatists live in an entirely separate, artificial universe. They feel, in general, that they are way above the rest of us, that they can make their own rules and do pretty much whatever they please, legally or illegally. Cutting corners to save money is a given, even when the safety of people is involved. The current BP fiasco is evidence of that---certain cheap materials were used in the well, and warning signs of disaster were ignored...not only by BP, but by Transocean and Halliburton as well. [By the way, British Petroleum was once a public/government operation; Margaret Thatcher privatized it, and it became the private corporation, BP. This is the same BP whose Head referred to the Gulf Coast residents as "the small people".]
The last piece of the puzzle is the Theory of Propaganda and Indoctrination, based on the work of Edward Bernays, the Father of Public Relations, and his most important book, Propaganda (1928). Bernays believed that propaganda (the manipulation of public opinion toward a desired end) was "an important element in democratic society". He went on, "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." An important journal article of his was, "The Engineering of Consent", in which he equated propaganda with the article title. In the political arena, Bernays worked with the old United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International today) and the U.S. Government to bring about the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Guatemala in the 1950s. United Fruit then dominated a series of corrupt governments in that country. [A key element of the propaganda demonstrated that the President was a Communist, but he wasn't .]
We Americans seem to believe that other governments propagandize their citizens, but our government does not. I suggest that we are propagandized almost constantly by our government, especially regarding Globalization, the political party not in power at the time, and going to war. I recall a debate of sorts between Al Gore and Ross Perot in 1992 (maybe) on the Larry King Show. Gore was extolling the virtues and benefits of NAFTA...pure propaganda. Perot retorted with his famous (paraphrased), "I guarantee you, all you're going to hear is a giant sucking sound...the sound of jobs going to Mexico!". He was right; and we still have not disengaged our country from NAFTA, which was approved in 1994. The poor people of Mexico are still poor. The only ones benefitting from NAFTA are the corporatists. Then, too, Congress approved CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in July of 2005.
For several years, the Iraq War has been a boon to a number of transnational corporations: Kellogg, Brown & Root; Blackwater; SAIC; CACI; the Carlyle Group; and others. Prior to our invasion of that country, conferences were held, showing companies how to belly up to the government trough. Propaganda was used to sell the American public on the war: WMDs; Saddam is a really bad man (that was true, but wasn't relevant to constitutional use of the military); the Iraqis want democracy (perhaps, but again, not relevant to constitutional use of the military); and, we have to go there to fight Al Qaida, so we won't have to fight them here (I won't even comment on that one). Some Americans continue to believe that our leaders were sincere, but had bad intelligence reports. Perhaps, but I very seriously doubt it. As mentioned previously, Saddam was about to accept Euros for his oil; that's why he had to go. Plus, there's Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard and Its Geostrategic Imperatives for American Primacy [Emphasis added]. Our almost one billion dollar embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, signifies that we intend to be in that country for a very long time. All of our troops supposedly will be pulled out next year; we'll see. I sincerely doubt it.
Globalization is taking place largely because of unelected corporatists and the use of propaganda. The world appears to be grinding slowly toward a world governance (or perhaps government) by the Heads of mega corporations and other elites. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some hope for reversing the process. Not long ago in Bolivia, the municipal water system was privatized in a major city...due to a Structural Adjustment Program. The private contractor was Bechtel, a major transnational corporation. Within less than two months of taking over operation of the water system, Bechtel raised the consumer fees by fifty percent. The company also claimed rights to rain water and all the river water. The Bolivian people protested, to no avail. Finally, the People took to the streets en masse and eventually forced Bechtel out. [Under privatization in India, entire rivers have been sold to companies; the government then designates those living along a river and using the water as "water thieves".]
Many South American countries now are reevaluating their entire relationship with the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. All of the countries there that had bases, except for Columbia, have ousted the U.S. military. We have seven military bases in Columbia, ostensibly for the "War on Drugs"; however, it's more likely the bases are there to combat the country's 40-year-old insurgency, and to intimidate Chavez in Venezuela. There was a successful coup against Chavez in 2002, but almost immediately, Venezuelans restored him to power. [I don't agree with the Chavez philosophy of ruling, but then, it's not my country...and it's none of my business.]
When Kissinger was told that Allende was going his own way, Nixon's Secretary of State responded with, "Chile is a virus that might spread contagion...", meaning, Allende must be stopped before other Latin American countries get the idea that they, too, could be independent of the U.S. Consequently, the coup was carried out. Then began the testing of the neoliberal hypothesis.
One of my great concerns is that most of the American public are largely unaware of the implications of Globalization; and further, that they have almost no interest in discovering anything about it. Without identifying the problem and seeing how it came about, nothing effective can be done to solve it. Globalization (of the sort described here) is exporting manufacturing jobs and making "colonies" out of Third World countries. Furthermore, it is transferring wealth from our Middle Class to the Upper, Upper Class at an astonishing rate. Finally, it is creating a global economic and financial superstructure that is morphing into an unelected world government. It can be stopped if We the People wake up, get organized, and oppose the elites responsible. It appears to me that the first step in opposition is to oust the politicians who have approved the various "Free Trade Agreements" (such agreements are hardly free if they're forced upon Third World countries). We need to disengage from those agreements. Next, we should question loudly who it was that put the unelected World Trade Organization essentially in charge of all global trade, and expose their extortion of poor countries relative to privatization of public services. Voting with your wallet may very well have an impact on the transnational mega corporations, but it would help if it were a coordinated effort. Other boycott type activities surely are possible. Everything we can think of should be done to preserve our sovereignty...oppose all efforts to infringe upon your individual, natural rights, even when the government claims that giving up this or that right is "for your own safety"---that's propaganda.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, it's time to realize (or at least consider) that we are in a massive political paradigm shift. The battle is no longer between Dems and Repubs, Liberals and Conservatives; that's a distraction. The political paradigm now is fast becoming the Globalists v. the rest of us, or Globalism v. Sovereignty. You can see the propaganda in the Global Corporate Media...it's visible every single day. Because of that propaganda, we are focused on the faux battle between two factions (Dems and Repubs) of the Transnational Mega Corporate Party; thus we miss crucial machinations resulting in steady progress toward an unelected world government. The culprits aren't hiding anything...they act brazenly and arrogantly, right out in the open. If we don't start to see it, then we deserve exactly what we get. God help us if that happens.
This post is the end of the series.
I mention all of the above because what follows below is my hypothesis regarding Globalization. The problem I'm attempting to solve is: what caused Globalization, what brought about the ongoing process, what motivates the people involved? There's more to it than simply more profit, more power, and/or a more streamlined business atmosphere. By the way, I do NOT believe that it's a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of individuals and groups with similar interests and mutual goals working sometimes independently, sometimes cooperatively, to attain their objectives.
The first condition responsible for Globalization is the ongoing Neo-Imperialism of both the USA and the UK. We Americans like to think that our nation is not imperialistic. Scholars are divided on the question. Our history is suggestive of a definite imperialistic tendency, and we love the phrase, "Manifest Destiny". Consider these acquisitions of territory: Louisiana Purchase (1803, from France); Florida (1819, from Spain); California and the Southwest (1848, from Mexico); Alaska (1867, from Russia); Hawaii (1898, from natives); Cuba (temporarily), Guam, the Philippines (1898, from Spain); and, if you agree with Chalmers Johnson (former CIA analyst), our 800 military bases currently around the world may be considered neo-imperialistic "colonies" of a sort. All this is not even considering the conquering of American Indians. [According to Russell Means (formerly of AIM, the American Indian Movement) and John Echohawk (of NARF, the Native American Rights Fund) there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term, "American Indian".] Some of the above territories were acquired peacefully, others by war. Finally, in 1898 Mark Twain founded the Anti-Imperialist League, mostly because of our involvement in the Spanish-American War. That seems to suggest that at least some people considered the USA to be imperialistic.
Along with our Neo-Imperialism, there is the concept of American Exceptionalism---the belief that we are more special, of greater good, than other nations. So, the argument goes, if we are in any way imperialistic, it is a benign Imperialism and for the good of the world. That concept is so indoctrinated/ingrained into our consciousness that few Americans ever question it. It is probably found in most of us, especially those who are the public and private Powers-That-Be. Included lately is the belief that we have some sort of Divine Right and Duty to "spread Democracy" around the world...even if people do not want our help. [The majority of Afghan people now want us to leave their country; that same majority does not support the corrupt Karzai government.] This mindset partly is what gives rise to the "American Empire", a controversial term representing our 800 global military bases and our securing of access to foreign resources.
The next piece of the puzzle is Neoliberalism; unfortunately, scholars can't seem to agree on the definition of it. The history either, for that matter. My best estimation is that Neoliberalism is an economic (and, some would say, social policy) theory driven by privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization on a global scale. Most of the world has been familiar with the term for at least twenty years, except for Americans. Supposedly, the first test of it as a hypothesis was in Pinochet's Chile in 1973, after the CIA overthrow of Allende; also supposedly, it was a resounding success...depending on how one defines success. It also is the basis for the Washington Consensus, which was brought about largely by Reagan and Thatcher. One might think Neoliberalism merely is some sort of re-packaging of Conservatism, but because it involves mega corporations working closely with national governments and international agencies, it is more akin to Fascism than anything else. Organizations (such as the WTO, IMF, etc.) made up of corporatists and international bankers are telling countries how to operate, rather than the reverse.
That brings us to Supranational Corporatism, involving the Crony Capitalists of transnational mega corporations and their government cohorts. Crony Capitalism is not genuine Capitalism. Instead, it is a collusion of CEOs and their cronies in the government to bring about less and less competition in the global business arena. Together they create a Fascist framework to support activities that virtually erase national borders, eliminate smaller competitors, and marginalize national governments. Because of the supranational corporatists, we are moving gradually toward a feudal-like society with only two classes---the super rich and the poor. International bankers aid and abet the culprits by manipulating money and economies via central banks, creating economic bubbles and crashes that facilitate the looting of commoners. During the last crisis in America, the "Too-Big-To-Fail" companies became even larger, as in the cases of the recent bank mergers and buy-outs.
The corporatists have been influenced in a most significant way by the philosophies of Neo-Imperialism, American Exceptionalism, and Neoliberalism. Globalization is a logical extension of "Manifest Destiny" to the mind of a corporatist, and who better to run the world than American elites, they ask themselves. It's also reassuring (probably on a subconscious/unconscious level) that whatever Americans do must be good for the world.
In the process, the corporatists have become haughty, deceitful, and disrespectful of We the People. Some of them refer to us as "the small people"; their arrogance is palpable. It's important to understand that the transnational corporatists live in an entirely separate, artificial universe. They feel, in general, that they are way above the rest of us, that they can make their own rules and do pretty much whatever they please, legally or illegally. Cutting corners to save money is a given, even when the safety of people is involved. The current BP fiasco is evidence of that---certain cheap materials were used in the well, and warning signs of disaster were ignored...not only by BP, but by Transocean and Halliburton as well. [By the way, British Petroleum was once a public/government operation; Margaret Thatcher privatized it, and it became the private corporation, BP. This is the same BP whose Head referred to the Gulf Coast residents as "the small people".]
The last piece of the puzzle is the Theory of Propaganda and Indoctrination, based on the work of Edward Bernays, the Father of Public Relations, and his most important book, Propaganda (1928). Bernays believed that propaganda (the manipulation of public opinion toward a desired end) was "an important element in democratic society". He went on, "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." An important journal article of his was, "The Engineering of Consent", in which he equated propaganda with the article title. In the political arena, Bernays worked with the old United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International today) and the U.S. Government to bring about the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Guatemala in the 1950s. United Fruit then dominated a series of corrupt governments in that country. [A key element of the propaganda demonstrated that the President was a Communist, but he wasn't .]
We Americans seem to believe that other governments propagandize their citizens, but our government does not. I suggest that we are propagandized almost constantly by our government, especially regarding Globalization, the political party not in power at the time, and going to war. I recall a debate of sorts between Al Gore and Ross Perot in 1992 (maybe) on the Larry King Show. Gore was extolling the virtues and benefits of NAFTA...pure propaganda. Perot retorted with his famous (paraphrased), "I guarantee you, all you're going to hear is a giant sucking sound...the sound of jobs going to Mexico!". He was right; and we still have not disengaged our country from NAFTA, which was approved in 1994. The poor people of Mexico are still poor. The only ones benefitting from NAFTA are the corporatists. Then, too, Congress approved CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in July of 2005.
For several years, the Iraq War has been a boon to a number of transnational corporations: Kellogg, Brown & Root; Blackwater; SAIC; CACI; the Carlyle Group; and others. Prior to our invasion of that country, conferences were held, showing companies how to belly up to the government trough. Propaganda was used to sell the American public on the war: WMDs; Saddam is a really bad man (that was true, but wasn't relevant to constitutional use of the military); the Iraqis want democracy (perhaps, but again, not relevant to constitutional use of the military); and, we have to go there to fight Al Qaida, so we won't have to fight them here (I won't even comment on that one). Some Americans continue to believe that our leaders were sincere, but had bad intelligence reports. Perhaps, but I very seriously doubt it. As mentioned previously, Saddam was about to accept Euros for his oil; that's why he had to go. Plus, there's Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard and Its Geostrategic Imperatives for American Primacy [Emphasis added]. Our almost one billion dollar embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, signifies that we intend to be in that country for a very long time. All of our troops supposedly will be pulled out next year; we'll see. I sincerely doubt it.
Globalization is taking place largely because of unelected corporatists and the use of propaganda. The world appears to be grinding slowly toward a world governance (or perhaps government) by the Heads of mega corporations and other elites. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some hope for reversing the process. Not long ago in Bolivia, the municipal water system was privatized in a major city...due to a Structural Adjustment Program. The private contractor was Bechtel, a major transnational corporation. Within less than two months of taking over operation of the water system, Bechtel raised the consumer fees by fifty percent. The company also claimed rights to rain water and all the river water. The Bolivian people protested, to no avail. Finally, the People took to the streets en masse and eventually forced Bechtel out. [Under privatization in India, entire rivers have been sold to companies; the government then designates those living along a river and using the water as "water thieves".]
Many South American countries now are reevaluating their entire relationship with the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. All of the countries there that had bases, except for Columbia, have ousted the U.S. military. We have seven military bases in Columbia, ostensibly for the "War on Drugs"; however, it's more likely the bases are there to combat the country's 40-year-old insurgency, and to intimidate Chavez in Venezuela. There was a successful coup against Chavez in 2002, but almost immediately, Venezuelans restored him to power. [I don't agree with the Chavez philosophy of ruling, but then, it's not my country...and it's none of my business.]
When Kissinger was told that Allende was going his own way, Nixon's Secretary of State responded with, "Chile is a virus that might spread contagion...", meaning, Allende must be stopped before other Latin American countries get the idea that they, too, could be independent of the U.S. Consequently, the coup was carried out. Then began the testing of the neoliberal hypothesis.
One of my great concerns is that most of the American public are largely unaware of the implications of Globalization; and further, that they have almost no interest in discovering anything about it. Without identifying the problem and seeing how it came about, nothing effective can be done to solve it. Globalization (of the sort described here) is exporting manufacturing jobs and making "colonies" out of Third World countries. Furthermore, it is transferring wealth from our Middle Class to the Upper, Upper Class at an astonishing rate. Finally, it is creating a global economic and financial superstructure that is morphing into an unelected world government. It can be stopped if We the People wake up, get organized, and oppose the elites responsible. It appears to me that the first step in opposition is to oust the politicians who have approved the various "Free Trade Agreements" (such agreements are hardly free if they're forced upon Third World countries). We need to disengage from those agreements. Next, we should question loudly who it was that put the unelected World Trade Organization essentially in charge of all global trade, and expose their extortion of poor countries relative to privatization of public services. Voting with your wallet may very well have an impact on the transnational mega corporations, but it would help if it were a coordinated effort. Other boycott type activities surely are possible. Everything we can think of should be done to preserve our sovereignty...oppose all efforts to infringe upon your individual, natural rights, even when the government claims that giving up this or that right is "for your own safety"---that's propaganda.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, it's time to realize (or at least consider) that we are in a massive political paradigm shift. The battle is no longer between Dems and Repubs, Liberals and Conservatives; that's a distraction. The political paradigm now is fast becoming the Globalists v. the rest of us, or Globalism v. Sovereignty. You can see the propaganda in the Global Corporate Media...it's visible every single day. Because of that propaganda, we are focused on the faux battle between two factions (Dems and Repubs) of the Transnational Mega Corporate Party; thus we miss crucial machinations resulting in steady progress toward an unelected world government. The culprits aren't hiding anything...they act brazenly and arrogantly, right out in the open. If we don't start to see it, then we deserve exactly what we get. God help us if that happens.
This post is the end of the series.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Globalization: Part II, Players and Methods
The Players---
I'm sure you gathered from reading Part I that the IMF and World Bank are key players in the process of Globalization. [I consider them quasi-governmental bodies, rather than non-governmental.] Add to that the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, as well as the central banks of most of the other industrialized countries. It is believed by many serious writers that the IMF/World Bank are merely extensions of the policies of the U.S. Treasury, the Fed Reserve, U.K.'s Treasury, and the U.K.'s Bank of England.
While the above institutions are important, they are no more important than the non-governmental bodies: the transnational mega corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, founded in 1922) and its U.K. counterpart, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka, Chatham House), and the Trilateral Commission (founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski). The CFR and Chatham House are the anglophile Round Table Groups, described in the late Professor Carroll Quigley's 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. The best quote from the book: "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country, or any country; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." Again...it was published in 1966. Quigley also claimed that the CFR was a front for the J.P. Morgan Company; keep in mind that the good professor (Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University) was a very well respected historian and scholar.
In 1991, David Rockefeller stated publicly, "Surely it is preferable to have the world run by unelected, supranational, [business] elites rather than the nations of the past with their corrupt politicians." That is the goal of Globalization. The function of groups such as the CFR, Chatham House, and the Trilateral Commission is to provide the philosophical underpinnings, the unquestionable academic justifications, for the governmental policies that result in the implementation of Globalization. Consequently, the CFR publishes academic-level papers such as Building a North American Community (meaning, the North American Union), The End of National Currency, Bretton Woods II: Does the World Need a New Monetary System? (authored by Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic advisor), and Global Economic Governance. The Trilateral Commission pens scholarly papers such as Global Governance, Global Redistribution of Power, and Sovereignty and Intervention. The tremendous influence of these groups on governmental policy cannot be overstated; for all intents and purposes, essentially they formulate most of our nation's foreign policy and perhaps a good deal of our monetary policy.
The Methods---
There seems to be no particular chronological order to these methods; at times one must precede another, but mostly they are all taking place more or less simultaneously. I'll list them here, then expand on each one later: selection of Globalist candidates for national office, and then the marketing of them; introduction and justification of Globalist policies to the intellectual elite of the country; use of IMF/World Bank "Structural Adjustment Programs", thus facilitating U.S. corporate expansion to poor countries; Trade Agreements and the WTO (World Trade Organization); the use of "Economic Hit Men"; facilitating coups in uncooperative countries; the maintenance of approximately 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and finally, invasion of uncooperative countries (which is a last resort).
Here's what a national election amounts to in the U.S.: the heads of transnational corporations and other members of the Oligarchy/ Corporatocracy, having identified and groomed pre-selected candidates from the two major parties, make massive campaign contributions (indirectly, through PACs) to both. One candidate or the other may be favored from time to time, but generally either one will do. [There is arguably only one major political party in the U.S.: the Transnational Mega Business Party, with a Republican faction and a Democrat faction.] As FDR once wrote to a friend, "In this country, candidates are selected, not elected." The campaign contributions are necessary because the candidates must be marketed to the voting public, and that requires expensive PR firms and multi-media advertising. PR firms run campaigns, not the DNC, DLC, or RNC. The public usually is not bothered with any details regarding Globalization.
Globalist policies must be "sold" to the intellectual elites because those elites are extremely influential in the Corporate Media, educational institutions, various community groups, the entertainment industry, and government at all levels. A relatively small percentage of the American public actually pays attention to important public matters, and it's useful to have them supportive of Globalist tools, e.g., NAFTA. As mentioned above, the intellectual think tanks (CFR, etc.) "justify" policies and tools to the intelligentsia via scholarly papers and even books. Often the mainstream, Corporate Media present summaries of think tank ideas to the general public.
A key method in terms of the Third World is to convince poor countries to take on massive IMF/World Bank loans...for "development". Attached to each loan or interest reduction on a previous loan are conditions, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which require actions such as: cutting gov't expenditures, devaluing the currency, privatization of State-owned enterprises, lifting of trade restrictions, enhancing the rights of foreign investors, gearing the economy to exports, and removing price controls and/or State subsidies. Critics have referred to this as virtual extortion. As a consequence, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have replaced SAPs; however, their contents more often than not turn out to be essentially the same as the old SAPs. The money loaned doesn't go to job development or farm aid, rather it ends up in the wallets of companies such as Bechtel, Hochtief, or Halliburton. They are hired to build ports (for those exports), roads (to get the goods to the ports), water systems, and other infrastructure.
The use of Trade Agreements such as NAFTA to implement Globalization requires no discussion, except to say that there is some controversy regarding the status of NAFTA. Canada and Mexico claim that it's a Treaty; however, it received only 61 votes in the Senate. A treaty requires the approval of 67 Senators. Whether or not it's a Treaty is important because Treaties override U.S. laws.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a major role in the implementation of Globalization. The WTO, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, began in 1995 (replacing GATT) and is the only international body dealing with trade between and among nations. It makes the rules for 97% of all world trade, and publishes research papers such as, The WTO and Direct Taxation. No country can override the WTO's rules. Some critics have called the WTO an embryo world government, and claim that it favors rich countries over poor ones. In any case, it has impacted the sovereignty of member countries. A "treaty" of the WTO, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), extended the world trading system to include the service sector; all WTO members are signatories to GATS. The GATS Treaty is the primary tool of the WTO for the implementation of privatization of services such as municipal water delivery and delivery of electricity.
Economic hit men (a la John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) are used to essentially extort/blackmail uncooperative countries, primarily poor countries. The "hit man" will point out to the leader of the country that his country has a World Bank/IMF loan that cannot possibly be repaid, thus the leader needs to do one or more of a number of things, such as voting a certain way in the U.N. on some issue, or favoring some private contractor regarding a large in-country project bidding process. "Oh, by the way, here's $100,000 for your trouble." Mr. Perkins was never 100% certain who his employer was, but eventually assumed that it was the CIA. His book was a NYT bestseller.
Coups as a tool of Globalization should be self-explanatory. The example of Indonesia was given previously. Sukarno would not cooperate with the IMF, so he was booted out. [Same thing with Allende in Chile.] The dictator Suharto in Indonesia allowed U.S. companies to move in and utilize virtual sweatshops for the manufacture of goods for stores such as the GAP and Old Navy. The U.S. and U.K. have participated in coups in fifty countries since 1953, when the CIA engineered the ousting of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The Shah purchased millions of dollars of armaments from the U.S. and, of course, supplied us with a portion of our oil requirement.
The maintenance of about 800 U.S. military bases around the world is tied in to the final method: invasion of uncooperative countries as a last resort. A prime example is Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama in 1989. The dictator Noriega had become uncooperative, especially relative to Nicaragua, thus his drug informant days for the CIA were used as an excuse to invade...without admitting that he was a CIA operative. It all came out a few years later in a few books and the documentary film, Deception in Panama. At the time of the invasion, George Bush the elder was President here, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, and Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Other examples include our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While 9-11 provided a fortuitous reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban representatives were told months before that date, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement across Afghanistan], we'll give you a carpet of bombs." (According to a whistleblower) Plus, according to Brzezinski in 1998, control of Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan (where we now have a military base) and a number of other -stans in Central Asia was a "geostrategic imperative for American primacy". Read into that what you will. In the case of Iraq (which, even according to Bush, had nothing to do with 9-11), Saddam, our former ally, had become uncooperative relative to the petro-dollar. Prior to the invasion, he was on the verge of accepting Euros for oil. If allowed to proceed, that would have ended the petro-dollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, most likely would have resulted in a series of events ending with the collapse of our dollar. Plans to invade Iraq were formulated months before 9-11. Saddam, our big buddy in the '80s, had to go. [In the '80s, we supplied him with weapons in order to punish Iran for the overthrow of the Shah and the holding of American hostages. The result was the eight-year Iraq-Iran war.]
In Part III of this series, key understandings will be presented in order to tie everything together. In addition, there will be more on Latin America.
I'm sure you gathered from reading Part I that the IMF and World Bank are key players in the process of Globalization. [I consider them quasi-governmental bodies, rather than non-governmental.] Add to that the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, as well as the central banks of most of the other industrialized countries. It is believed by many serious writers that the IMF/World Bank are merely extensions of the policies of the U.S. Treasury, the Fed Reserve, U.K.'s Treasury, and the U.K.'s Bank of England.
While the above institutions are important, they are no more important than the non-governmental bodies: the transnational mega corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, founded in 1922) and its U.K. counterpart, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka, Chatham House), and the Trilateral Commission (founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski). The CFR and Chatham House are the anglophile Round Table Groups, described in the late Professor Carroll Quigley's 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. The best quote from the book: "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country, or any country; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." Again...it was published in 1966. Quigley also claimed that the CFR was a front for the J.P. Morgan Company; keep in mind that the good professor (Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University) was a very well respected historian and scholar.
In 1991, David Rockefeller stated publicly, "Surely it is preferable to have the world run by unelected, supranational, [business] elites rather than the nations of the past with their corrupt politicians." That is the goal of Globalization. The function of groups such as the CFR, Chatham House, and the Trilateral Commission is to provide the philosophical underpinnings, the unquestionable academic justifications, for the governmental policies that result in the implementation of Globalization. Consequently, the CFR publishes academic-level papers such as Building a North American Community (meaning, the North American Union), The End of National Currency, Bretton Woods II: Does the World Need a New Monetary System? (authored by Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic advisor), and Global Economic Governance. The Trilateral Commission pens scholarly papers such as Global Governance, Global Redistribution of Power, and Sovereignty and Intervention. The tremendous influence of these groups on governmental policy cannot be overstated; for all intents and purposes, essentially they formulate most of our nation's foreign policy and perhaps a good deal of our monetary policy.
The Methods---
There seems to be no particular chronological order to these methods; at times one must precede another, but mostly they are all taking place more or less simultaneously. I'll list them here, then expand on each one later: selection of Globalist candidates for national office, and then the marketing of them; introduction and justification of Globalist policies to the intellectual elite of the country; use of IMF/World Bank "Structural Adjustment Programs", thus facilitating U.S. corporate expansion to poor countries; Trade Agreements and the WTO (World Trade Organization); the use of "Economic Hit Men"; facilitating coups in uncooperative countries; the maintenance of approximately 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and finally, invasion of uncooperative countries (which is a last resort).
Here's what a national election amounts to in the U.S.: the heads of transnational corporations and other members of the Oligarchy/ Corporatocracy, having identified and groomed pre-selected candidates from the two major parties, make massive campaign contributions (indirectly, through PACs) to both. One candidate or the other may be favored from time to time, but generally either one will do. [There is arguably only one major political party in the U.S.: the Transnational Mega Business Party, with a Republican faction and a Democrat faction.] As FDR once wrote to a friend, "In this country, candidates are selected, not elected." The campaign contributions are necessary because the candidates must be marketed to the voting public, and that requires expensive PR firms and multi-media advertising. PR firms run campaigns, not the DNC, DLC, or RNC. The public usually is not bothered with any details regarding Globalization.
Globalist policies must be "sold" to the intellectual elites because those elites are extremely influential in the Corporate Media, educational institutions, various community groups, the entertainment industry, and government at all levels. A relatively small percentage of the American public actually pays attention to important public matters, and it's useful to have them supportive of Globalist tools, e.g., NAFTA. As mentioned above, the intellectual think tanks (CFR, etc.) "justify" policies and tools to the intelligentsia via scholarly papers and even books. Often the mainstream, Corporate Media present summaries of think tank ideas to the general public.
A key method in terms of the Third World is to convince poor countries to take on massive IMF/World Bank loans...for "development". Attached to each loan or interest reduction on a previous loan are conditions, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which require actions such as: cutting gov't expenditures, devaluing the currency, privatization of State-owned enterprises, lifting of trade restrictions, enhancing the rights of foreign investors, gearing the economy to exports, and removing price controls and/or State subsidies. Critics have referred to this as virtual extortion. As a consequence, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have replaced SAPs; however, their contents more often than not turn out to be essentially the same as the old SAPs. The money loaned doesn't go to job development or farm aid, rather it ends up in the wallets of companies such as Bechtel, Hochtief, or Halliburton. They are hired to build ports (for those exports), roads (to get the goods to the ports), water systems, and other infrastructure.
The use of Trade Agreements such as NAFTA to implement Globalization requires no discussion, except to say that there is some controversy regarding the status of NAFTA. Canada and Mexico claim that it's a Treaty; however, it received only 61 votes in the Senate. A treaty requires the approval of 67 Senators. Whether or not it's a Treaty is important because Treaties override U.S. laws.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a major role in the implementation of Globalization. The WTO, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, began in 1995 (replacing GATT) and is the only international body dealing with trade between and among nations. It makes the rules for 97% of all world trade, and publishes research papers such as, The WTO and Direct Taxation. No country can override the WTO's rules. Some critics have called the WTO an embryo world government, and claim that it favors rich countries over poor ones. In any case, it has impacted the sovereignty of member countries. A "treaty" of the WTO, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), extended the world trading system to include the service sector; all WTO members are signatories to GATS. The GATS Treaty is the primary tool of the WTO for the implementation of privatization of services such as municipal water delivery and delivery of electricity.
Economic hit men (a la John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) are used to essentially extort/blackmail uncooperative countries, primarily poor countries. The "hit man" will point out to the leader of the country that his country has a World Bank/IMF loan that cannot possibly be repaid, thus the leader needs to do one or more of a number of things, such as voting a certain way in the U.N. on some issue, or favoring some private contractor regarding a large in-country project bidding process. "Oh, by the way, here's $100,000 for your trouble." Mr. Perkins was never 100% certain who his employer was, but eventually assumed that it was the CIA. His book was a NYT bestseller.
Coups as a tool of Globalization should be self-explanatory. The example of Indonesia was given previously. Sukarno would not cooperate with the IMF, so he was booted out. [Same thing with Allende in Chile.] The dictator Suharto in Indonesia allowed U.S. companies to move in and utilize virtual sweatshops for the manufacture of goods for stores such as the GAP and Old Navy. The U.S. and U.K. have participated in coups in fifty countries since 1953, when the CIA engineered the ousting of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The Shah purchased millions of dollars of armaments from the U.S. and, of course, supplied us with a portion of our oil requirement.
The maintenance of about 800 U.S. military bases around the world is tied in to the final method: invasion of uncooperative countries as a last resort. A prime example is Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama in 1989. The dictator Noriega had become uncooperative, especially relative to Nicaragua, thus his drug informant days for the CIA were used as an excuse to invade...without admitting that he was a CIA operative. It all came out a few years later in a few books and the documentary film, Deception in Panama. At the time of the invasion, George Bush the elder was President here, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, and Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Other examples include our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While 9-11 provided a fortuitous reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban representatives were told months before that date, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement across Afghanistan], we'll give you a carpet of bombs." (According to a whistleblower) Plus, according to Brzezinski in 1998, control of Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan (where we now have a military base) and a number of other -stans in Central Asia was a "geostrategic imperative for American primacy". Read into that what you will. In the case of Iraq (which, even according to Bush, had nothing to do with 9-11), Saddam, our former ally, had become uncooperative relative to the petro-dollar. Prior to the invasion, he was on the verge of accepting Euros for oil. If allowed to proceed, that would have ended the petro-dollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, most likely would have resulted in a series of events ending with the collapse of our dollar. Plans to invade Iraq were formulated months before 9-11. Saddam, our big buddy in the '80s, had to go. [In the '80s, we supplied him with weapons in order to punish Iran for the overthrow of the Shah and the holding of American hostages. The result was the eight-year Iraq-Iran war.]
In Part III of this series, key understandings will be presented in order to tie everything together. In addition, there will be more on Latin America.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Globalization: Part I, Beginning Seeds
Some people think not, but history is important when attempting to understand current events. Globalization arguably and presently is the most significant event relative to the future of our Republic and our individual sovereignty. Here, in Part I, I'll present the beginning seeds of the phenomenon known as Globalization or Globalism.
In 1944-45, as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and what finally came to be known as the World Bank were created to help rebuild Europe after WW II. The Agreement, drawn up by the UK and the USA, established the rules/regulations for an international monetary system. Some years later, the IMF and the World Bank began making loans to poor countries, the Third World...and those loans had strings attached. More on that in Part II.
In 1965, General Suharto launched a successful coup against Sukarno in Indonesia, a country rich in resources, potential markets, and potential labor. The coup was known about beforehand by both the UK and the USA, but not revealed to Sukarno. [Sukarno, a strong nationalist, had kicked the IMF/World Bank out of his country...refused their "aid".] After the coup and over time, between 500,000 and one million Indonesians were murdered by the Suharto regime. Our CIA supplied a list, which facilitated the beginning of the massacre, of about 5,000 Indonesian communists to the Suharto regime. During that time, loans were made to Indonesia by the IMF and World Bank...with strings attached.
In 1967, Time-Life Corporation sponsored a meeting in Switzerland, the purpose of which was to plan the corporate takeover of Indonesia...that is to say, the economic (not political) takeover. David Rockefeller, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, representing Chase Manhattan Bank attended, along with dozens of other business luminaries--- representatives of Lehman Brothers, various oil companies, food companies, ALCOA, U.S. Steel, Siemens, various other banks, etc. General Suharto had his representatives there as well. [This is a classic example of Fascism in action--- mega corporations colluding with government cronies in order to control both the People and the economy.]
The large group in Switzerland divided up according to various sectors: banking and finance, food, consumer goods, oil and energy, etc. Each smaller group then hammered out the rules for doing corporate business in Indonesia. As part of the deal, the government of that country obtained another series of loans from the IMF/World Bank.
In 1973, the USA's CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende...because he was a Socialist, and probably had plans to nationalize U.S. businesses in Chile. A brutal dictator, General Pinochet, was installed; some time later, Pinochet's government obtained loans from the IMF/World Bank. Pinochet ruled for seventeen years. Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, chaired the meetings in the Nixon Adminstration that dealt with covert operations in Chile prior to the coup. Also prior to the coup, a Pepsi Cola franchise owner in Chile who also owned a newspaper (which was thought to be a CIA front) was called to DC to update Dr. Kissinger on the political situation.
In the 1980s, Thatcher of the UK built up her country's arms business and made a lot of armament sales to General Suharto of Indonesia. Also during that time, Thatcher and the USA's President Reagan laid the groundwork for what became known in 1989 as the "Washington Consensus"---a series of policies that supposedly would lead to global prosperity and unfettered economic growth by means of deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization (so-called "Free Trade") around the world. In the Third World, such a lofty goal would be attained through use of the IMF and the World Bank. The "Structural Adjustment Programs" of those two institutions supposedly would be the key to success. Details in Part II of this essay.
In 1944-45, as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and what finally came to be known as the World Bank were created to help rebuild Europe after WW II. The Agreement, drawn up by the UK and the USA, established the rules/regulations for an international monetary system. Some years later, the IMF and the World Bank began making loans to poor countries, the Third World...and those loans had strings attached. More on that in Part II.
In 1965, General Suharto launched a successful coup against Sukarno in Indonesia, a country rich in resources, potential markets, and potential labor. The coup was known about beforehand by both the UK and the USA, but not revealed to Sukarno. [Sukarno, a strong nationalist, had kicked the IMF/World Bank out of his country...refused their "aid".] After the coup and over time, between 500,000 and one million Indonesians were murdered by the Suharto regime. Our CIA supplied a list, which facilitated the beginning of the massacre, of about 5,000 Indonesian communists to the Suharto regime. During that time, loans were made to Indonesia by the IMF and World Bank...with strings attached.
In 1967, Time-Life Corporation sponsored a meeting in Switzerland, the purpose of which was to plan the corporate takeover of Indonesia...that is to say, the economic (not political) takeover. David Rockefeller, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, representing Chase Manhattan Bank attended, along with dozens of other business luminaries--- representatives of Lehman Brothers, various oil companies, food companies, ALCOA, U.S. Steel, Siemens, various other banks, etc. General Suharto had his representatives there as well. [This is a classic example of Fascism in action--- mega corporations colluding with government cronies in order to control both the People and the economy.]
The large group in Switzerland divided up according to various sectors: banking and finance, food, consumer goods, oil and energy, etc. Each smaller group then hammered out the rules for doing corporate business in Indonesia. As part of the deal, the government of that country obtained another series of loans from the IMF/World Bank.
In 1973, the USA's CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende...because he was a Socialist, and probably had plans to nationalize U.S. businesses in Chile. A brutal dictator, General Pinochet, was installed; some time later, Pinochet's government obtained loans from the IMF/World Bank. Pinochet ruled for seventeen years. Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, chaired the meetings in the Nixon Adminstration that dealt with covert operations in Chile prior to the coup. Also prior to the coup, a Pepsi Cola franchise owner in Chile who also owned a newspaper (which was thought to be a CIA front) was called to DC to update Dr. Kissinger on the political situation.
In the 1980s, Thatcher of the UK built up her country's arms business and made a lot of armament sales to General Suharto of Indonesia. Also during that time, Thatcher and the USA's President Reagan laid the groundwork for what became known in 1989 as the "Washington Consensus"---a series of policies that supposedly would lead to global prosperity and unfettered economic growth by means of deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization (so-called "Free Trade") around the world. In the Third World, such a lofty goal would be attained through use of the IMF and the World Bank. The "Structural Adjustment Programs" of those two institutions supposedly would be the key to success. Details in Part II of this essay.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Government-Speak and Iraq
Remember "Doublespeak" from Orwell's book, 1984? That's "Government-Speak" in my title above. An example would be one of today's headlines: "Final U.S. Combat Troops Leaving Iraq". Really? The qualifier is: 50,000 "support" troops remain in Iraq. 50,000. Support troops apparently are trainers and/or advisors to the Iraqis.
It has been quite awhile since I served in the Army, but I'm fairly certain of one thing regarding Iraq. There are not 50,000 trainers/advisors left there. At most, my best guess is that there are about 5,000 such troops left in Iraq. The remaining 45,000 or so are combat troops waiting for orders to resume combat, if necessary. They are similar to the troops we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.
At the same time that "combat troops are leaving Iraq", that country's infrastructure is barely functioning. Electricity runs for only about two to five hours per day, and then only in bursts of approximately fifteen minutes at any one time. Safe drinking water is not always available. On top of that, Iraq does not now have a functioning government. Another election was held not long ago, but there was no clear majority, and the various factions have not yet formed a central government. Meanwhile, insurgents have ramped up attacks via suicide car bombs, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and murder by gunshot. It's not exactly a stable situation.
Don't misunderstand, I'm very happy that about 10,000 more troops have left Iraq. I wish they all had left. My fear is that our Fed Government will be sending those 10,000 (plus a lot more) back before too long. I also suspect that many of my fellow citizens now will think that the Iraq quagmire is "wrapped up", over. I don't think that's the case. My guess is that it's a temporary withdrawal due to politics: Americans currently are fed up with both wars.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other -stans in Central Asia make up a big part of Zbigniew Brzezinski's, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (a 1998 book). Brzezinski, a true Globalist, along with David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) in 1973. The TC is a Globalist, intellectual think tank which shares ideas and leadership regarding the problems and implementation of Globalism. In my opinion, The Grand Chessboard is the driving force behind our Government's foreign policy, and has been since about 1999.
I firmly believe that the Globalists in DC are drowning us in Government-Speak, especially regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other -stans. We are not there primarily because of our desire to "spread democracy", or because of terrorist threats to America, or because certain foreign leaders are brutal. [We were very happy to be dealing with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Shah of Iran, all brutal dictators, when they were cooperating with us relative to oil, pipeline routes, and the continuance of the petro-dollar.] We are there to secure natural resources, transportation routes for those resources, and to preserve the almighty petro-dollar. Most importantly, it doesn't matter relative to this situation whether Republicans or Democrats are in power in DC. Both parties have been co-opted by the Globalists. [And no...it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open. Do a search for the membership of the TC, and one for the membership of the CFR. Conservatives may be surprised to learn that Dick Cheney once was the Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR.]
Saddam, our former ally, was preparing to accept Euros for oil just prior to our last invasion of Iraq. That's why he had to go. Had he been allowed to proceed, that would have been the end of the petro-dollar, and the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, would have meant total bankruptcy for the U.S. Our fiat dollar has virtually no value, except for the fact that it is the world's reserve currency. If and when that ends, the dollar most likely will collapse.
A few months before 9-11, representatives of the Taliban were invited here to negotiate a pipeline route across Afghanistan, needed by Big Oil. We knew how brutal they were, but no one in the Government squawked over that then. According to one whistleblower and intelligence agent, the Taliban were told, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement], we'll give you a carpet of bombs."
As a serious observer of American politics for over half a century, I've noticed that with each passing decade national politicians have become more and more Orwellian. The Government-Speak now is nothing short of astounding, and the frequency of it is overwhelming. With unmitigated hubris, the Republican and Democrat Globalists lie to us...and with a completely straight face. Most of them have no shame whatsoever. It is my sincere hope that, come November, 99% (there are a few honest ones, but very few) of the incumbents are voted out of office. Please, I beg of you.
It has been quite awhile since I served in the Army, but I'm fairly certain of one thing regarding Iraq. There are not 50,000 trainers/advisors left there. At most, my best guess is that there are about 5,000 such troops left in Iraq. The remaining 45,000 or so are combat troops waiting for orders to resume combat, if necessary. They are similar to the troops we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.
At the same time that "combat troops are leaving Iraq", that country's infrastructure is barely functioning. Electricity runs for only about two to five hours per day, and then only in bursts of approximately fifteen minutes at any one time. Safe drinking water is not always available. On top of that, Iraq does not now have a functioning government. Another election was held not long ago, but there was no clear majority, and the various factions have not yet formed a central government. Meanwhile, insurgents have ramped up attacks via suicide car bombs, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and murder by gunshot. It's not exactly a stable situation.
Don't misunderstand, I'm very happy that about 10,000 more troops have left Iraq. I wish they all had left. My fear is that our Fed Government will be sending those 10,000 (plus a lot more) back before too long. I also suspect that many of my fellow citizens now will think that the Iraq quagmire is "wrapped up", over. I don't think that's the case. My guess is that it's a temporary withdrawal due to politics: Americans currently are fed up with both wars.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other -stans in Central Asia make up a big part of Zbigniew Brzezinski's, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (a 1998 book). Brzezinski, a true Globalist, along with David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) in 1973. The TC is a Globalist, intellectual think tank which shares ideas and leadership regarding the problems and implementation of Globalism. In my opinion, The Grand Chessboard is the driving force behind our Government's foreign policy, and has been since about 1999.
I firmly believe that the Globalists in DC are drowning us in Government-Speak, especially regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other -stans. We are not there primarily because of our desire to "spread democracy", or because of terrorist threats to America, or because certain foreign leaders are brutal. [We were very happy to be dealing with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Shah of Iran, all brutal dictators, when they were cooperating with us relative to oil, pipeline routes, and the continuance of the petro-dollar.] We are there to secure natural resources, transportation routes for those resources, and to preserve the almighty petro-dollar. Most importantly, it doesn't matter relative to this situation whether Republicans or Democrats are in power in DC. Both parties have been co-opted by the Globalists. [And no...it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open. Do a search for the membership of the TC, and one for the membership of the CFR. Conservatives may be surprised to learn that Dick Cheney once was the Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR.]
Saddam, our former ally, was preparing to accept Euros for oil just prior to our last invasion of Iraq. That's why he had to go. Had he been allowed to proceed, that would have been the end of the petro-dollar, and the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, would have meant total bankruptcy for the U.S. Our fiat dollar has virtually no value, except for the fact that it is the world's reserve currency. If and when that ends, the dollar most likely will collapse.
A few months before 9-11, representatives of the Taliban were invited here to negotiate a pipeline route across Afghanistan, needed by Big Oil. We knew how brutal they were, but no one in the Government squawked over that then. According to one whistleblower and intelligence agent, the Taliban were told, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement], we'll give you a carpet of bombs."
As a serious observer of American politics for over half a century, I've noticed that with each passing decade national politicians have become more and more Orwellian. The Government-Speak now is nothing short of astounding, and the frequency of it is overwhelming. With unmitigated hubris, the Republican and Democrat Globalists lie to us...and with a completely straight face. Most of them have no shame whatsoever. It is my sincere hope that, come November, 99% (there are a few honest ones, but very few) of the incumbents are voted out of office. Please, I beg of you.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Leave Afghanistan
It is past time to get out of Afghanistan. Here's why---
1. The Intelligence Service (ISI) of Pakistan (supposedly our ally) aids the Pashtun Taliban. This is the same ISI that reportedly sent $100,000 to M. Atta, one of the 9-11 hijackers. This reason alone is enough to bring our battle-weary, frustrated troops home. These are the same troops who are given highly restrictive Rules Of Engagement, rules that are more suited to police officers than to combat troops.
2. The central government of Hamid Karzai and his brother is corrupt to the core. The Afghanis know this, and they know that we support the same corrupt, central government.
3. We are trying to establish a central government in a country that has almost no history of such a thing.
4. The Pashtun Taliban are at war with Karzai's government. Once again, we are in the middle of a civil war.
5. The new U.S. target date for withdrawal is 2014. The chances are good that by 2014 things won't be much "better" than they are right now. For certain, they'll be worse for us---more dead and disabled troops, more billions of dollars spent fruitlessly.
6. The Soviets committed 500,000 troops to their war with Afghanistan years ago...and they lost. Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for very good reasons.
7. Polls indicate that over half the population in Afghanistan do not want us in their country any longer.
8. There are many, many more Al Qaida insurgents in Pakistan and Yemen than in Afghanistan. Intelligence estimates put the number of Al Qaida in Afghanistan at about 25-50, out of a total of approximately 25,000 insurgents.
9. Logic suggests that there's a high probability that Osama bin Laden is no longer alive. For one thing, why would he stop releasing video tapes that spurred on his fanatics?
I'll say it again: although there are obvious differences, the war in Afghanistan reminds me greatly of our involvement in Vietnam---corrupt governments in both cases, civil wars, restrictive Rules of Engagement, "winning hearts and minds", horrible losses of life (including "collateral damage"), billions of dollars, and Secretaries of Defense from the corporate world.
Here's who is benefitting from us being in Afghanistan: SAIC (Robert Gates was once on their Board of Directors); Halliburton/KBR; private security companies; and numerous other corporations in the defense industry. We probably also should include the Powers-That-Be in our own Fed Government, as the war allows more expansion of government and more intrusions into our personal lives (because it's part of the so-called "War on Terror").
It is long past time to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There is much more terrorism in the world now, as compared to before we invaded those countries. Not only that, but our loss of life, limb, and treasure is obscene. And for what... to combat terrorism? I don't think so.
1. The Intelligence Service (ISI) of Pakistan (supposedly our ally) aids the Pashtun Taliban. This is the same ISI that reportedly sent $100,000 to M. Atta, one of the 9-11 hijackers. This reason alone is enough to bring our battle-weary, frustrated troops home. These are the same troops who are given highly restrictive Rules Of Engagement, rules that are more suited to police officers than to combat troops.
2. The central government of Hamid Karzai and his brother is corrupt to the core. The Afghanis know this, and they know that we support the same corrupt, central government.
3. We are trying to establish a central government in a country that has almost no history of such a thing.
4. The Pashtun Taliban are at war with Karzai's government. Once again, we are in the middle of a civil war.
5. The new U.S. target date for withdrawal is 2014. The chances are good that by 2014 things won't be much "better" than they are right now. For certain, they'll be worse for us---more dead and disabled troops, more billions of dollars spent fruitlessly.
6. The Soviets committed 500,000 troops to their war with Afghanistan years ago...and they lost. Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for very good reasons.
7. Polls indicate that over half the population in Afghanistan do not want us in their country any longer.
8. There are many, many more Al Qaida insurgents in Pakistan and Yemen than in Afghanistan. Intelligence estimates put the number of Al Qaida in Afghanistan at about 25-50, out of a total of approximately 25,000 insurgents.
9. Logic suggests that there's a high probability that Osama bin Laden is no longer alive. For one thing, why would he stop releasing video tapes that spurred on his fanatics?
I'll say it again: although there are obvious differences, the war in Afghanistan reminds me greatly of our involvement in Vietnam---corrupt governments in both cases, civil wars, restrictive Rules of Engagement, "winning hearts and minds", horrible losses of life (including "collateral damage"), billions of dollars, and Secretaries of Defense from the corporate world.
Here's who is benefitting from us being in Afghanistan: SAIC (Robert Gates was once on their Board of Directors); Halliburton/KBR; private security companies; and numerous other corporations in the defense industry. We probably also should include the Powers-That-Be in our own Fed Government, as the war allows more expansion of government and more intrusions into our personal lives (because it's part of the so-called "War on Terror").
It is long past time to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There is much more terrorism in the world now, as compared to before we invaded those countries. Not only that, but our loss of life, limb, and treasure is obscene. And for what... to combat terrorism? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)