When the Crisis comes… Kick the Can Down the Road…

The Economic Collapse
October 28, 2011

Have you heard the good news?  Financial armageddon has been averted.  The economic collapse in Europe has been cancelled.  Everything is going to be okay.  Well, actually none of those statements is true, but news of the “debt deal” in Europe has set off a frenzy of irrational exuberance throughout the financial world anyway.  Newspapers all over the globe are declaring that the financial crisis in Europe is over.  Stock markets all over the world are soaring.

The Dow was up nearly 3 percent today, and this recent surge is helping the S&P 500 to have its best month since 1974.  Global financial markets are experiencing an explosion of optimism right now.  Yes, European leaders have been able to kick the can down the road for a few months and a total Greek default is not going to happen right now.  However, as you will see below, the core elements of this “debt deal” actually make a financial disaster in Europe even more likely in the future.

The two most important parts of the plan are a 50% “haircut” on Greek debt held by private investors and highly leveraging the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to give it much more “firepower”.

Both of these elements are likely to cause significant problems down the road.  But most investors do not seem to have figured this out yet.  In fact, most investors seem to be buying into the hype that Europe’s problems have been solved.

There is a tremendous lack of critical thinking in the financial community today.  Just because politicians in Europe say that the crisis has been solved does not mean that the crisis has been solved.  But all over the world there are bold declarations that a great “breakthrough” has been achieved.  An article posted on USA Today is an example of this irrational exuberance….


Investors — at least for now — don’t have to worry about a financial collapse like the one in 2008, after Wall Street investment bank Lehman Bros. filed for bankruptcy, sparking a global financial crisis.

“Financial Armageddon seems to have been taken off the table,” says Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott.

Wow, doesn’t that sound great?

But now let’s look at the facts.

Read Full Article…

Robber Barons, Revolution, and Social Control

The Century of Social Engineering, Part 1

By Andrew Gavin Marshall
March 10, 2011


In Part 1 of this series, “The Century of Social Engineering,” I briefly document the economic, political and social background to the 20th century in America, by taking a brief look at the major social upheavals of the 19th century. For an excellent and detailed examination of this history, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States  (which provided much of the research for this article) is perhaps the most expansive and detailed examination. I am not attempting to serve it justice here, as there is much left out of this historically examination than there is included.

The purpose of this essay is to examine first of all the rise of class and labour struggle throughout the United States in the 19th century, the rise and dominance of the ‘Robber Baron’ industrialists like J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, their convergence of interests with the state, and finally to examine the radical new philosophies and theories that arose within the radicalized and activated populations, such as Marxism and Anarchism. I do not attempt to provide exhaustive or comprehensive analyses of these theoretical and philosophical movements, but rather provide a brief glimpse to some of the ideas (particularly those of anarchism), and place them in the historical context of the mass struggles of the 19th century.

Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan are three of a handful world lords who founded the current social state of affairs.

America’s Class Struggle

Unbeknownst to most Americans – and for that matter, most people in general – the United States in the 19th century was in enormous upheaval, following on the footsteps of the American Revolution, a revolution which was directed by the landed elite in the American colonies, a new revolutionary spirit arose in the working class populace. The 19th century, from roughly the 1830s onwards, was one great long labour struggle in America.

In the early decades of the 19th century, Eastern capitalists in America began to expand to the West, “and it became important to keep that new West, tumultuous and unpredictable, under control.”[1] The new capitalists favoured monopolization over competition as a method of achieving ‘stability’ and “security to your own property.” The state played its traditional role in securing business interests, as state legislatures gave charters to corporations, granting them legal charters, and “between 1790 and 1860, 2,300 corporations were chartered.”[2] However, as Howard Zinn wrote in A People’s History of the United States:

The attempts at political stability, at economic control, did not quite work. The new industrialism, the crowded cities, the long hours in the factories, the sudden economic crises leading to high prices and lost jobs, the lack of food and water, the freezing winters, the hot tenements in the summer, the epidemics of disease, the deaths of children – these led to sporadic reactions from the poor. Sometimes there were spontaneous, unorganized uprisings against the rich. Sometimes the anger was deflected into racial hatred for blacks, religious warfare against Catholics, nativist fury against immigrants. Sometimes it was organized into demonstrations and strikes.[3]

In the 1830s, “episodes of insurrection” were taking place amid the emergence of unions. Throughout the century, it was with each economic crisis that labour movements and rebellious sentiments would develop and accelerate. Such was the case with the 1837 economic crisis, caused by the banks and leading to rising prices. Rallies and meetings started taking place in several cities, with one rally numbering 20,000 people in Philadelphia. That same year, New York experienced the Flour Riot. With a third of the working class – 50,000 people – out of work in New York alone, and nearly half of New York’s 500,000 people living “in utter and hopeless distress,” thousands of protesters rioted, ultimately leading to police and troops being sent in to crush the protesters.[4]

In 1835 there had been a successful general strike in Philadelphia, where fifty trade unions had organized in favour of a ten-hour work day. In this context, political parties began creating divides between workers and lower class people, as antagonisms developed between many Protestants and Catholics. Thus, middle class politicians “led each group into a different political party (the nativists into the American Republican party, the Irish into the Democratic party), party politics and religion now substituting for class conflict.”[5]

Another economic crisis took place in 1857, and in 1860, a Mechanics Association was formed, demanding higher wages, and called for a strike. Within a week, strikes spread from Lynn, Massachusetts, to towns across the state and into New Hampshire and Maine, “with Mechanics Associations in twenty-five towns and twenty thousand shoe-workers on strike,” marking the largest strike prior to the Civil War.[6] Yet, “electoral politics drained the energies of the resisters into the channels of the system.” While European workers were struggling for economic justice and political democracy, American workers had already achieved political democracy, thus, “their economic battles could be taken over by political parties that blurred class lines.”[7]

The Civil War (1861-1865) served several purposes. First of all, the immediate economic considerations: the Civil War sought to create a single economic system for America, driven by the Eastern capitalists in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, uniting with the West against the slave-labour South. The aim was not freedom for black slaves, but rather to end a system which had become antiquated and unprofitable. With the Industrial Revolution driving people into cities and mechanizing production, the notion of slavery lost its appeal: it was simply too expensive and time consuming to raise, feed, house, clothe and maintain slaves; it was thought more logical and profitable (in an era obsessed with efficiency) to simply pay people for the time they engage in labour. The Industrial Revolution brought with it the clock, and thus time itself became a commodity. As slavery was indicative of human beings being treated as commodities to be bought and sold, owned and used, the Industrial Revolution did not liberate people from servitude and slavery, it simply updated the notions and made more efficient the system of slavery: instead of purchasing people, they would lease them for the time they can be ‘productive’.

Living conditions for the workers and the vast majority, however, were not very different from the conditions of slavery itself. Thus, as the Civil War was sold to the public on the notion of liberating the slaves in the South, the workers of the North felt betrayed and hateful that they must be drafted and killed for a war to liberate others when they themselves were struggling for liberation. Here, we see the social control methods and reorganizing of society that can take place through war, a fact that has always existed and remains today, made to be even more prescient with the advances in technology. During the Civil War, the class conflict among the working people of the United States transformed into a system where they were divided against each other, as religious and racial divisions increasingly erupted in violence. With the Conscription Act of 1863, draft riots erupted in several Northern U.S. cities, the most infamous of which was the New York draft riots, when for three days mobs of rioters attacked recruiting stations, wealthy homes, destroying buildings and killing blacks. Roughly four hundred people were killed after Union troops were called into the city to repress the riots.[8] In the South, where the vast majority of people were not slave owners, but in fact poor white farmers “living in shacks or abandoned outhouses, cultivating land so bad the plantation owners had abandoned it,” making little more than blacks for the same work (30 cents a day for whites as opposed to 20 cents a day for blacks). When the Southern Confederate Conscription Law was implemented in 1863, anti-draft riots erupted in several Southern cities as well.[9]

When the Civil War ended in 1865, hundreds of thousands of soldiers returned to squalor conditions in the major cities of America. In New York alone, 100,000 people lived in slums. These conditions brought a surge in labour unrest and struggle, as 100,000 went on strike in New York, unions were formed, with blacks forming their own unions. However, the National Labour Union itself suppressed the struggle for rights as it focused on ‘reforming’ economic conditions (such as promoting the issuance of paper money), “it became less an organizer of labor struggles and more a lobbyist with Congress, concerned with voting, it lost its vitality.”[10]

The Robber Barons Against Americans

In 1873, another major economic crisis took place, setting off a great depression. Yet, economic crises, while being harmful to the vast majority of people, increasing prices and decreasing jobs and wages, had the effect of being very beneficial to the new industrialists and financiers, who use crisis as an opportunity to wipe out competition and consolidate their power. Howard Zinn elaborated:

The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crisis – 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) – that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[11]

In 1877, a nation-wide railroad strike took place, infuriating the major railroad barons, particularly J.P. Morgan, offered to lend money to pay army officers to go in and crush the strikes and get the trains moving, which they managed to accomplish fairly well. Strikes took place and soldiers were sent in to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Indiana, with the whole city of Philadelphia in uproar, with a general strike emerging in Pittsburgh, leading to the deployment of the National Guard, who often shot and killed strikers. When all was said and done, a hundred people were dead, a thousand people had gone to jail, 100,000 workers had gone on strike, and the strikes had roused into action countless unemployed in the cities.[12] Following this period, America underwent its greatest spur of economic growth in its history, with elites from both North and South working together against workers and blacks and the majority of people:

They would do it with the aid of, and at the expense of, black labor, white labor, Chinese labor, European immigrant labor, female labor, rewarding them differently by race, sex, national origin, and social class, in such a way as to create separate levels of oppression – a skillful terracing to stabilize the pyramid of wealth.[13]

The bankers and industrialists, particularly Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon and Harriman, saw enormous increases in wealth and power. At the turn of the century, as Rockefeller moved from exclusively interested in oil, and into iron, copper, coal, shipping, and banking (with Chase Manhattan Bank, now J.P. Morgan Chase), his fortune would equal $2 billion. The Morgan Group also had billions in assets.[14] In 1900, Andrew Carnegie agreed to sell his steel company to J.P. Morgan for $492 million.[15]

Public sentiment at this time, however, had never been so anti-Capitalist and spiteful of the great wealth amassed at the expense of all others. The major industrialists and bankers firmly established their control over the political system, firmly entrenching the two party system through which they would control both parties. Thus, “whether Democrats or Republicans won, national policy would not change in any important way.”[16] Labour struggles had continued and exacerbated throughout the decades following the Civil War. In 1893, another economic depression took place, and the country was again plunged into social upheaval.

The Supreme Court itself was firmly overtaken by the interests of the new elite. Shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect newly freed blacks, the Supreme Court began “to develop it as a protection for corporations,” as corporate lawyers argued that corporations were defined as legal ‘persons’, and therefore they could not have their rights infringed upon as stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court went along with this reasoning, and even intervened in state legislative decisions which instead promoted the rights of workers and farmers. Ultimately, “of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before thee Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.”[17]

It was in this context that increasing social unrest was taking place, and thus that new methods of social control were becoming increasingly necessary. Among the restless and disgruntled masses, were radical new social theories that had emerged to fill a void – a void which was created by the inherent injustice of living in a human social system in which there is a dehumanizing power structure.

Philosophies of Liberation and Social Dislocation

It was in this context that new theories and philosophies emerged to fill the void created by the hegemonic ideologies and the institutions which propagate them. While these various critical philosophies expanded human kind’s understanding of the world around them, they did not emerge in a vacuum – that is, separate from various hegemonic ideas, but rather, they were themselves products of and to varying degrees espoused certain biases inherent in the hegemonic ideologies. This arose in the context of increasing class conflict in both the United States and Europe, brought about as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Two of the pre-eminent ideologies and philosophies that emerged were Marxism and Anarchism.

Marxist theory, originating with German philosopher Karl Marx, expanded human kind’s understanding of the nature of capitalism and human society as a constant class struggle, in which the dominant class (the bourgeoisie), who own the means of production (industry) exploit the lower labour class (proletariat) for their own gain. Within Marxist theory, the state itself was seen as a conduit through which economic powers would protect their own interests. Marxist theory espoused the idea of a “proletarian revolution” in which the “workers of the world unite” and overthrow the bourgeoisie, creating a Communist system in which class is eliminated. However, Karl Marx articulated a concept of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in which upon seizing power, the proletariat would become the new ruling class, and serve its own interests through the state to effect a transition to a Communist society and simultaneously prevent a counterrevolution from the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto (1848) also on the need for a central bank to manage the monetary system. These concepts led to significant conflict between Marxist and Anarchist theorists.

Anarchism is one of the most misunderstood philosophies in modern historical thought, and with good reason: it’s revolutionary potential was boundless, as it was an area of thought that was not as rigid, doctrinaire or divisive as other theories, both hegemonic and critical. No other philosophy or political theory had the potential to unite both socialists and libertarians, two seemingly opposed concepts that found a home within the wide spectrum of anarchist thought, leading to a situation in which many anarchists refer to themselves as ‘libertarian socialists.’ As Nathan Jun has pointed out:

[A]narchism has never been and has never aspired to be a fixed, comprehensive, self-contained, and internally consistent system of ideas, set of doctrines, or body of theory. On the contrary, anarchism from its earliest days has been an evolving set of attitudes and ideas that can apply to a wide range of social, economic, and political theories, practices, movements, and traditions.[18]

Susan Brown noted that within Anarchist philosophy, “there are mutualists, collectivists, communists, federalists, individualists, socialists, syndicalists, [and] feminists,” and thus, “Anarchist political philosophy is by no means a unified movement.”[19] The word “anarchy” is derived from the Greek word anarkhos, which means “without authority.” Thus, anarchy “is committed first and foremost to the universal rejection of coercive authority,” and that:

[C]oercive authority includes all centralized and hierarchical forms of government (e.g., monarchy, representative democracy, state socialism, etc.), economic class systems (e.g., capitalism, Bolshevism, feudalism, slavery, etc.), autocratic religions (e.g., fundamentalist Islam, Roman Catholicism, etc.), patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, and imperialism.[20]

The first theorist to describe himself as anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher and socialist who understood “equality not just as an abstract feature of human nature but as an ideal state of affairs that is both desirable and realizable.”[21] While this was a common concept among socialists, anarchist conceptions of equality emphasized that, “true anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact,” as “individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.”[22]

Mikhail Bakunin, one of the most prominent anarchist theorists in history, who was also Karl Marx’s greatest intellectual challenger and opposition, explained that individual freedom depends upon not only recognizing, but “cooperating in [the] realization of others’ freedom,” as, he wrote:

My freedom… is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men and women who are my equals.[23]

Anarchists view representative forms of government, such as Parliamentary democracies, with the same disdain as they view overtly totalitarian structures of government. The reasoning is that:

In the political realm, representation involves divesting individuals and groups of their vitality—their power to create, transform, and change themselves. To be sure, domination often involves the literal destruction of vitality through violence and other forms of physical coercion. As a social-physical phenomenon, however, domination is not reducible to aggression of this sort. On the contrary, domination operates chiefly by “speaking for others” or “representing others to themselves”—that is, by manufacturing images of, or constructing identities for, individuals and groups.[24]

Mikhail Bakunin wrote that, “Only individuals, united through mutual aid and voluntary association, are entitled to decide who they are, what they shall be, how they shall live.” Thus, with any hierarchical or coercive institutions, the natural result is oppression and domination, or in other words, spiritual death.[25]

Anarchism emerged indigenously and organically in America, separate from its European counterparts. The first anarchists in America could be said to be “the Antinomians, Quakers, and other left-wing religious groups who found the authority, dogma, and formalism of the conventional churches intolerable.” These various religious groups came to develop “a political outlook which emphasized the anti-libertarian nature of the state and government.” One of the leaders of these religious groups, Adin Ballou, declared that “the essence of Christian morality is the rejection of force, compromise, and the very institution of government itself.” Thus, a Christian “is not merely to refrain from committing personal acts of violence but is to take positive steps to prevent the state from carrying out its warlike ambitions.”[26] This development occurred within the first decades of the 19th century in America.

In the next phase of American philosophical anarchism, inspiration was drawn from the idea of individualism. Josiah Warren, known as the “first American anarchist,” had published the first anarchist periodical in 1833, the Peaceful Revolutionist. Many others joined Warren in identifying the state as “the enemy” and “maintaining that the only legitimate form of social control is self-discipline which the individual must impose upon himself without the aid of government.” Philosophical anarchism grew in popularity, and in the 1860s, two loose federations of anarchists were formed in the New England Labor Reform League and the American Labor Reform League, which “were the source of radical vitality in America for several decades.” American anarchists were simultaneously developing similar outlooks and ideas as Proudhon was developing in Europe. One of the most prominent American anarchists, Benjamin Tucker, translated Proudhon’s work in 1875, and started his own anarchist journals and publications, becoming “the chief political theorist of philosophical anarchism in America.”[27]

Tucker viewed anarchism as “a rejection of all formalism, authority, and force in the interest of liberating the creative capacities of the individual,” and that, “the anarchist must remove himself from the arena of politics, refusing to implicate himself in groups or associations which have as their end the control or manipulation of political power.” Thus, Tucker, like other anarchists, “ruled out the concepts of parliamentary and constitutional government and in general placed himself and the anarchist movement outside the tradition of democracy as it had developed in America.” Anarchism has widely been viewed as a violent philosophy, and while that may be the case for some theorists and adherents, many anarchist theorists and philosophies rejected the notion of violence altogether. After all, its first adherents in America were driven to anarchist theory simply as a result of their uncompromising pacifism. For the likes of Tucker and other influential anarchist theorists, “the state, rather than being a real structure or entity, is nothing more than a conception. To destroy the state then, is to remove this conception from the mind of the individual.” Thus, the act of revolution “has nothing whatever to do with the actual overthrow of the existing governmental machinery,” and Proudhon opined that, “a true revolution can only take place as mankind becomes enlightened.” Revolution, to anarchists, was not an imminent reality, even though it may be an inevitable outcome:

The one thing that is certain is that revolution takes place not by a concerted uprising of the masses but through a process of individual social reformation or awakening. Proudhon, like Tucker and the native American anarchists, believed that the function of anarchism is essentially educational… The state will be abolished at the point at which people in general have become convinced of its un-social nature… When enough people resist it to the point of ignoring it altogether, the state will have been destroyed as completely as a scrap of paper is when it is tossed into a roaring fire.[28]

In the 1880s, anarchism was taken up by many of the radical immigrants coming into America from Europe, such as Johann Most and Emma Goldman, a Jewish Russian feminist anarchist. The press portrayed Goldman “as a vile and unsavory devotee of revolutionary violence.” Goldman partook in an attempted assassination of Henry C. Frick, an American industrialist and financier, historically known as one of the most ruthless businessmen and referred to as “the most hated man in America.” This was saying something in the era of J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Emma Goldman later regretted the attempted assassination and denounced violence as an anarchist methodology. However, she came to acknowledge a view similar to Kropotkin’s (another principle anarchist philosopher), “that violence is the natural consequence of repression and force”:

The state, in her opinion, sows the seeds of violence when it lends it authority and force to the retardation of social change, thereby creating deep-seated feelings of injustice and desperation in the collective unconscious. “I do not advocate violence, government does this, and force begets force.”[29]

The general belief was that “social violence is never arbitrary and meaningless. There is always a deep-seated cause standing behind every deed.” Thus:

Social violence, she argued, will naturally disappear at the point at which men have learned to understand and accommodate themselves to one another within a dynamic society which truly values human freedom. Until then we can expect to see pent up hostility and frustration of certain individuals and groups explode from time to time with the spontaneity and violence of a volcano.[30]

Thus we have come to take a brief glimpse of the social upheaval and philosophies gripping and spreading across the American (and indeed the European) landscape in the 19th century. As a radical reaction to the revolutionizing changed brought by the Industrial Revolution, class struggle, labor unrest, Marxism and Anarchism arose within a populace deeply unsatisfied, horrifically exploited, living in desperation and squalor, and lighting within them a spark – a desire – for freedom and equality. They were not ideologically or methodologically unified, specifically in terms of the objectives and ends; yet, their enemies were the same. It as a struggle among the people against the prevailing and growing sources of power: the state and Capitalist industrialization. The emergence of corporations in America after the Civil War (themselves a creation of the state), created new manifestations of exploitation, greed and power. The Robber Barons were the personification of ‘evil’ and in fact were quite openly and brazenly ruthless. The notion of ‘public relations’ had not yet been invented, and so the industrialists would openly and violently repress and crush struggles, strikes and protests. The state was, after all, firmly within their grip.

It was this revolutionary fervour that permeated the conniving minds of the rich and powerful within America, that stimulated the concepts of social control, and laid the foundations for the emergence of the 20th century as the ‘century of social engineering.’

In Part 2 of “The Century of Social Engineering,” I will identify new ideas of domination, oppression and social control that arose in response to the rise of new ideas of liberation and resistance in the 19th century. This process will take us through the emergence of the major universities and a new educational system, structure and curriculum, the rise of the major philanthropic foundations, and the emergence of public relations. The combination of these three major areas: education, philanthropy, and public relations (all of which interact and are heavily interdependent), merged and implemented powerful systems of social control, repressing the revolutionary upheaval of the 19th century and creating the conditions to transform American, and in fact, global society in the 20th century.

Bilderberg 2010 Agenda Leaked

Corbett Report

Veteran Bilderberg researcher and bestselling author Daniel Estulin has once again acquired a copy of the agenda for the annual meeting of the world’s power elite. In an exclusive interview with The Corbett Report earlier today, Estulin revealed what the Bilderbergers will be discussing at this year’s confab in Sitges, Spain on June 3-6, 2010.

According to the documents—which Estulin obtained from his sources inside the secretive group—issues to be discussed in this year’s formal deliberations are:

1. Will the Euro Survive?
2. Development in Europe: Europe’s Exit Strategy…On Hold?
3. Do We Have Institutions to Deal With the World Economy?
4. Greece: Lessons and Forward-looking Strategies
5. NATO and Afghanistan: The Practical Agenda for the Alliance
6. Iran and Russia: Economic and Financial Threats to the Alliance
7. The Consequences of War Against Terrorism
8. The Influence of Domestic Issues on American Foreign Policy
9.The Outlook for Japan’s Economy
10. The Future of the U.S. Dollar: Alternative Scenarios

That the Bilderbergers—essentially a talking shop for European and North American power players—are interested in discussing the current meltdown of the European economy should come as no surprise, especially as the group’s attendee list includes many of the key financiers and string pullers who helped steer Europe into the crisis in the first place. Past attendees of the meeting include current EU President Herman Van Rompuy who got the job as the first non-elected head of the undemocratic European Union after a special wine and dine session with Bilderberg steering committee members. Last year he heralded the beginning of global government, praising the increased role of G20 in dealing with the global financial crisis. Other key Bilderbergers include Jean-Claude Trichet, who, as head of the European Central Bank, was instrumental in helping to craft the current European bailout which itself is designed to incentivize the bankruptcy of Europe. Trichet, too, also recentlycalled for global government to regulate the world economic meltdown that his fellow Bilderbergers helped to create.

Those familiar with the Bilderberg group’s long-cherished dream of achieving global government through the creation of an international financial framework will be unsurprised to see that a debate on the question “Do We Have Institutions to Deal With the World Economy?” is the third order of business at this year’s meeting. Nor will it be a surprise when the question is inevitably answered with the standard globalist line that international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank need to be “strengthened” and even given enhanced regulatory powers as a result of the crisis they have brought about, exactly as Bilderberg observers have been predicting for years. Indeed, as Estulin himself notes in his latest book, Shadow Masters, former U.S. Undersecretary of State George Ball expressed the ambition of the globalists in an address to the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Mont Tremblant when he stated that they were interested in developing a “world company” to take over the “archaic political structure of nation states”

Other items on the agenda are exactly in line with the issues and plans made at last year’s Bilderberg and those ideas debated at last year’s G20 Finance Ministers meeting, both of which Estulin was able to infiltrate with his inside sources. The fact that the Iran-Russia alliance is on this year’s agenda is doubly telling, not only because a strike against Iran was on the table at this year’s Trilateral Commission meeting, but because, as Estulin notes in today’s interview, it indicates that the real object of the Bilderbergers’ aggression against Iran is the destabilization of Russia, a country that has traditionally been a thorn in the side of the globalists.

Perhaps the only thing that is surprising about this year’s leaked agenda is that the secretive group, which has gone to great length to conceal itself from media and public scrutiny, has failed to take precautions to prevent Estulin and his sources from acquiring the information yet again. “I’m a little bit disappointed in the Bilderbergers,” he said on the line from Spain, where he currently resides. “I would think they would have taken certain precautions and measures, especially coming to my part of the world.”

While the agenda is only a guide for the larger group discussions and the real decision-making takes place among the core members of the group behind closed doors, it does serve as an indicator of the issues and events that are preoccupying the globalists at this sensitive stage of their operation, just as they begin to realize their dream of instituting global government by manufacturing a global depression. Even as these plans begin to come to fruition, the people of Iceland, Greece, and other developed countries are beginning to rise up en masse to throw off the yoke of financial oppression and key Bilderbergers are openly talking of their fears of a global political awakening.

This year’s conference marks a new level of exposure and opposition to the Bilderberg group itself. Daniel Estulin will be making an historic speech to the European parliament on June 1st along with Mario Borghezio, Nigel Farage, and other key MEPs. Then Charlie Skelton, reporting once again for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, will be taking part in a mass counter-conference where those opposed to the Bilderbergers and their secret proceedings will gather to draw attention to the group.

So, you think the dollar gained value?

The inflated currency isn’t worth a 1,200th of an ounce of gold

Lew Rockwell

The collapse of the dollar to less than a 1,200th of an ounce of gold is emerging as one of the astonishing stories of our time. Yet evendollar more astonishing is the lack of focus on that story by the intelligentsia in our press and politics. It is a silence on which these columns have remarked a number of times of late, including on March 14, 2008, right after the value of the greenback toppled below a thousandth of an ounce of gold. At the time we suggested that, once the Democrats had their nominee, it would be up to Senator McCain to confront them with the fact that the Congress they’ve controlled since 2006 has resulted in the dollar falling below a thousandth of an ounce of gold and to warn of its further collapse without the right leadership.

Now the default that has followed has been bi-partisan. It was less than five years ago that we issued, on December 5, 2005, an editorial called “The Bush Dollar.” It charted the collapse of the greenback to barely a 500th of an ounce of gold from the 265th of an ounce of gold that it was worth when President Bush acceded to the office where the buck – or, to use the phrase that our contributing editor Larry Parks likes, the “paper ticket” that passes for a buck – stops. At the time we issued that editorial, Mr. Bush had just named Benjamin Bernanke to chair the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. We noted that the dollar had continued to lose value at what we called an “astonishing rate.”

So on the eve of the election that gave the Democrats the control of Congress, we issued an editorial proposing the dollar be renamed “The Greenspan,” in honor, or dishonor, of the Fed chairman who’d just written a book that gave short shrift to the whole idea of measuring a dollar in gold. When it didn’t happen, we issued, on November 30, 2006, another editorial, “The Pelosi,” focusing on the fact that it was to the Congress that the Founders of America delegated power to coin money and regulate the value of it. Despite the efforts of Congressman Ron Paul to return to the idea of constitutional money, it rapidly became clear that the Congress wasn’t going to do anything more about the dollar under Mrs. Pelosi than it had under Dennis Hastert.

So in 2007 we proposed renaming the dollar “The Bernanke.” It called the pace at which the dollar was falling “scandalous.” It also quoted Congressman Ron Paul as having, in 2006, written, prophetically it looks like: “Economic law dictates reform at some point,” Mr. Paul had written in the fall of 2006. “But should we wait until the dollar is 1/1,000 of an ounce of gold or 1/2,000 of an ounce of gold? The longer we wait, the more people suffer and the more difficult reforms become.” We quoted Dr. Paul as warning that “runaway inflation inevitably leads to political chaos” and declared that the time for action is now.


The Geopolitical Hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon Empire in Latin America

The Military Presence to Maintain Neo-colonialism, Instability and Poverty

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

By obtaining its independence, the colonies were preparing for what will inevitably come: the road to development andanglo-saxon empire modernization. Many countries, was suggested, would be developed quickly; politically and economically. But these nations soon realized the sad reality. The dream would not be realized. Underdevelopment in Latin America found strong allies: the colonizers and their new social, economic and military agendas to ensure that those who had recently proclaimed its independence did not come out of their reach.

The Anglo-Saxon empire, mainly supported by a banking system without military or economic boundaries, swallowed the first semi-democratic bastions left in the planet now known as G7, and once these were controlled, it was a matter of time before the rest of the planet was well absorbed. Working through proxy governments like the United States, Canada, France, Spain, England, Italy, Australia, Colombia and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan, the empire used mainly three tools: the model of dependence, foreign aid and military hegemony .

With the dependency model, the empire was guaranteed, and still is today, that countries could not compete with their former owners. The unit includes illegal policies of protectionism, subsidies, establishing trading programs (FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA)-to flood markets with cheap products, which together amount today to a perpetual trade imbalance tilted to favor bankers. This resulted in the fact that developing countries were never competitive in international markets and rather remained as subjects of the Anglo-Saxons to a greater degree. Developing countries continued to be territories where the globalist-controlled developed nations got their materials to perpetuate their development, while taking advantage of third world countries’ cheap labor to strengthen the corporatist system that has ruled the planet for nearly 200 years.

With financial aid, the corporatists inflicted a second blow that destroyed more dependent countries on the intentions of reaching the much desired development. When third world countries failed to develop, it just seemed like a great idea to borrow money to boost their economies towards development. However, the trojan horse with this new method was to keep the borrowing countries deep indebted to prevent their development. Most of the money from the World Bank, IMF and governments dominated by European bankers were given as loans. These loans are so attractive because of the time is provided for the repayment, but at the same time are brutal due to their high interest rates of 30%, 40%, etc., which makes it mathematically impossible to pay the accrued interests, let alone the capital. This effectively tied up the wings of any development momentum the third world had. Along with high-interest loans, the agreements contained in them also requires the adoption of austerity policies that further restrict governments from encouraging development; less money is spent on education, health, infrastructure, creation of projects that in turn generate jobs, etc.. Also attached to these limitations exists an obligation on the part of the debtors to pass on the debt to three or four generations to ensure that countries cannot allocate resources and/or plan ahead.

While the globalists plundered -and continue plundering resources-, developing are also the markets for selling finished products with added value, which transformed them not only in slaves, but also in mindless consumists molded through the Madison Avenue hollow propaganda. Then, a third strategy was implemented. The creation of military conflicts in the region by where corporatists simply collapsed large areas, almost the entire continent. This is very clear in Latin America today. The U.S. proxy government, led through the decades by various puppets of the Anglo-Saxon empire, flooded Latin America officially and unofficially, using his terrorist organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). They used for operations in countries like Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Argentina and others to create resistance movements to destabilize the nations. This is one of the most common strategies used to create divisions among the people who end up eating away any country that shows a vestige of independence. The corporatists also ensure that only their pawns are elected presidents in these countries. Only those who attend the most famous universities in the U.S. and Europe, where they are indoctrinated or bribed, have a real chance to “steer” the destinies of their people.

The existence of common understandings through these governments ensures access to the country, establishing policies that assure more underdevelopment and the continued plundering of more resources. Today, the bankers who control the U.S. government has established military bases throughout Latin America. Along with this armies, the implementation of aid packages and coporatist policies, have also secured access to unlimited sources of energy, water and biodiversity. Some of the most influential are: the Plan Colombia, the FTAA, Plan Puebla Panama, and soon in 2010, the new carbon emissions agreement to be negotiated in Mexico under the command of the Prince of change, Barack Hussein Obama .

The military hegemony and the exercises that assure it are practiced in various countries by the Southern Command, which is an American paramilitary organization that for years has eaten away the independence and sovereignty of all countries in which it operates. Its main purpose is to train Latin American militaries to fight “terrorism”; that deluded idea created during the administration of George Bush and that is based on the assumption that Islamic extremists want to destroy the American dream and that if it was achieved, we would all suffer. Military exercises are conducted throughout Latin America, with recruits from countries like Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia. The most notorious example of these military exercises took place in 2001 when international troops invaded the Argentine territory of Salta to practice against suspected insurgents. New military bases are opened each year through the signing of new agreements for the establishment of more bases in Latin American and Caribbean territories. “The plan of economic and political domination, which has spearheaded the U.S. military dominance, goes also to monitor and control the dynamics of popular movements in the region or, as the Mexican teacher Ana Esther Cecena calls, deter, prevent the enemy from forming. “

The creation of military and naval bases is the daily bread for more and more Latinos. The facilities vary in names and sizes: the Tres Esquinas, Colombia; Iquitos, in Peru, Manta in Ecuador; Palmerola, Honduras; Comalapa, El Salvador, Queen Beatrix, on the island of Aruba, Liberia, Costa Rica. Resistance by many Latino citizens has had few positive results. In Brazil and Argentina, the banker controlled Washington, DC has developed a possible handover of the base of Alcantara, installed in Brazilian territory, and the possibility of installing a base in Misiones, on the triple border between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil is almost a reality as well. The military hegemony not only consolidates the imperialist war power, but also enables the control of resources in the region. As bankers have done it in Asia, Latin America is also a source of precious materials. The 21st century colonialists who are the same for the past two centuries, have sacrificed the lives of millions of people in their desire to grab more territory. The United States in particular, has mechanisms of domination and overexploitation of the FTAA and NAFTA policies promoted by the IMF and World Bank, which are agencies of the Anglo-Saxon imperialist power. And why is there so much interest in what Latin America can provide? “Latin America and the Caribbean possesses 11 percent of the world oil reserves and produces nearly 15 percent of the oil extracted in the world,” cites the website visionesalternativas.com. “In addition, Latin America accounts for about 6 percent of natural gas reserves, large coal reserves – enough for about 288 years of exploitation – and abundant hydro-energy resources, estimated at over 20 per cent the global potential.

The Latin American natural wealth should be added to the fact that the globalists seek to implement more comprehensive policies in order to get more control over the population. Brazil, for example, has already adopted the RFID technology to impose property taxes on animals and in 2010 for the identification of individuals. Also in Brazil, the president recently signed a law that transferred huge tracts of land in the Amazon to the hands of the UN. A new “green police” also limits the development of projects and land use for food crops, thereby jeopardizing the supply of products to local and international markets. Mexico is currently the country with the continent’s most oppressive government where citizens are targeted by the military and paramilitaries, both groups are funded and controlled by the United States in order to ensure easy traffic of drugs to North America. Mexican cartels that do not obey the imperialists are exterminated and those who do pay their share of the goods and profits are free to murder anyone who opposes their reign. Just as in Afghanistan and Colombia, the U.S. army trained and armed Southern Command, controls the planting, harvesting and selling of tons of drugs that are then sent in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and of course in Latin America. The proceeds are then laundered through the big banks on Wall Street. The Anglo-Saxons have also hijacked the continent through the imposition of restrictions on commerce and military agreements between Latin American countries and other competitors such as China and Russia.

And what is the common denominator of imposing economic, political and military rules on the continent? The result is very clear. All you have to do is to review the overall state of the countries to realize that the objective of limiting or nullifying the development has been reached. According to the World Bank, the external debt only from the Mercosur countries increased from $185 million in 1990 to $325 million in 2005. The crime continues to increase in countries like Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, where gangs and drug cartels control populations on the outskirts of the metropolis, and remains highly stable in Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Haiti and others. But perhaps the clearest result of policies imposed on Latin America is the underdevelopment in which all countries are maintained. No country in this block is considered to be developed after having proclaimed themselves independent nations for decades. Poverty in Latin America has gotten worse in many countries due to their internal and regional conflicts as well as corrupt governments that serve the globalists.

A recent study by ECLAC, an organization of the UN reveals that at least 182 million people live in poverty in Latin America, and the number of those living in extreme poverty reached 12.9 percent. The study reveals that the number of people regarded as poor increased due mainly to higher inflation and higher food prices. The poverty rate is divided into four groups. The first highlights countries whose levels are below 22% such as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica, the second poorest group includes Brazil, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, the third and even poorer has Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador and Peru, and the fourth is composed by the worse off countries such as Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay.

Neo-colonialism does not allow developing countries to prosper, that’s a fact. The patent monopoly, control of natural resources and energy sources stop any progress. The use of military and paramilitary terrorism by globalists also stifles the nations and makes them victims of a system that is aimed at undermining the sovereignty and independence of any State. However, there is another fact that does not help in implementing development policies in Latin America. The legal and illegal choice of tyrants like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and puppets like Oscar Arias, Ernesto Cedillo, Luis Inacio da Silva, Kristina Fernandez, Felipe Calderón, Alvaro Uribe and many others, contributes to all countries in Latin America continued in the hands of the imperialists. The tyrants, restrict progress because of their thirst for power denies their people the real benefits of development. Venezuela and Cuba are hit daily with attacks on freedom of speech, assembly, property rights and others. The puppets also limit development because they follow directly and indirectly imposing on the continent the plans that seek to restrain their countries from developing at all costs. It is a deadly combination of corruption and selfishness.

We must remember that the Anglo-Saxon plan’s main objective is to increase their control over the rest of the planet, and thereby promote and impose their policies on the nations of Latin America and beyond by using their own governments or organizations such as Mercosur, the North American Union, the African Union, Asian Union and of course the UN, the European Union, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization. The only way to start the path to development is thus breaking any existing relationships with these organizations to which all countries subject their decisions.

No organization has power over any country. This power that seems so hard to break is only valid if people let it rule them. In Iceland for example, Congress is about to vote on a measure to not pay external debt incurred in with the World Bank and IMF which was created through their illegal schemes of development loans. In the U.S., member states have and continue to proclaim their independence from the federal government which is bound to them by the system of slavery of the globalists. In Europe, at least half of the countries question the installation of malicious scanners at airports under the pretext of terrorism. When we understand that we are free to do what our Constitution allows, and that this is the only document that governs each of our lands, is when we will hold the Anglo-Saxon imperialists at bay. Therefore, progress, independence and freedom are realistic and achievable goals that are will come when each of the citizens as individuals make the decision to educate themselves, to understand how to the globalists deceive them with names, ideologies, political parties, false choices and even with religious extremism to keep them as slaves. No individual, no ideology, no political party, no politician or religion is the solution to progress by itself. The solution begins with each one of us first as thinking individuals and groups of active citizens demanding their governments the results for which they were elected.

Sources for this article include but are not limited to the following:

United States Imperialism in Latin America

US Interventions in Latin America Since 1823

Neocolonialism: a bibliography

U.S. Military Aid Before and After 9/11, Region Breakdown
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/militaryaid/regiondetail.aspx?REGION=Western Hemisphere

The Bush Effect: U.S. Military Involvement in Latin America Rises, Development and Humanitarian Aid Fall

Qué es el ALCA?

El Plan Puebla Panama

El Plan Colombia

La Triple Frontera

US Navy Deploys Around Latin America

Honduras deal a boost for US influence in Latin America http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/1030/p06s19-woam.html

US Navy Re-establishes Fleet for Caribbean, Latin America http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Navy_re_establishes_fleet_for_Ca_04242008.html

US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America

US launches major military exercises in the Caribbean as a warning to Venezuela and Cuba

Related Links:








Lain - lain

Partner Links