SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
a population of compliant zombies, for the elite to cash in....Richard C. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst who served with the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury and as an aide to U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). He has just published a thoughtful book, Our Country Then and Now, which provides a sweeping economic history of the U.S. intermeshed with his own family history. The book traces the rise of plutocratic rule in the U.S. and negative consequences of this rule, ranging from the cruelty directed against Native Americans to the decimation of U.S. manufacturing vitality and the working class to the waging of endless wars.
The CIA’s Goal is to Create a “Depleted Population of Compliant Zombies” So a Narrow Capitalist Elite Can Rob and Exploit, According to former Carter White House Official and NASA Whistleblower
Cook sees as a major turning point in U.S. history the creation of the Federal Reserve by the Woodrow Wilson administration at the behest of private banking interests, whose goal was to wrest control of the nation’s money supply. After World War II, these banking interests pushed for creation of the CIA as the enforcement arm of U.S. foreign policy that was expert in propaganda. CIA Director William Casey told President Ronald Reagan in 1981 that “we will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false.”[1] Cook writes that, since Casey uttered those statements, the CIA has been working with the rest of the national security state, including government supported think tanks, mainstream media and non-profits like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council, to further Casey’s goal with the support of internet giants like Google and Wikipedia. The CIA wants to create a “depleted world population of compliant zombies, drained of creative energy, incapable of independent thinking, riddled with fear, obedient to every conditioned impulse, running from every virus, hating every designated enemy, parroting the mass media, spending as advertising directs, numbed by drugs and medication, and ready to die at the whim of their masters,” according to Cook.[2] These masters have long waged what Cook calls a campaign of genocide against working class and lower income people that has resulted in falling life expectancies in the U.S. and moral breakdown of society. They have provoked wars around the world after staging false-flag attacks—like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and 9/11—that made it look like U.S. leaders were acting in self-defense. Cook argues that a primary purpose of the most recent foreign policy disaster—the U.S proxy war with Russia, which has resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Ukrainians—has been to sever relations between Germany and Russia so that the two could not collectively challenge Anglo-American hegemony. Particularly significant was the blowing up of the Nord Stream II pipeline, which would have effectively interlinked Germany and Russia’s economies and fueled an economic boom in Germany based on its access to cheap Russian energy. Anglo-American elites had been at war with Germany since the early 1910s, when Germany was maneuvered into a war that was designed to undermine its potential challenge to British worldwide hegemony.[3] History is thus repeating itself as the U.S. Empire wants to now sever Russia from Germany and the rest of Europe to prevent any effective East-West alliance from developing against it and so it can dominate Europe. Problems Rooted in HistoryBorn in Montana to a family of mixed Puritan and Native American ancestry, Cook traces U.S. financial problems to the failings of the Founding Fathers to establish a coherent system of financial management, resulting in chaos in the creation and utilization of money by government. According to Cook, the Federal Reserve is a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money and regulate the money supply. In the 1860s, Abraham Lincoln approved the direct printing of greenbacks (what Lincoln called “the people’s currency”) to fund the Civil War. The model by which the government furnishes its own money without cost is one that Cook believes should be returned to today, as it could allow for paying off the $31 trillion debt and revitalization of U.S. manufacturing, without creating artificial inflation. In 1791, the nation’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, established the First Bank of the United States, which lasted until 1811[4] as a financial source for internal improvements—namely roads and canals—as well as productive industry and manufacturing. Hamilton also saw it as a source for financing a future American empire. America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, was as committed to an American empire as Hamilton, though one that in his vision would be rooted in land, labor and commerce, not bank-created money. Jefferson warned that banking institutions were potentially more dangerous to U.S. liberties than standing armies, and could set the groundwork for the growth of a moneyed aristocracy. While ruing their commitment to empire, Cook believes that both Hamilton and Jefferson were correct in their own way. A central bank was needed to generate spending power to finance public projects and manufacturing industries, though the fears of Jefferson have also come to pass, particularly because of the relinquishing of national control over the banks and establishment of the Federal Reserve.[5] In 1863, Congress passed a national banking act to create a uniform currency of national bank notes and to require major banks to invest in government bonds. Cook says that this law paved the way for the eventual creation of the Federal Reserve System, which largely ceded Congress’s constitutional power of money creation to the world of Big Finance. Salmon Chase, later Chief Justice of the United States, said that his promoting passage of the National Bank Act was the greatest mistake in his life, as it built up a monopoly affecting every interest in the country. Horace Greeley, founder and editor of The New York Tribune and co-founder of the Republican Party, said that, “by an iniquitous system, we have nationalized a system of oppression, which though more refined, is no less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”[6] During the Gilded Age (1870-1900), income taxes were abolished and the U.S. was firmly put on the gold standard, with the pacification and removal of Native American tribes from choice lands achieved through brutal military conquest. In 1870, the modern petroleum industry was started with the founding of the Standard Oil Company by John D. Rockefeller, who then diversified into ownership of railroads, chemicals, mining, insurance, utilities, medicine and banking. Rockefeller established a family dynasty that Cook says “stood at the center of the U.S. oligarchy of financial interests that have run the country to this day.”[7] By 1904, Cook writes, 40% of the capital invested in U.S. manufacturing was controlled by corporate monopolies or trusts. Theodore Roosevelt built his reputation as a “progressive trust-buster” but failed to break up the “money trust,” dominated by Rockefeller, his brother William, James Stillman of the National City Bank of New York, E.H Harriman, director of the Union Pacific Railroad, and Jacob Schiff, head of the Wall Street firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Another investor group was led by banker J.P. Morgan, and included Great Northern Railroad CEO James Hill and George Baker, Sr., head of the First National Bank that later became part of what is now Citigroup. Cook says that the Money Trust was the progenitor of what economists today call the FIRE economy—finance, insurance and real estate. Over time, a major shift occurred in an emphasis from earning money through industrial development to the making of money for its own sake through financial speculation and trading. In November 1910, Rockefeller, Morgan, Stillman and Nelson Aldrich, a Republican senator from Rhode Island whose daughter married Rockefeller’s only son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., met at a resort off Jekyll Island in Georgia with the objective of developing plans (known as the Aldrich plan) for a central bank that would back up bankers when they ran out of gold or cash in financial emergencies and help set a favorable currency value. Present also at the meetings were the Assistant Treasury Secretary A. Piatt Andrew, bankers Henry Davison and Arthur Shelton, president of the Rockefeller National City Bank of New York Frank Vanderlip, and transplanted German banker Paul Warburg, a rising star with New York’s Kuhn, Loeb & Company, who had Rothschild connections. According to Cook, Baron Alfred Rothschild of London was the real mastermind of the plan that established the Federal Reserve in 1913 after the election of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, to the presidency. In the 1912 election, Theodore Roosevelt decided to run at the last minute on a third-party ticket (Bull Moose), giving Wilson—the banker’s favorite—the election over Republican William Howard Taft by splitting Taft’s vote. Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (R-MN), father of the famous aviator, emerged as the leading congressional critic of the Federal Reserve, introducing a resolution to investigate the money trusts and their role in helping to pass legislation that led to creation of the Federal Reserve. Lindbergh Sr.’s resolution resulted in hearings before Louisiana Democrat Arsène Pujo, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, before which J.P. Morgan was forced to testify.[8] Lindbergh Sr. and others wondered why private banks should have access to readily created currency furnished by the government to step in and save them, in instances most likely caused by the banks’ own speculative forays in pursuit of greater profits. Lindbergh Sr. said: “This [Federal Reserve] Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized…the worst legislative crime of the ages, perpetuated by this banking and currency bill. The caucus of the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefits of their own government.”[9] According to Cook, the Federal Reserve Act combined with Wilson’s re-introduction of the income tax, enabled the massive explosion of American spending in World War I and the huge profits the financial system would make in handling all that money. Some researchers believe that the Rothschilds and Warburgs were instrumental in instigating the Federal Reserve to help Britain and France finance their project of fomenting and then perpetuating a war with Germany—the latter of which was enabled by loans that J.P. Morgan provided to them during the Great War. Cook writes that, “through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the U.S. Congress ceded its Constitutional power to create the nation’s currency and regulate its value. It ceded that power to the private banking industry. So whoever controls the banking industry, controls the U.S. It was then that the U.S. ceased to be a sovereign republic. From then until today, it’s the money trust that rules.”[10] Horrendous Policies The second half of Cook’s book details the horrendous policies that the Money Trust instituted. In the 1920s and early 1930s, for example, they helped precipitate the Great Depression while financing the rise of the Nazis in Germany. The Nazis were admired in certain circles for waging a war on the political left and in 1941 starting a suicidal war against Soviet Russia that weakened both countries to the benefit of Anglo-American imperialism. Roosevelt’s administration saved the U.S. from the Depression with the New Deal but provoked Japan into firing the first shot at Pearl Harbor so the U.S. could destroy the Japanese Empire and establish the U.S. as the dominant Pacific power, and have a pretext to go to war with Hitler (who had not yet declared war on the U.S.). During World War II, the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) began lobbying the Roosevelt administration to enact policies designed to establish the U.S. as a premier world power. The CFR’s mortal enemy was the America First Committee, chaired by Charles Lindbergh, Jr., which advocated defending the Western Hemisphere but going no further. Future CIA Director Allen Dulles, a Wall Street lawyer who represented clients who had bankrolled Hitler, chaired the CFR’s armaments group that promoted U.S. military expansion after the war. [11] Towards the end of World War II, the Bretton Woods Conference was highly significant in establishing the primacy of the U.S. dollar as a global currency and basis for post-war international trade. U.S. banking interests at this time moved aggressively to control the devastated economies of Europe through Marshall Plan funds, which were returned to the U.S. through the purchase of American products. The newly founded CIA received more than 5% of the funds allocated under the Marshall Plan, which it used to establish front companies in Europe, to help rig elections like in Italy so left-wing parties would not win, and to establish fifth columns of spies and saboteurs in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries to try to undermine pro-Soviet governments taking shape there. According to Cook, David Rockefeller, and his brother Nelson, managed the Rockefeller family’s South American banking empire, forging alliances with the families of oligarchs and army generals in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Chile, which were also assisted by the CIA. Cook writes that “it was Rockefeller money and credit that forged the backbone of South American fascism. And it was the CIA that would become the backstage enforcer of U.S. financial hegemony—‘the jackals’ charged with overthrowing progressive governments and assassinating their leaders.”[12] Head of the Chase Manhattan Bank who served in military intelligence in North Africa during World War II, David Rockefeller was regularly briefed on covert intelligence operations by CIA division chiefs in the 1950s and 1960s. David’s brother, Nelson, was appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower as a special assistant for Cold War planning, where part of his portfolio was monitoring and approving covert CIA activities.[13] Rockefeller took under his wing a young Harvard Professor, Henry Kissinger, who in the early 1950s was named a consultant to the director of the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB), an operating arm of the National Security Council for covert psychological and paramilitary operations, and to the Operations Coordinating Board (OCB), the highest policy-making board for implementing clandestine activities against foreign governments.[14] Cook writes that “the Rockefeller financial empire and CIA were two sides of the same coin and the same power center—one side operating more or less openly and the other in the shadows. Both had the same objective: global U.S. control.”[15] When President John F. Kennedy, son of a wealthy stock market investor and bank president, took a stand against U.S. global military dominance in a speech advocating for détente with the Soviets at American University in June 1963, he was soon thereafter assassinated, with clear involvement by the CIA. Kennedy’s fate was similar to other U.S. presidents (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley) who challenged the U.S. financial oligarchy in a fundamental way. Kennedy’s economic program was opposed by the oligarchy because it adopted measures designed to enhance productivity over financial speculation, and crossed Big Oil with the effort to eliminate the oil depletion allowance (a subsidy for oil companies).[16] The Rockefellers expanded their influence during Nixon’s presidency through their agent Kissinger, Nixon’s top national security adviser. He supported the abandonment of Bretton Woods, which eliminated any restrictions on the worldwide expansion of U.S. banks. These banks benefited from the higher oil prices, which they had helped to manipulate after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Kissinger struck a deal with Arab oil producers ensuring that oil sales would be denominated in U.S. dollars, ensuring the dominance of the U.S. dollar as a global currency reserve. The resultant need for the dollar enabled the Federal Reserve to print money for which there would be enduring external demand. This in turn financed the worldwide U.S. military garrison that now contains more than 800 overseas U.S. military bases. Much of the newly printed money went into speculation rather than investment in productive industries, making possible the frenzy for leveraged buyouts in the 1980s and mass layoffs and deindustrialization that accompanied it along with the birth of all-powerful hedge funds that further warped the U.S. economy in the interests of the elite banking class. With unions decimated, both major parties by this time were in the thrall of this banking elite. Over the next four decades, they advanced policies that produced heavy deficits and inflation while hollowing out the middle class by supporting cuts in social services and free-trade agreements that led to the offshoring of well-paying manufacturing jobs. In an attempt to deal with high inflation in the late 1970s, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, set high interest rates that were devastating to small businesses along with the Carter administration’s austerity regimen.[17] Throughout its 100-year history, the Fed has almost always supported the interests of Big Finance over ordinary people, with cataclysmic results. Cook’s Political Awakening and the NEED Act Cook’s political awakening occurred when he became a whistleblower while working for NASA reporting on design flaws in the Challenger space shuttle that blew up one minute after lift-off at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 28, 1986, killing all seven astronauts. Cook wrote a book, Challenger Revealed, explaining his view that NASA failed to stop the flight because the space shuttle was being taken over by the Air Force and had to keep flying because the shuttle was being used as a testing platform for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Reagan’s scheme for putting weapons into space that would supposedly defend against a Soviet missile attack and that were capable of a nuclear first strike.[18] After leaving NASA, Cook worked for the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Management Service and undertook research on monetary policy that became Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s NEED Act. The NEED Act would abolish the Federal Reserve System and replace it with a monetary authority within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which would serve as a central bank, a depository for federal funds, and a point of origin for direct issuance of U.S. currency. Restoring to constitutional government the sovereign power to create money, the private banking system could only lend money beyond its deposit base by borrowing it first from the monetary authority, according to established guidelines. Through the NEED Act, the federal government would provide direct funding for infrastructure projects, for paying down the national debt, and for interest-free loans to state governments. Speculative trading in derivatives and all forms of money laundering would be banned, and the national debt, which currently stands at $31 trillion, would be gradually paid off, with no further need for federal government borrowing. Cook writes that similar ideas of direct payment of government obligations through self-generated currency have been circulating for generations, and the NEED Act brings these ideas to a form suitable for immediate implementation.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
|
User login |
US impunity...
Why this man is the most important political prisoner alive
Julian Assange tells 46-nation gathering in Europe why Washington must not be let trample on others’ independence and sovereignty
As the world teeters on the verge of a massive war in the Middle East that could turn into World War Three, it is hard to even notice other important events.
What seems to overshadow everything else is the hideous spectacle of Israel and the collective West co-perpetrating a genocide in Gaza while also producing multiple attacks and massacres in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, as well as issuing ceaseless threats to do even worse if the victims dare fight back. When Gaza is being exterminated and Beirut is burning, why would people turn to look, for instance, at sleepy Strasbourg?
And yet, on October 1, that’s where a quietly historic event took place, namely the first major public appearance of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, publisher, and outstanding investigative journalist, after his release in June from some 14 years of vicious American-British persecution and incarceration, some of which, according to UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer and the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, amounts to torture.
Though he is now free, Assange has not, it is important to note, received justice and most likely never will: A victim of outrageous abuses of state power, the crimes againsthim have not even been acknowledged by their perpetrators. Instead, to escape further persecution he was forced through a plea deal to pretend to recognize his own non-existent guilt. As he put it in Strasbourg – clearly with ironic reference to the title of a famous Soviet dissident’s memoir – he “chose freedom over unrealizable justice.”
Justice for him “is now precluded” in the future, too, because Washington has written into the plea deal that he “cannot file a case at the European Court of Human Rights or even a freedom of information act request” in the US. So much, again, for the rule of law in the “rules-based order”: Perverted to the last moment and beyond. This extremely murky outcome also means, again in Assange’s own words, that he is “not free today because the system worked,” but because he pleaded guilty to, in effect, journalism, which is, of course, simply not a crime.
The occasion for Assange’s statement and short Q&A session in Strasbourg was a deceptively small-scale hearing at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE, a 46-nation organization not to be confused with the EU). Organized by PACE’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the hearing preceded a full debate that addressed a detailed report on Assange’s treatment and its “chilling effects on human rights.” That debate took place on October 2. Its key result was PACE’s official confirmation that Assange was a political prisoner. Despite Washington’s blatant abuse of the 1917 Espionage Act to persecute him, everyone not completely brainwashed by US propaganda has, of course, long known that much.
And not just any political prisoner: All political prisoners suffer unjustly and deserve support. But, due to the worldwide reverberations of his persecution by the US, the rogue hegemon of the West, history will look back on Julian Assange as the single most important political prisoner of the first post-Cold War decades, without a grain of hyperbole. The issues at stake were and remain of global importance and will shape the future of humanity, for better or worse: freedom of expression; the role of free, unimpeded media in holding the powerful to account; their increasingly aggressive efforts to shut down such challenges, especially across borders; the lack of protection for individuals targeted by powerful states that manipulate or disobey their own laws; and, last but not least, the enormous abuses suffered by ordinary people, especially in the Global South, at the hands of a West that wages wars of aggression and torture campaigns and now is co-perpetrating genocide.
That was one reason the meeting in Strasbourg was so important. The other is the fact that Assange’s fate is connected to the horrors that are currently being inflicted on the Middle East. For it was Assange’s revelations of decades of crimes committed by the US and its Western followers in the Middle East (broadly understood) that most of all led to his ordeal.
While he also came under Russiagate/Russia Rage fire for exposing Democratic Party corruption and manipulations during the 2016 elections which Hillary Clinton still cannot believe she lost, that was not the key issue. And Assange has obviously not somehow functioned as a Russian agent. Indeed, in Strasbourg he bent over backwards repeatedly to falsely imply equivalence between the systematic mass murder by Israel of (mostly) Palestinian journalists and the killing of their counterparts from both sides in the Ukraine war.
What really started tripping up WikiLeaks was their exemplary investigative work on US atrocities during the fundamentally illegal war of aggression in Iraq. That painted a first big American target on Assange’s back in 2010. In that year, WikiLeaks released the by-now famous video ”Collateral Murder” that provided clear evidence of war crimes committed in 2007 by a merrily murderous (and chatty!) crew of American gunship pilots. More revelations, including about what in effect were death squads run by the US and their auxiliaries during the US-NATO war in Afghanistan, as well as US ’rendition’ programs – that is, kidnapping, black sites, and torture, including in Europe – followed.
There was only one other WikiLeaks exploit that rivaled its exposure of the very dirty realities of the so-called Great War on Terror (and its sequels) in enraging the US: the “Vault 7” documents, released in 2017, that, in Assange’s own summary in Strasbourg “revealed the CIA’s vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones.”
After that, and under the same Donald Trump who may well be the next US president and flaunts his friendship with X owner Elon Musk, who pretends to promote “free speech,” the US pulled out all the stops. As Assange explained during the Q&A in Strasbourg this week, WikiLeaks had angered the national security state, “one of the constitutive powers” of the real political system in the US. In response, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo “launched a campaign of retribution” that included not only Assange’s brutalization by isolation and incarceration but also “plans to kidnap and to assassinate him” inside the embassy of another state (Ecuador) in another country (the UK). “Theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information” were used against Assange’s associates and WikiLeaks staff. In a particularly vile and creepy episode, his wife and infant son were in the Americans’ sights as well. Instructions were given to obtain DNA from his baby son’s diaper.
It is obvious that Assange was compelled to strike a plea deal that perverted justice. Yet, one fact is too often overlooked because we have become used to it: With myriad crimes committed against those invaded and occupied in the Middle East, those spied upon and manipulated everywhere, and those trying to expose these abuses, not a single perpetrator has ever been prosecuted or even investigated, as the PACE report stresses. If the impunity of genocidal apartheid Israel on its current rampage through the Middle East puzzles you, keep in mind that the West as a whole has a much larger, long-standing culture of impunity.
This legal nihilism can be creative. After 2017, to go after Assange, some of the finest minds of US jurisprudence invented a whole new and completely perverse theory. In Assange’s concise summary, according to this piece of skullduggery, “only US citizens have free speech rights; Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights.” At the same time, the US “Espionage Act still applies to them regardless of where they are. So, Europeans in Europe must obey US secrecy law with no defenses at all,” that is even less than what American citizens are formally granted under their first amendment rights. “An American in Paris” (note the Gene Kelly allusion this time), Assange pointed out, “can talk about what the US government is up to – perhaps. But for a Frenchman in Paris, to do so is a crime without any defense and he may be extradited just like me.”
The ongoing case of Julian Assange is about many crucial things. But if I had to pick only one as the single most important question, it would be this almost comically arrogant and crude US overreach. Notbecause it is such an obvious slap in the face to every other state in the world; that’s just the American establishment’s way. They really can’t, it seems, help themselves.
What makes this the decisive issue is something else: Whatever perversions and abuses American leaders will come up with, they will affect either only the US, as they should, or all of us, as they often do now. In other words, the US does not have healthy boundaries. It will always overstep, as long as it feels strong enough. Or that others are weak enough. The first, strategic step toward at least limiting and containing American abuses is for other countries to preserve or reclaim their sovereignty. In that regard, it is sadly ironic that Assange spoke in the EU before a European institution. Because, notwithstanding PACE’s best efforts, Western Europe is the part of the world least likely to regain sovereignty. Others, however, have never lost it or are well on their way to reasserting it.
https://www.rt.com/news/605166-julian-assange-us-pace/
READ FROM TOP
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.