看 BBC 學英文
"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism,
to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work."
"The business of who I am and whether I'm good or bad
or achieving or not, all that's learned along the way."
"It's just a ride
and we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice.
No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money."
"I realized that I had the game wrong,
that the game was to find out what I already was."
"We were saying,
how very important it is
to bring about, in the human mind,
the radical revolution.
The crisis is a crisis in consciousness.
A crisis that cannot, anymore,
accept the old norms,
the old patterns,
the ancient traditions.
And, considering what the world is now,
with all the misery,
and so on...
is still as he was.
Is still brutal,
And, he's built a society along these lines."
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted
to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti
Society today, is composed of a series of institutions.
From political institutions,
To institutions of social class,
and occupational specialization.
It is obvious, the profound influence
these traditionalized structures have
in shaping our understandings and perspectives.
Yet, of all the social institutions, we are born into,
directed by and conditioned upon,
there seems to be no system as taken for granted,
as the monetary system.
Taking on nearly religious proportions,
the established monetary institution exists
as one of the most unquestioned forms of faith there is.
How money is created, the policies by which it is governed,
and how it truly affects society,
are unregistered interests of the great majority of the population.
In a world where 1% of the population owns 40% of the planet's wealth.
In a world where 34.000 children die every single day
from poverty and preventable diseases,
and where 50% of the world's population
lives on less than 2 dollars a day...
One thing is clear.
Something is very wrong.
And, whether we are aware of it or not,
the lifeblood of all of our established institutions,
and thus society itself, is money.
Therefore, understanding this institution of monetary policy
is critical to understanding why our lives are the way they are.
Unfortunately, economics is often viewed with confusion and boredom.
Endless streams of financial jargon,
coupled with intimidating mathematics,
quickly deters people from attempts at understanding it.
However, the fact is:
The complexity associated with the financial system is a mere mask,
designed to conceal one of the most socially paralyzing structures,
humanity has ever endured.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved
than those who falsely believe they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 1749-1832
A number of years ago,
the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve,
produced a document entitled "Modern Money Mechanics".
This publication detailed the institutionalized practice
of money creation as utilized by the Federal Reserve
and the web of global commercial banks it supports.
On the opening page the document states its objective:
"The purpose of this booklet is to describe
the basic process of money creation
in a 'fractional reserve' banking system."
It then proceeds to describe this fractional reserve process
through various banking terminology.
A translation of which goes something like this:
The United States government decides it needs some money.
So it calls up the Federal Reserve
and requests, say, 10 billion dollars.
The FED replies saying:
"Sure, we'll buy ten billion in government bonds from you".
So the government takes some pieces of paper,
paints some official looking designs on them
and calls them treasury bonds.
Then it puts a value on these bonds to the sum of 10 billion dollars,
and sends them over to the FED.
In turn, the people of the FED
draw up a bunch of impressive pieces of papers themselves,
only this time, calling them "Federal Reserve notes",
also designating a value of ten billion dollars to the set.
The FED than takes these notes and trades them for the bonds.
Once this exchange is complete,
the government then takes the ten billion in federal reserve notes,
and deposits it into an bank account.
And, upon this deposit,
the paper notes officially become legal tender money,
adding ten billion to the US money supply.
And there it is, ten billion in new money has been created.
Of course, this example is a generalization.
For, in reality, this transaction would occur electronically,
with no paper used at all.
In fact, only 3% of the US money supply exists in physical currency.
The other 97 percent essentially exists in computers alone.
Now, government bonds are by design instruments of debt.
And when the FED purchases these bonds,
with money it essentially created out of thin air,
the government is actually promising
to pay back that money to the FED.
In other words, the money was created out of debt.
This mind numbing paradox,
of how money or value can be created out of debt or a liability,
will become more clear as we further this exercise.
So, the exchange has been made,
and now ten billion dollars sits in a commercial bank account.
Here is where it gets really interesting.
For, as based on the fractional reserve practice,
that ten billion dollar deposit
instantly becomes part of the bank's reserves,
just as all deposits do.
And, regarding reserve requirements,
as stated in "Modern Money Mechanics":
"A bank must maintain legally required reserves
equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits".
It then quantifies this by stating: "Under current regulations
the reserve requirement against most transaction accounts is 10%".
This means that with a ten billion dollar deposit,
10%, or one billion, is held as the required reserve,
while the other nine billion is considered an excessive reserve,
and can be used as the basis for new loans.
Now, it is logical to assume, that this nine billion
is literally coming out of the existing ten billion dollar deposit.
However, this is actually not the case.
What really happens, is that the nine billion
is simply created out of thin air
on top of the existing 10 billion dollar deposit.
This is how the money supply is expanded.
As stated in "Modern Money Mechanics":
"Of course they" -the banks-
"do not really pay out loans for the money they receive as deposits.
If they did this, no additional money would be created.
What they do when they make loans
is to accept promissory notes" -loan contracts-
"in exchange for credits" -money-
"to the borrowers' transaction accounts."
In other words, the nine billion can be created out of nothing,
simply because there is a demand for such a loan,
and that there is a 10 billion dollar deposit
to satisfy the reserve requirements.
Now, let's assume that somebody walks into this bank
and borrows the newly available nine billion dollars.
They will then most likely take that money
and deposit it into their own bank account.
The process then repeats.
For that deposit becomes part of the bank's reserves.
10% is isolated and in turn 90% of the nine billion, or 8.1 billion,
is now available as newly created money for more loans.
And, of course, that 8.1 can be loaned out and redeposited
creating an additional 7.2 billion.
To 6.5 billion... to 5.9 billion... etc.
This deposit money creation loan cycle
can technically go on to infinity.
The average mathematical result is that about 90 billion dollars
can be created on top of the original 10 billion.
In other words, for every deposit
that ever occurs in the banking system,
about nine times that amount can be created out of thin air.
Money-Jitters. Ask the obliging Bank of America
for a jar of soothing instant money.
M-O-N-E-Y in the form of a convenient personal loan.
So, now that we understand how money is created
by this fractional reserve banking system,
a logical yet illusive question might come to mind:
What is actually giving this newly created money value?
The answer: the money that already exists.
The new money essentially steals value from the existing money supply.
For the total pool of money is being increased
irrespective to demand for goods and services.
And, as supply and demand finds equilibrium, prices rise,
diminishing the purchasing power of each individual dollar.
This is generally referred to as inflation.
And inflation is essentially a hidden tax on the public.
What is the advice that you generally get?
And that is, inflate the currency.
They don't say: debase the currency.
They don't say: devalue the currency.
They don't say: cheat the people who are safe.
They say: lower the interest rates.
The real deception is when we distort the value of money.
When we create money out of thin air, we have no savings.
Yet there's so called "capital".
So, my question boils down to this:
How in the world can we expect to solve the problems of inflation?
That is: the increase in the supply of money, with more inflation."
Of course, it can't.
The fractional reserve system of monetary expansion
is inherently inflationary.
For the act of expanding the money supply,
without there being a proportional expansion of goods and services
in the economy, will always debase a currency.
In fact, a quick glance at the historical values of the US dollar,
versus the money supply, reflects this point definitively
for inverse relationship is obvious.
One dollar in 1913 required $21.60 in 2007 to match value.
That is a 96% devaluation
since the Federal Reserve came into existence.
Now, if this reality of inherent and perpetual inflation
seems absurd and economically self defeating,
hold that thought, for absurdity is an understatement
in regard to how our financial system really operates.
For in our financial system money is debt,
and debt is money.
Here is a chart of the US money supply from 1950 to 2006.
Here is a chart of the US national debt for the same period.
How interesting it is that the trends are virtually the same.
For the more money there is, the more debt there is.
The more debt there is, the more money there is.
To put it a different way, every single dollar in your wallet
is owed to somebody by somebody. For remember:
The only way the money can come into existence is from loans.
Therefore, if everyone in the country were able to pay off all debts,
including the government,
there would not be one dollar in circulation.
"If there were no debts in our money system,
there wouldn't be any money."
-Marriner Eccles- Governor of the Federal Reserve September 30th, 1941
In fact, the last time in American history
the national debt was completely paid off was in 1835
after president Andrew Jackson shut down the central bank
that preceded the Federal Reserve.
In fact, Jackson's entire political platform essentially revolved
around his commitment to shut down the central bank.
Stating at one point:
"The bold efforts the present bank has made to control the government
are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people
should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution
or the establishment of another like it."
Unfortunately his message was short lived,
and the international bankers succeeded
to install another central bank in 1913, the Federal Reserve.
And as long as this institution exists, perpetual debt is guaranteed.
Now, so far we have discussed the reality
that money is created out of debt through loans.
These loans are based on a bank's reserves,
and reserves are derived from deposits.
And through this fractional reserve system,
any one deposit can create 9 times its original value.
In turn, debasing the existing money supply,
raising prices in society.
And, since all this money is created out of debt,
and circulated randomly through commerce,
people become detached from their original debt,
and a disequilibrium exists
where people are forced to compete for labor
in order to pull enough money out of the money supply
to cover their costs of living.
As dysfunctional and backwards as all of this might seem,
there is still one thing we have omitted from this equation.
And it is this element of the structure
which reveals the truly fraudulent nature of the system itself.
The application of interest.
When the government borrows money from the FED,
or when a person borrows money from a bank,
it almost always has to be paid back with a crude interest.
In other words, almost every single dollar that exists
must be eventually returned to a bank with interest paid as well.
But, if all money is borrowed from the Central Bank,
and is expanded by commercial banks through loans,
only what would be referred to as the "principal"
is been created in the money supply.
So then, where is the money
to cover all of the interest that is charged?
It doesn't exist.
The ramifications of this are staggering,
for the amount of money owed back to the banks will always exceed
the amount of money that is available in circulation.
This is why inflation is a constant in the economy,
for new money is always needed
to help cover the perpetual deficit built into the system,
caused by the need to pay the interest.
What this also means, is that mathematically,
defaults and bankruptcy are literally built into this system,
and there will always be poor pockets of society
that get the short end of the stick.
An analogy would be a game of musical chairs,
for the once music stops, somebody is left out to dry.
And that's the point.
It invariably transfers true wealth from the individual to the banks.
For, if you are unable to pay for your mortgage,
they will take your property.
This is particularly enraging when you realize
that not only is such a default inevitable,
due to the fractional reserve practice, but also because of the fact
that the money that the bank loaned to you
didn't even legally exist in the first place.
In 1969 there was a Minnesota court case
involving a man named Jerome Daly
who was challenging the foreclosure of his home by the bank,
which provided the loan to purchase it.
His argument was that the mortgage contract
required both parties -being he and the bank-
each put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange.
In legal language this is called consideration:
[ a contract's basis. a contract is founded on an exchange
of one form of consideration for another. ]
Mr. Daly explained that the money was, in fact,
not the property of the bank, for it was created out of nothing
as soon as the loan agreement was signed.
Remember what "Modern Money Mechanics" stated about loans?
"What they do, when they make loans, is to"
"accept promissory notes in exchange for credits".
"Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions."
"But, deposit credits constitute new additions"
"to the total deposits of the banking system."
In other words, the money doesn't come out of their existing assets.
The bank is simply inventing it, putting up nothing of it's own,
except for a theoretical liability on paper.
As the court case progressed,
the bank's president Mr. Morgan took the stand
and in the judge's personal memorandum, he recalled that
the Plaintiff - bank's president - admitted that,
in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank
did create the money and credit upon its books by bookkeeping entry.
The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.
Mr. Morgan admitted that
no US Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.
A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
The Jury found that there was no lawful consideration and I agree.
He also poetically added,
"Only God can create something of value out of nothing".
And, upon this revelation
the court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure
and Daly kept his home.
The implications of this court decision are immense.
For every time you borrow money from a bank,
whether it is a mortgage loan or a credit card charge,
the money given to you is not only counterfeit,
it is an illegitimate form of consideration.
And hence, voids the contract to repay.
For the bank never had the money as property to begin with.
Unfortunately such legal realizations are suppressed and ignored.
And the game of perpetual wealth transfer and perpetual debt continues.
And this brings us to the ultimate question:
During the American Civil War
President Lincoln bypassed the high interest loans
offered by the European banks
and decided to do what the founding fathers advocated.
Which was to create an independent and inherently debt-free currency.
It was called "The Greenback".
Shortly after this measure was taken, an internal document circulated
between private British and American banking interests, stated:
"...slavery is but the owning of labor"
"and carries with it the care of laborers,"
"while the European plan..."
"is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages."
"This can be done by controlling the money."
"It will not do to allow the Greenback... as we cannot control that."
The fractional reserve policy
perpetrated by the Federal Reserve which has spread in practice
to the great majority of banks in the world,
is, in fact, a system of modern slavery.
Think about it, money is created out of debt.
And what the people do when they are in debt?
They submit to employment to pay it off.
But if money only can only be created out of loans,
how can society ever be debt free?
It can't and that's the point.
And it is the fear of losing assets
coupled with the struggle to keep up
with the perpetual debt and inflation inherent in the system
compounded by the inescapable scarcity within the money supply itself
created by the interest that can never be repaid,
that keeps the wage-slave in line,
running on a hamster wheel, with millions of others,
in effect powering an empire
that truly benefits only the elite at the top of the pyramid.
For, at the end of the day, who are you really working for?
Money is created in a bank and invariably ends up in a bank.
They are the true masters,
along with the corporations and governments they support.
Physical slavery requires people to be housed and fed.
Economic slavery requires people to feed and house themselves.
It is one of the most ingenious scams
for social manipulation ever created.
And at its core,
it is an invisible war against the population.
Debt is the weapon used to conquer and enslave societies,
and interest is its prime ammunition.
And, as the majority walks around oblivious to this reality,
the banks in collusion with governments and corporations
continue to perfect and expand their tactics of economic warfare,
spawning new bases, such as the World Bank
and International Monetary Fund [IMF],
while also inventing a new type of soldier:
The birth of the Economic Hit Man.
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by sword. The other is by debt.- John Adams - 1735-1826
We, economic hit men, really have been the ones responsible for creating
this first truly global empire and we work many different ways.
John Perkins Former Chief Economist for Chas. T. Main Inc. Author: Confessions of an Economic Hitman
But perhaps the most common is that we will
identify a country that has resources our corporations covet, like oil
and then, arrange a huge loan to that country
from the World Bank or one of its sister organizations.
But the money never actually goes to the country.
Instead it goes to our big corporations
to built infrastructure projects in that country.
Power plants, industrial parks, ports.
Things that benefit a few rich people in that country
in addition to our corporations
but really don't help the majority of the people at all.
However, those people, the whole country is left holding a huge debt.
It's such a big debt they can't repay it and that's part of the plan
that they can't repay it. And so, at some point
we economic hit men, go back to them and say, "Listen,
you owe us a lot of money. You can't pay your debt. So, sell your oil
real cheap to our oil companies",
"allow us to build a military base in your country", or
"send troops in support of ours to someplace in the world like Iraq"
or "vote with us in the next UN vote",to have their
electric utility company privatized and
their water and sewage system privatized
and sold to US corporations or other multinational corporations."
So there is a whole mushrooming thing and
it's so typical the way the IMF and the World Bank work.
They put a country in debt and it's such a big debt it can't pay it
and then you offer to refinance that debt and pay even more interest
and you demand this quid pro quo
which you call a "conditionality" or "good governance"
which means basically that they've got to sell off their resources
including many of their social services, their utility companies,
their school systems sometimes, their penal systems,
their insurance systems, to foreign corporations.
So it's a double - triple - quadruple whammy!
The precedent for economic hit men really began back in the early 50's
when the democratically elected Mossadegh who was elected in Iran.
He was considered to be the hope for democracy in the middle east
and around the world. He was in Time-Magazine's "Man of the year". But...
one of the things that he brought on and began to implement was
the idea that foreign oil companies needed to pay the Iranian people
a lot more for the oil that they were taking out of Iran
and the Iranian people should benefit from their own oil. Strange policy.
We didn't like that of course. But...
we were afraid to do what we normally were doing
which was to send in the military. Instead we sent in one CIA agent
Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt's relative.
And Kermit went in with a few million dollars and
was very, very effective and efficient and in a short amount of time
he managed to get Mossadegh overthrown
and brought in the shah of Iran to replace him,
who always was favorable to oil. And it was extremely effective
[ Revolt in Iran ]
"Mobs overthrow Tehran.
Army officers shout that Mossadegh has surrendered and his regime as
virtual dictator of Iran is ended. Pictures of the Shah are paraded
through the streets as sentiment reverses. The Shah is welcomed home."
So back here in the United States, in Washington
people looked around and said: "Wow, that was easy and cheap".
So this established a whole new way
of manipulating countries, of creating empire.
The only problem with Roosevelt was that he was a
card carrying CIA agent. And if he'd been caught
the ramifications could have been pretty serious.
So very quickly, at that point, the decision was made to
use private consultants to channel the money through the
World Bank or the IMF or one of the other such agencies
to bring in people like me, who worked for private companies.
So that if we got caught
there would be no governmental ramifications.
When Árbenz became president of Guatemala
the country was very much under the thumbs of
United Fruit company, the big international corporations
and Árbenz ran on this ticket that said: "You know
we want to give the land back to the people".
And once he took power, he was implementing policies that would
would do exactly that, give the land rights back to the people.
United Fruit didn't like that very much.
And so, they hired a public relations firm, launched a huge campaign
in the United States to convince the United States people
the citizens of the United States, the press of the United States and
the Congress of the United States, that Árbenz was a soviet puppet
and that if we allowed him to stay in power
the Soviets would have a foothold in this hemisphere.
And that, at that point in time, was a huge fear on everybody's mind
of the red terror, the communist terror.
And so, to make a long story short, out of this public relations campaign
came a commitment on the part of the CIA and the military to take this man out.
And in fact, we did. We sent in planes, we sent in soldiers, we sent
in jackals, we sent everything in to take him out. And did take him out.
And as soon as he was removed from office,
the new guy that took over after him basically reinstated everything to
the big international corporations, including United Fruit.
Ecuador, for many, many years had been ruled by pro-US dictators,
often relatively brutal. Then it was decided they were gonna have
a truly democratic election. Jaime Roldos ran for office and his main goal,
he said, as president would be to make sure that Ecuador's
resources were used to help the people. And he won. Overwhelming.
By more votes than anybody had ever won anything in Ecuador.
And he began to implement these policies.
To make sure that the profits from oil went to help the people.
Well, we didn't like that in the United States.
I was sent down as one of several economic hit men to change Roldos.
To corrupt him. To bring him around. To let him know, you know.
"Ok, you know, you can get very rich, you and your family, if you play
our game. But if you continue to try to keep these policies you've promised,
you're gonna go." He wouldn't listen.
He was assassinated.
As soon as the plane crashed, the whole area was cordoned off.
The only people allowed in were US military from a nearby base
and some of the Ecuadorian military.
When an investigation was launched,
two of the key witnesses died in car accidents
before they had a chance to testify.
A lot of very, very strange things that went on around
the assassination of Jaime Roldos.
I, like most people who've really looked at this case,
have absolutely no doubt that it was an assassination.
And, of course, in my position as an economic hit man,
I was always expecting something to happen to Jaime,
whether it'd be a coup or assassination, I wasn't sure, but that
he would be taken down, because he was not being corrupted, he would
not allow himself to be corrupted the way we wanted to corrupt him.
Omar Torrijos, president of Panama,
was, you know, one of my favorite people. I really really liked him.
He was very charismatic. He was a guy who really wanted to help his country.
And when I tried to bribe him or corrupt him, he said: "Look, John"
- he called me Juanito - He said: "Look Juanito,
I don't need the money. What I really need is for my country
to be treated fairly. I need for the US to repay the
debts that you owe my people for all the destruction you've done here.
I need to be in a position where I can help other Latin American countries
win their independence and be free of this,
of this terrible presence from the North.
You people are exploiting us so badly.
I need to have the Panama Canal back in the hands of the Panamanian people.
That's what I want.
And so, leave me alone, don't, you known, don't try to bribe me".
It was 1981 and, in May, Jaime Roldos was assassinated.
And Omar was very aware of this.
Torrijos got his family together and he said:
"I'm probably next, but it's OK,
because I've done what I came here to do
I've renegotiated the Canal.
The Canal will now be in our hands." He'd just finished negotiating
the treaty with Jimmy Carter.
In June of that same year, just a couple of months later,
he also went down in an airplane crash,
which, there's no question, was executed by CIA sponsored jackals.
A tremendous amount of evidence that
one of Torijos' security guards handed him, at the last moment,
as he was getting on the plane, a tape recorder.
A small tape recorder that contained a bomb.
It is interesting to me how this
system has continued pretty much the same way
for years, and years, and years, except the economic hit men
have got better and better and better.
Then we come up with, very recently, what happened in Venezuela.
In 1998, Hugo Chavez gets elected president,
following a long line of presidents
who'd been very corrupt and basically destroyed the economy
of the country. And Chavez was elected amidst all that.
Chavez stood up to the United States
and he's done it primarily demanding that Venezuelan oil
be used to help the Venezuelan people.
Well, we didn't like that in the United States.
So in 2002,
a coup was staged, which there's no question in my mind,
and most other people's minds, that the CIA was behind that coup.
The way that that coup was fomented
was very reflective of what Kermit Roosevelt had done in Iran.
Of paying people to go out onto the streets
to riot, to protest, to say that Chavez was very unpopular.
You know, if you can get a few thousand people to do that,
television can make it look like it's the whole country
and things start to mushroom
except in the case of Chavez. He was smart enough
and the people were so strongly behind him, that they overcame it,
which was a phenomenal moment in the history of Latin America.
Iraq, actually, is a perfect example
of the way the whole system works.
So we, economic hit men, are the first line of defense.
We go in, we try to corrupt the governments
and get them to accept this huge loans,
which we then use as leverage to basically own them.
If we fail, as I failed in Panama with Omar Torrijos
and Ecuador with Jaime Roldos, men who refused to be corrupted,
then the second line of defense is we send in the jackals.
And the jackals either overthrow governments or they assassinate.
And, once that happens and a new government comes in
boy it's gonna tow the line because
that new president knows what will happen if he doesn't.
In the case of Iraq, both of those things failed.
The economic hit men were not able to get through to Saddam Hussein.
We tried very hard, we tried to get him to accept a deal
very similar to what the House of Saud had accepted in Saudi Arabia,
but he wouldn't accept it.
And so the jackals went in to take him out.
They couldn't do it. His security was very good.
After all, he, at one time, had worked for CIA.
He'd been hired to assassinate a former president of Iraq and failed,
but he knew the system.
So, in '91, we send in the troops and we take out the Iraqi military.
So, we assumed at that point
that Saddam Hussein is gonna come around.
We could have take him out, of course at that time,
but we didn't want to. He's the kind of strong man we like.
He controls his people. We thought he could control the Kurds,
and keep the Iranians in their border and keep pumping oil for us.
And that once we took this military, now he's gonna come around.
So the economic hit men go back in in the 90's, without success.
If they'd had success he'd still be running the country.
We'd be selling him all the fighter jets he wants,
and everything else he wants, but they couldn't; they didn't have success.
The jackals couldn't take him out again,
so we sent the military in once again,
and this time we did the complete job and took him out.
And in the process, created for ourselves
some very, very lucrative construction deals
to reconstruct the country that we'd essentially destroyed.
Which is a pretty good deal
if you own construction companies, big ones.
So, Iraq shows the three stages.
The economic hit men failed there.
The jackals failed there. And as final measure the military goes in.
And in that way we've really created an empire,
but we've done it very very subtly. It's clandestine.
All empires of the past were built on the military,
and everybody knew they were building them.
The British knew they were building them, the French,
the Germans, the Romans, the Greeks,
and they were proud of it, and they always had some excuse
like spreading civilization, spreading some religion,
something like that, but they knew they were doing it.
The majority of the people in the United States have no idea
that we're living off the benefits of the clandestine empire.
That today there is more slavery in the world than ever before.
Then you have to ask yourself,
well, if it's an empire, then who is the emperor?
Obviously our Presidents of the United States are not emperors.
An emperor is someone who is not elected,
doesn't serve under the term
and doesn't report to anyone, essentially.
So you can't classify our presidents that way.
But we do have what I consider to be the equivalent of the emperor
and it's what I call the corporatocracy.
The corporatocracy is this group of individuals
who run our biggest corporations.
And they really act as the emperor of this empire.
They control our media,
either through direct ownership or advertising.
They control most of our politicians
because they finance their campaigns,
either through the corporations or through personal contributions
that come out of the the corporations.
They're not elected, then don't serve a limited term,
they don't report to anybody,
and at the very top of the corporatocracy,
you really can't tell whether the person
is working for a private corporation or the government
because they're always moving back and forth.
So, you know, you've got a guy who one moment
is the president of a big construction company like Halliburton,
and the next moment he's Vice President of the United States
or the President who was in the oil business. And this is true,
whether you get Democrats or Republicans in the office.
You have this moving back and forth through a revolving door.
And in a way, our government is invisible a lot of the time,
and his policies are carried out by our corporations
on one level or another. And then again,
the policies of the government are basically
forged by the corporatocracy, and then presented to the government
and they become government policy. So, there's an incredibly
This isn't a conspiracy theory type of thing. These people don't have to
get together and plot to do things.
They all basically work under one primary assumption,
and that is that they must maximize profits
regardless of the social and environmental costs.
-This process of manipulation by the corporatocracy
through the use of debt, bribery and political overthrow is called
Just as the Federal Reserve keeps the American public in a position
of indentured servitude though perpetual debt, inflation and interest,
the World Bank and IMF serve this role on a global scale.
The basic scam is simple.
Put a country in debt either by its own indiscretion,
or through corrupting the leader of that country,
then impose "conditionalities" or "structural adjustment policies"
often consisting of the following:
When the value of a currency drops, so does everything valued in it.
This makes indigenous resources available to predator countries
at a fraction of their worth.
Large funding cuts for social programs--
These usually include education and healthcare,
compromising the well-being and integrity of the society,
leaving the public vulnerable to exploitation.
Privatization of state-owned enterprises--
This means that socially important systems
can be purchased and regulated by foreign corporations for profit.
For example, in 1999, the World Bank insisted
that the Bolivian government sell
the public water-system of its third-largest city
to a subsidiary of the US corporation "Bechtel."
As soon as this occurred, water bills
for the already impoverished local residents, skyrocketed.
It wasn't until after a full-blown revolt by the people
that the Bechtel contract was nullified.
Then there is trade liberalization
or the opening up of the economy
through removing any restrictions on foreign trade.
This allows for a number of abusive economic manifestations,
such as transnational corporations
bringing in their own mass-produced products,
undercutting the indigenous production and ruining local economies.
An example is Jamaica;
which, after accepting loans and conditionalities from the World Bank,
lost its largest cash crop markets
due to competition with Western imports.
Today, countless farmers are out of work for they're unable to compete
with the large corporations.
Another variation is the creation of numerous
seemingly unnoticed, unregulated, inhuman sweatshop-factories
which take advantage of the imposed economic hardship.
Additionally, due to production-deregulation,
environmental destruction is perpetual, as a country's resources
are often exploited by the indifferent corporations
while outputting large amounts of deliberate pollution.
-The largest environmental lawsuit in the history of the world
today is being brought on behalf of
30,000 Ecuadorian and Amazonian people
against Texaco, which is now owned by Chevron;
so it's against Chevron, but for activities conducted by Texaco.
They're estimated to be more than 18 times
what the Exxon Valdez dumped into the Coast of Alaska.
In the case of Ecuador it wasn't an accident.
The oil companies did it intentionally. Tthey knew they were doing it
to save money rather than arranging for proper disposal.
-Furthermore, a cursory glance
at the performance record of the World Bank
reveals that the institution, which publicly claims to
help poor countries develop and alleviate poverty
has done nothing but increase poverty and the wealth-gap
while corporate profits soar.
In 1960, the income-gap between the
fifth of the world's people and the richest countries
versus the fifth in the poorest countries was thirty to one.
By 1998, it was seventy-four to one.
While global GNP rose 40% between 1970 and 1985
those in poverty actually increased by 17%.
While from 1985 to 2000,
those living on less than one dollar a day increased by 18%.
Even the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress
admitted that there is a mere 40% success rate
of all World Bank projects.
In the late 1960's, the World Bank
intervened in Ecuador with large loans.
During the next 30 years, poverty grew from 50% to 70%.
Under or unemployment grew from 15% to 70%.
Public debt increased from 240 million to 16 billion,
while the share of resources allocated to the poor
went from 20% to 6%.
In fact, by the year 2000, 50% of Ecuador's national budget
had to be allocated for paying its debts.
It is important to understand: The World Bank is, in fact,
a U.S. bank, supporting U.S. interests.
For the United States holds veto-power over decisions,
as it is the largest provider of capital.
And where did it get this money?
You guessed it. It made it out of thin air
through the fractional reserve banking system.
Of the world's top 100 economies, as based on annual GDP,
51 are corporations and 47 of that 51 are U.S.-based.
Walmart, General Motors and Exxon are more economically powerful
than Saudi Arabia, Poland, Norway, South Africa,
Finland, Indonesia and many others.
And, as protective trade-barriers are broken down,
currencies tossed together and manipulated in floating markets
and State economies overturned in favor of open competition
in global capitalism, the empire expands.
-You get up on your little 21-inch screen
and howl about America and democracy.
There is no America, there is no democracy.
There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T,
and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon.
Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state?
They get out their linear programming charts,
statistical decision theories, min and max solutions
and compute the price-cost probabilities
of their transactions and investments, just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale.
The world is a college of corporations,
inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business.
The world is a business, Mr. Beale.
Taken cumulatively, the integration of the world as a whole,
particularly in terms of economic globalization
and the mythic qualities of "free market" capitalism,
represents a veritable "empire" in its own right.
Few have been able to escape the "structural adjustment" and
"conditionalities" of the W.B, the IMF, or the WTO,
those international financial institutions that, however inadequate,
still determine what economic globalization means.
Such is the power of globalization that, within our lifetime, we are likely to see
the integration, even if unevenly, of all national economies in the world
into a single global, free market system.
-The World is being taken over by a handful of business powers
who dominate the natural resources we need to live,
while controlling the money we need to obtain these resources.
The end result will be world monopoly
based not on human life but financial and corporate power.
And, as the inequality grows, naturally,
more and more people are becoming desperate.
So the establishment was forced to come up with a new way
to deal with anyone who challenges the system.
So they gave birth to the "Terrorist."
The term "terrorist" is an empty distinction
designed for any person or group
who chooses to challenge the establishment.
This isn't to be confused with the fictional "Al Qaida,"
which was actually the name of a computer database
of the U.S.-supported Mujahideen in the 1980's.
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group
called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this.
But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe
in the presence of an identified entity...The country behind this propaganda is the U.S."
- Pierre-Henri Bunel, Former French Military Intelligence
the Department of Defense received 161.8 billion dollars
for the so-called global war on terrorism.
According to the national counter-terrorism center,
in 2004 roughly 2000 people were killed internationally
due to supposed terrorist acts.
Of that number, 70 were American.
Using this number as a general average, which is extremely generous,
it is interesting to note that twice as many people die
from peanut allergies a year than from terrorist acts.
Concurrently, the leading cause of death in America