Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:35 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:49 am

From Paul Mazur, a Wall Street banker working for Lehman Brothers in the 1930s:


"We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs."




.
Last edited by American Dream on Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:56 am

http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5820

Surrogacy and Baby-Selling: Latest Fertility Industry Scandal

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on August 19th, 2011

Two prominent reproductive law attorneys, Theresa Erickson and Hilary Neiman, now await sentencing by a US district court after pleading guilty to charges connected with an elaborate surrogacy and baby-selling scheme.

The many headlines about this latest fertility industry scandal are clear on the nature of the criminal activities. NBC San Diego titled its early story “Lawyer Busted in Black-Market Baby Ring”; the Los Angeles Timescalled it a “scam”; the UK Telegraph ran with “Babies 'sold for $150,000' in California.” Even the FBI pulled no punches: Its press release is titled “Baby-Selling Ring Busted.”


...The baby-selling scheme that Erickson, Neiman, and a third woman named Carla Chambers put together spanned several states and two continents, and trampled on the minimal surrogacy regulations of California, where Erickson is based and where the surrogates were required to deliver the babies. While many countries and a number of states prohibit commercial surrogacy, California permits it; in fact, the state is known around the world as “surrogacy-friendly,” meaning that the rights of commissioning parents are robustly protected. For example, surrogacy lawyers routinely get “pre-birth orders” from California courts that exempt commissioning parents from the procedures that are part of adoption, and put their names rather than the surrogate’s on the baby’s birth certificate. California does require that a surrogacy contract be in place before a surrogate is impregnated and before a pre-birth order is issued, provisions designed precisely to prevent baby-selling.

But Erickson and Neiman didn’t let that stop them. Relying on their reputations as credentialed and internationally renowned members of the fertility industry, they recruited surrogates from across the US and sent them off to fertility doctors in the Ukraine, who were either unaware of or unconcerned about the absence of contracts and identified intended parents. The surrogates, who say they were duped into thinking that everything was legitimate, were impregnated with embryos made from anonymously provided eggs and sperm.

The baby entrepreneurs waited until the pregnancies were in their second trimester, past the greatest danger of miscarriage, and then advertised for people willing to pay up to $150,000 — significantly higher than the going rate for legal commercial surrogacy — for a baby that they could claim soon. In other words, as the FBI press release put it, they “create[d] an inventory of unborn babies that they would sell for over $100,000 each.”

Erickson began the baby-selling scam in 2005; it ended only because of the FBI investigation that exposed it. Here’s an excerpt from an ad that Neiman placed on an online adoption forum in 2009:

Caucasian Infant, as embryos used where [sic] caucasian, however gestational carrier is of colour. Carrier is in Nebraska however birth will occur in California! … names of new parents names [sic] will be put on the birth certificate, no adoption neccesary, [sic] no homestudy needed! The minute the baby is born, parents will have 100% custody!

The trio told interested parties that the babies were available because another set of parents had backed out of a surrogacy arrangement at the last minute. To sweeten the deal, they could specify the baby’s sex, since that’s easy to determine in the second trimester...

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:28 am

AD - the source of that quote is Paul Mazur - just in case you wanted to find background info on him. Paul Mazer is just a loop of blogs quoting Century of the Self phonetically.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:37 am

Wombaticus Rex wrote:AD - the source of that quote is Paul Mazur - just in case you wanted to find background info on him. Paul Mazer is just a loop of blogs quoting Century of the Self phonetically.


Thanks- You got the problem exactly right -- and it 's now corrected.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:52 am

Which brought me to this:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/ ... icle/3642/


The Crying Indian

How an environmental icon helped sell cans -- and sell out environmentalism

BY GINGER STRAND

Published in the November/December 2008 issue of Orion magazine


Image



IF YOU WATCHED television at any point in the seventies, you saw him: America’s most famous Indian. Star of perhaps the best-known public service announcement ever, he was a black-braided, buckskinned, cigar-store native come to life, complete with single feather and stoic frown. In the spot’s original version, launched by Keep America Beautiful on Earth Day 1971, he paddles his canoe down a pristine river to booming drumbeats. He glides past flotsam and jetsam. The music grows bombastic, wailing up a movie-soundtrack build. He rows into a city harbor: ship, crane, a scrim of smog. The Indian pulls his boat onto a bank strewn with litter and gazes upon a freeway.

“Some people have a deep, abiding respect for the natural beauty that was once this country,” intones a basso profundo voice, “and some people don’t.” On those words, someone flings a bag of trash from a passing car. It scatters at the Indian’s feet. He looks into the camera for the money shot. A single tear rolls down his cheek.

“People start pollution. People can stop it,” declares the narrator.

Rewind. Replay. Thanks to YouTube, you can watch this ad over and over, framed by excited viewer comments: “A classic!!” “Very powerful.” “Best PSA ever made.” Most YouTubers agree with the trade journal Ad Age, which included the campaign in the century’s top hundred. Some netizens even claim the ad motivated them to pick up trash or chide litterers. The Advertising Educational Foundation declares the spot “synonymous with environmental concern.” Wikipedia says it “has been widely credited with inspiring America’s fledgling environmental movement.” The crying Indian wept for our sins, and from his tears sprang forth a new Green Age.

This is remarkable, since the ad was a fraud. It’s no big secret that the crying Indian was neither crying nor Indian. Even some YouTubers point out that he was played by character actor Iron Eyes Cody, whose specialty was playing Indians in Hollywood westerns. The Italian-American Cody—his real name was Espera Oscar DeCorti—“passed” as a Cherokee-Cree Indian on and off camera. His long black braids were a wig, his dark complexion deepened with makeup. His fraud was not ill-willed: he also supported Indian rights, married an Indian, and adopted Indian children.

The fraudulence of Keep America Beautiful is less well known. In a recent survey, respondents were given a list of “environmental groups” and asked “Which organization do you believe is most believable?” Thirty-six percent chose Keep America Beautiful—it beat out the Nature Conservancy (29 percent), the Sierra Club (17 percent), Greenpeace (15 percent), and the Environmental Defense Fund (3 percent). Over two million Americans acted on that belief in 2006, volunteering for Keep America Beautiful activities: picking up litter, removing graffiti, painting buildings, and planting greenery. Many may not have realized they were handing their free time to a front group for the beer bottlers, can companies, and soda makers who crank out the containers that constitute half of America’s litter. Or that this front group opposes the reuse and recycling legislation that might better address the problem. The information is not hard to find. Ted Williams wrote about it in 1990 for Audubon. Online, you can find many more narratives of KAB’s real motives, including a summary by the Container Recycling Institute.

And yet, even with Cody outed as Italian and KAB unmasked as a trade group, the crying Indian remains a beloved environmental icon. Why did he touch such a chord? One day in June, while visiting family in Michigan, I decide to find out.

TO GET TO Illinois from western Michigan, you ease round the bottom of what Michiganians call “the Lake,” then drop down into Indiana. Almost immediately, the landscape becomes classic heartland: seemingly endless, flat cornfields like the one where Cary Grant flees a crop-dusting plane in North by Northwest. Each small town pivots on a grain elevator, the horizon’s only transect. I stick to blue highways, remarkably free of generic sprawl, and head west. I think, Indiana.

As a child, I had a puzzle of the United States, each state a separate wooden piece. I liked stacking them in two piles: Indian names, European names. I was always fascinated by place names, especially Indian ones. Even as a kid, I found it odd that pioneers should name their homes after the people they had displaced to build them.

But that’s frequently the role Native Americans are given by American culture: marker of loss. Early American landscape paintings often included a token Indian: America was the new Eden, complete with mournful, expelled Adam. In the early nineteenth century, as “Indian removal” became federal policy, artists like George Catlin traveled the West, painting Plains Indians in war paint or ceremonial dress. Their still, solemn faces have a funerary tone. At the same time, hugely popular “Indian dramas” swept stages, almost always ending with an Indian character’s noble death. Yet even as these stage natives reassured audiences with their disappearing act, they embodied the young nation’s ideals: sacrifice, nobility, and honor. Depicting Indians as a “vanishing race,” these works registered an odd anxiety about their vanishing. What if in building our new world, they asked, we actually destroy its founding values?

At nine a.m. I arrive at my destination, the Advertising Council Archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The UIUC library is classic land-grant college architecture, monumental yet homespun: huge hallways with soaring ceilings, wide staircases with thick wooden railings. The Advertising Council Archives are in the basement, down a long, tunnel-like hallway. Before going in, I stop to examine a glass display case outside the door. It celebrates “the Advertising Council’s commitment to the environment.” Typical is an ad from a 1994 “Clean Water” campaign. “There are toxic chemicals in our water,” it declares. “Such as oil. And pesticides. You might think industry is to blame. But they’re only part of the problem. You and I, in our everyday lives, are also responsible for a tremendous amount of water pollution.”
People start pollution. People can stop it.

KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL first came to the Advertising Council for support in 1960. An advertising trade group, the Ad Council recruits and oversees ad agencies as they create pro-bono public service ads for nonprofits and government. The Council then coordinates donations of media for the ads. They are famously successful. Working with the Council, volunteer agencies have churned out loads of catchy taglines for righteous causes: “Buckle up for safety”; “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”; “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” They created Smokey the Bear, McGruff the Crime Dog, and Vince and Larry, the Crash Test Dummies.

Perhaps even more famous are the Council’s World War II campaigns: “Loose lips sink ships” and Rosie the Riveter’s “We can do it!” Formed in 1941, the Council was originally intended to mitigate the antibusiness, collectivist side of the New Deal. Its founding mission was defined as “reteaching a belief in a dynamic economy.” But after Pearl Harbor, the ad men teamed up with the Office of War Information to crank out propaganda, encouraging Americans to buy war bonds, enlist, work in factories, and save tin cans, scrap rubber, and waste fats. At war’s end, however, the Ad Council happily returned to its true role: prophet of endless growth.

Looking back from America’s current position as global missionary of free-market gospel, it’s easy to forget that enterprise American-style—dedicated to the proposition that consuming equals happiness—once needed the hard sell here, too. But the ad men knew it. In 1945, the Council issued a pamphlet outlining its new purpose. The war was over, but a new battle was on: the “battle for markets.” Europe, they declared, was in ruins. State socialism was creeping through the Old World. America, too, would move left, unless advertising could “resume its star role as a profitable seller of goods.” This meant recasting the American Dream as the endless pursuit of plenty.

“Only if we have large demands can we expect large production,” wrote economist Robert Nathan in 1944. “Therefore, it is important that in planning for the postwar period, we give adequate consideration to the need for ever-increasing consumption on the part of our people as one of the prime requisites for prosperity.” This was more than economics: it was politics. An ongoing cycle of “mass employment, mass production, mass advertising, mass distribution and mass ownership of the products of industry,” wrote the Saturday Evening Post, would make the U.S. “the last bulwark” of democracy. Consuming became national policy: the 1946 Employment Act named “purchasing power” as one of the things government was meant to promote.

Thus prompted, Americans of the late 1940s got down to the business of buying things. In the first five years of peace, consumer spending increased by 60 percent. People bought cars and boats and clothing. They bought furniture and appliances. They bought Tupperware. Most of all, they bought houses. Housing starts went from 142,000 in 1944 to 2 million in 1950. The Ad Council cheered them on, casting consumption as what distinguished happy capitalists from those poor benighted souls living under the communist boot.

A 1948 Ad Council pamphlet, “The Miracle of America,” is typical. In it, Uncle Sam—shown striding across the cover with a toolkit and rolled-up sleeves—explains American free enterprise to an average family. The key, Uncle says, is ever-more-efficient production: “The mainspring of the American standard of living is High and Increasing Productivity!” America’s high rate of consumption—“We take abundance for granted”—is a sign of superiority. The U.S. has only one-fifteenth of the world’s population, the booklet explains, but consumes “more than half of the world’s coffee and rubber, almost half of the steel, a quarter of the coal and nearly two-thirds of the crude oil.” This, the Ad Council assured the nation, was Success.

“I HAVE OBSERVED that they will not be troubled with superfluous commodities,” wrote Thomas Morton about New England’s Indians in 1637. Arriving in the Plymouth colony in 1623, Morton, a freethinking Anglican who’d hung out with a group of libertines (including William Shakespeare) in law school, quickly grew tired of Pilgrim prissiness. He set up a rival trading post called Mare Mount, where he commenced retail and revelry with the natives. His paganish Mayday beer bash particularly outraged the Pilgrims; they chopped down his maypole—twice. (The episode became a famous Nathaniel Hawthorne story.) Finally, Miles Standish—“Captain Shrimp,” the reprobate Morton called him—was sent to arrest him. Standish cleverly arrived when Morton and his band were drunk, and the New World’s first frat party summarily ended. Back in England, Morton wrote a book about his experiences, New English Canaan. In it, he gives an atypically glowing early account of native ways. “According to human reason, guided only by the light of nature,” he declares, “these people lead the more happy and freer life, being void of care, which torments so many minds of so many Christians: they are not delighted in baubles, but in useful things.”

Morton kicked off an American stereotype, one all the more powerful for having some basis in truth: the ideal of the “noble savage” who rejects European commodity culture. The reality is more complicated: the natives, of course, were savvy traders. But Morton highlights an essential contrast between Native American markets and those of the colonists: Indians valued acquisition for use, not for its own sake. “They love not to be cumbered with many utensils,” as Morton puts it. They knew the word “enough.” Their markets weren’t based on an ideology of infinite expansion.

Markets tend to get saturated. Even with planned obsolescence—another postwar innovation—people’s needs eventually level off. After the initial postwar exuberance, American consumption slowed. That fact alarmed the captains of industry. In 1953, economist and Lehman Brothers banker Paul Mazur fretted that “it is absolutely necessary that the products that roll from the assembly lines of mass production be consumed at an equally rapid rate.” Throughout the fifties, the Ad Council tried to jump-start consumption with ad campaigns like 1954’s “The Future of America” and 1956’s “People’s Capitalism,” all of which equated American freedom with mass consumption. Nevertheless, in 1958, people bought even less stuff. The Council launched “Confidence in a Growing America,” designed to “encourage consumer spending.” Supported by forty-one companies, it was nicknamed the “Buy Campaign.”

But how do you get people to buy if their demands are sated? That’s where the folks of Keep America Beautiful—rejecters of reusability—come in. Things that last forever you only buy once. But something you use once and throw away: that’s the perfect product.

“THEIR NATURAL DRINK is of the crystal fountain,” Morton wrote of the natives, “and this they take up in their hands, by joining them close together.” He was fibbing a bit—he himself sold the Indians spirits—but he was making a point. Hydration, too, has its politics.

After the hand-cupping came the pewter mug, the canteen, and then eureka! the glass bottle. Before the 1950s, most beverage bottles were refillable. As late as 1960, refillables still delivered 95 percent of the nation’s soft drinks. But the beer industry, shifting from local small brewers to large, centrally located corporate producers, was finding transporting all those empties increasingly expensive. They began turning to new “one-way” or disposable bottles. By the end of the 1950s, half the nation’s beer would be in throwaway containers. Many of them were ending up as roadside trash.

In 1953, Vermont’s state legislature had a brain wave: beer companies start pollution, legislation can stop it. They passed a statute banning the sale of beer and ale in one-way bottles. It wasn’t a deposit law—it declared that beer could only be sold in returnable, reusable bottles. Anchor-Hocking, a glass manufacturer, immediately filed suit, calling the law unconstitutional. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed in May 1954, and the law took effect. That October, Keep America Beautiful was born, declaring its intention to “break Americans of the habit of tossing litter into streets and out of car windows.” The New York Times noted that the group’s leaders included “executives of concerns manufacturing beer, beer cans, bottles, soft drinks, chewing gum, candy, cigarettes and other products.” These disciples of disposability, led by William C. Stolk, president of the American Can Company, set about changing the terms in the conversation about litter.

The packaging industry justifies disposables as a response to consumer demand: buyers wanted convenience; packagers simply provided it. But that’s not exactly true. Consumers had to be trained to be wasteful. Part of this re-education involved forestalling any debate over the wisdom of creating disposables in the first place, replacing it with an emphasis on “proper” disposal. Keep America Beautiful led this refocusing on the symptoms rather than the system. The trouble was not their industry’s promulgation of throwaway stuff; the trouble was those oafs who threw it away.

At the same time, the container industry lobbied hard behind the scenes. In 1957, with little fanfare, Vermont’s senate caved to the pressure and declined to renew its reusable bottle law.

In 1960, the year Keep America Beautiful teamed up with the Ad Council, disposables delivered just 3 percent of the soft-drink market. By 1966, it was 12 percent, and growing fast. As was the Ad Council. By then it was the world’s biggest advertiser.

WHEN ASKED if their family tree contains any Indian branches, most Americans will say yes. In my own family, the putative native progenitor was said to be a great-grandfather some times removed. Cherokee is what we were told as kids. Given the family’s deep Michigan roots this doesn’t seem likely, unless someone took a serious wrong turn on the Trail of Tears. As an adult I learned that this family mythology was common—though its most common manifestation is a mythic Cherokee matriarch. Considering this syndrome—you might call it delusions of Pocahontas—only fuels my obsession with the crying Indian. Keep America Beautiful tapped into something very deep in the American psyche. But it took them a decade to figure out how to do it.

In 1962, Michigan considered a ban on no-return bottles. Keep America Beautiful openly opposed it. Throughout the sixties, Keep America Beautiful and the Ad Council battled a growing demand for legislation with an increasing vilification of the individual. They spawned the slogan “Every litter bit hurts” and popularized the term “litterbug.” In 1967, meeting at the Yale Club, they decided to go negative. “There seemed to be mutual agreement,” wrote campaign coordinator David Hart, “that our ‘soft sell’ used in previous years could now be replaced by a more emphatic approach to the problem by saying that those who litter are ‘slobs.’” The next year, planners upped the ante, calling litterers “pigs.” The South Texas Pork Producers Council wrote in to complain.

At the same time, KAB’s corporate sponsors made sure their own glass containers and cans never appeared as litter in the ads. This hypocrisy did not go entirely unnoticed. In the late 1960s, a noncorporate faction within the Ad Council, led by Dartmouth president John Sloan Dickey, began to call for Keep America Beautiful to move from litter to the larger problem of environmental pollution. They threatened to scuttle Ad Council support for further antilitter campaigns. Backed into a corner, KAB directors agreed to expand their work to address “the serious menace of all pollutants to the nation’s health and welfare.”

Clearly a more subtle approach was necessary. The Ad Council’s volunteer coordinator for the Keep America Beautiful campaign was an executive from the American Can Company. With him at the helm, a new ad agency was brought in—Marsteller, who happened to be American Can’s own ad agency. The visual arm of Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations firm famous for its list of clients with environment-related publicity problems,* Marsteller crafted the new approach. The crying Indian campaign, premiering on Earth Day 1971, had it all: a heart-wrenching central figure, an appeal to mythic America, and a catchy slogan. There was a pro forma gesture in the direction of ecology—the Indian paddles by some belching smokestacks, after all—and the language had shifted from “littering” to “pollution.” But the message was the same: quit tossing coffee cups out of the window of your Chevy Chevelle, you pig, and America’s environmental problems will end.

IN 1970, as Marsteller hatched the ad that would seal his fame, Iron Eyes Cody was busy making film westerns. He played a medicine man in A Man Called Horse, Apache chief Santana in El Condor, and a character named Crazy Foot in a comedy called Cockeyed Cowboys of Calico County. As in the earlier Indian plays, Indians in westerns are usually allied with nature, wilderness, old codes of vengeance and honor—the vanishing past that civilization must replace.

But in the questioning sixties, the inevitable march of manifest destiny began to be examined for its dark side. As social unrest accelerated, the counterculture began taking up Indian-ness to express a rejection of the status quo. In 1969, Native American Vine Deloria published Custer Died for Your Sins, a scathingly hilarious manifesto diagnosing the epidemic of bad faith in Indian-white relations, and advocating a new “tribalism” bent on “rejection of the consumer mania which plagues society as a whole.” In 1970, Dee Brown published his influential Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, a history of U.S. government treachery toward natives that questioned the inevitability of empire. The same year, the tragicomic epic Little Big Man played Custer’s last stand as an analogue for the moral morass unfolding in Vietnam. Anti-war protesters adopted fringed jackets, beads, and braids. The Indian was still a symbol of America’s lost principles. But, in a Mortonesque revival, he was also becoming a living alternative to the postwar culture of consumption.

In adopting the Indian as a symbol but turning his rejection of consumerism into a rebuke to individual laziness, Marsteller and Keep America Beautiful—underwritten by the Ad Council—struck greenwash gold. Their Indian evoked the deep discontents afoot in the culture. But they co-opted the icon of resistance and made him support the interests of the very consumer culture he appeared to protest. There he stood, stoic and sad, a rebuke to individuals rather than a rejection of the ideology of waste. But then, that was the very ideology the Ad Council had promoted all along.

It was an elegantly closed circle. The titans of packaging pushed throwaways into production. The Ad Council preached the creed of consumption, assuring Americans that the road to prosperity was paved with trash. The people bought; the people threw away. Then, the same industries and advertisers turned around and called them pigs. The people shamefacedly cleaned up the trash. And the packagers, pointing to the cleaned-up landscape, just went on making more of it.

ON MY WAY HOME from central Illinois, I stop to get a sandwich at the only place I can find: Subway. It’s just off a highway exit, and I can hear the gears shifting on trucks as they accelerate up the on-ramp next door. I stand in front of the fridge staring at my options. Soda, water, energy drinks, juice. Plastic, aluminum, plastic. At Subway even apples—one of nature’s most perfectly packaged fruits—come presliced in plastic bags. I ask the clerk for a paper cup of tap water. She eyes me as if suspecting I’m the Unabomber’s unknown accomplice. I feel like the Unabomber’s unknown accomplice, because this small act, I know, is ridiculous. It’s not enough.

Symbolic protest rarely is. In 1976, after KAB testified against a proposed California bottle deposit law, the EPA and seven environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society, resigned from its advisory board. Activists declared KAB a “front group.” But by then, being outed didn’t matter. The group’s work was largely done. In 1976, two-thirds of America’s soft drinks and nearly four-fifths of its beer came in disposables. Today, every American throws away about three hundred pounds of solid waste a year, about one-third of it packaging. Sixty percent of that comes from food and beverages.

Eleven states have succeeded in passing bottle bills. Beverage container recycling rates in those states are roughly double rates in nondeposit states. But in shifting the debate to bottle deposit legislation—which it opposed—KAB still won, because it shut down debate over whether disposable beverage containers were a good idea in the first place. Vermont’s original 1953 law would have required manufacturers to accept and refill their empties. No one’s talking about that now.

ENVIRONMENTALISM URGES us to consider the consequences of our actions. But what if by focusing on our individual actions—what we can do—we lose sight of the larger issue of what we can’t do—what has been made impossible by the way the world now works? I leave Illinois with a nagging feeling that I’m missing a piece of the puzzle. I find it in an unexpected place: about sixty miles east of Portland, Oregon, on the banks of the Columbia River.

The Dalles, Oregon, is the site of one of the Pacific Northwest’s most longstanding and cherished Native American trading sites: Celilo Falls. Once a waterfall with a peak flow about ten times that of Niagara, today Celilo has vanished. It lies at the bottom of the reservoir behind The Dalles Dam, a mile-and-a-half-long concrete mouth, gates lined up like teeth, that has swallowed this stretch of the Columbia. At a Citgo station near the dam, a few Indians are parked in lawn chairs by a cooler with a hand-lettered sign: SALMON. The red plastic box sweats in the sun, entombing the sorry remnants of Celilo’s once-famous salmon runs. At the dam visitors center, on the Oregon side, talk quickly turns to Google. The sachems of search have built a giant data center about five miles downstream, in The Dalles industrial park. “I hear they’re running an extension cord over there from here,” jokes the Army Corps of Engineers docent. Outside, the reservoir glints flinty blue in the sun.

I drive to the data center and park in order to circumnavigate it on foot. The facility sprawls across the riverfront, the size of a shopping mall. Its chillers, humming like a Dreamliner on takeoff, cast waves of heat across the Columbia in an effort to keep the thousands of servers inside from melting. Across the street, a silent, cold blast furnace looms in stark contrast. It’s an idled aluminum smelter. Both industries—aluminum and information—came to this spot for the same reason: cheap electricity from the government-built dam. The smelter used about 85 megawatts. Based on projected square footage, the Google data center can be expected to use about 100—enough to power a small city. I scramble onto a dirt hill and gaze at the data center’s private substation—two 100-megawatt transformers—until a guard dog chases me away.

The federal government began damming the Columbia in the 1930s, but things really got going in the forties. With the advent of World War II, Uncle Sam needed aluminum—more than Alcoa, a near-monopoly up until then—could make. The War Production Board hired Alcoa to help Uncle Sam build twenty new aluminum plants between 1941 and 1943. Many were sited near government-built dams, especially on the Columbia River. In fact, beefing up aluminum production was used as a reason to build new electricity-producing dams.

The result—especially after the war, when the government sold off its wartime plants to Alcoa competitors—was a glut of aluminum. Even as Cold War fears were used to justify building more dams, the aluminum industry scrambled to find new, peacetime uses for its product. The tail of production began to wag the dog of demand: Alcoa and their new competitors began inventing scads of new uses for aluminum: toys, boats, appliances, golf clubs, cookware. But the real breakthrough was the aluminum can. John D. Harper, Alcoa’s young and innovative president, boldly led the company into the production of rigid container sheet for can companies, gambling that the disposable market could use up his excess aluminum. The first aluminum beverage can was introduced in 1958. The aluminum industry never looked back.

In 1960, the year Keep America Beautiful and the Ad Council joined forces, containers and packaging composed just over 7 percent of the U.S. aluminum market. But Harper’s gamble paid off. Within twenty years, aluminum containers would produce more revenue for Alcoa than its second-, third-, and fourth-largest markets combined. John D. Harper spent much of that time as a member of the Ad Council’s Industry Advisory Committee.

WE’VE COME a long way from our crying Indian. Or have we? The day the waters rose at Celilo Falls, the town’s tribal elders looked on in tears. It wasn’t the first such event. In June of 1940, Colville, Tulalip, Blackfoot, Nez Perce, Yakima, Flathead, and Coeur d’Alene Indians gathered at Kettle Falls, another beloved trading and fishing spot that was soon to be ninety feet beneath the reservoir of Grand Coulee Dam. For three days, elders spoke, fishermen recalled fantastic salmon runs, children played games, and the community mourned the end of an ancient way of life. It was called the “ceremony of tears.” When the reservoir was filled, more than two thousand Indians were displaced from their homes.

The federal government built thirteen more Columbia River basin dams in the 1950s, another seven in the 1960s, and six in the 1970s. Many destroyed Native American towns and fishing sites. But this didn’t just happen in the Pacific Northwest. It went on all across America. After World War II, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers built scores of dams, a shocking number of them on tribal land. The result was always misery for Native Americans. Kinzua Dam on Seneca land in Pennsylvania. The Moses-Saunders Power Dam on Mohawk land in New York. Tellico Dam, drowning Cherokee towns in Tennessee. Oahe, Fort Randall, and Big Bend Dams inundating Sioux land in South Dakota. The larger, hydroelectric dams quickly attracted power-intensive industries, often aluminum plants.

In 1948, a deal was reached for the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) in North Dakota to sell thousands of acres—at thirty-three dollars each—to the federal government for its new Garrison Dam. Three Tribes’ Council Chairman George Gillette reluctantly went to Washington to sign the contract. In a widely published picture of the event, the secretary of the interior signs the document, his face impassive. Flanking him, several suited bureaucrats look anywhere but at George Gillette, rakishly handsome in his double-breasted, pinstriped suit. Gillette has taken off his glasses, put his face in one hand, and begun to weep.

Ironically, perhaps unwittingly, the Ad Council and Keep America Beautiful got it right. The crying Indian hints at the root cause of the problem he mourns: it’s not just roadside trash. It’s the culture of consumption that created that trash—with government subsidized power—and sold it to the public as the American Dream, when in fact it was that very dream’s death. Iron Eyes Cody may have wept on cue, but George Gillette wept for the land.

IS THE CRYING INDIAN the root of environmentalism, as Wikipedia would have it? Or is he its sole mourner, weeping its silent dirge? In the thirty years following his debut, Americans landfilled or incinerated more than a trillion aluminum cans—enough to encircle the Earth 3,048 times.

I watch the crying Indian again on YouTube. Here’s the genius of it: the ad appeals to a vague feeling of national guilt that—following in a long iconic tradition—is associated with Native Americans. What we’ve done to this land is not right, and the Indians know it, because we did it to them, too. As the Indian contemplates the trashed landscape and car-choked freeway, a dark possibility opens up: our way of life is destructive. The cars, the pollution, the factories: it’s not, despite what we’ve been told, the best of all possible worlds. Something must change. And then that bag of trash arcs out the window and explodes like a revelation at his feet. Oh, we think, relaxing, so that’s it. That’s what we’ve done wrong. We can stop doing that. It’s the same move by which we’re told to buy local food—that buying local will make things change—as if the government were not providing farm subsidies to agribusiness and highway subsidies to the trucking industry and zoning incentives to chain stores, thus shifting the costs of bad environmental choices invisibly to the taxpayer and making “buy local”—the best choice—often the most difficult and expensive one. How can we expect individual choice to right the wrongs of collective decisions?

Tracing the crying Indian to his real-life counterpart reminds us to focus not just on symptoms, but on the system. Keep America Beautiful and the Ad Council planted the seeds of a feel-good “shop for change” form of environmentalism that urges us to forgo regulation in favor of personal choice. We can do it! But in a world where federal funds continue to subsidize energy squandering, individual action is important, but it’s not enough. In today’s disposable market, aluminum is being edged out by resource-intensive plastics that are even harder to recycle. The aluminum industry has gone abroad in search of cheaper power, and their subsidized hydropower is being taken over by energy-guzzling data centers. Microsoft, Ask.com, and Yahoo have all joined Google on the harnessed Columbia’s banks.

It’s another elegant circle: Whenever you want to see “the best PSA ever made,” you can go to YouTube and search for “crying Indian.” Bytes will stream to your computer from a shiny digital factory, perhaps one sitting on the Columbia. The ancestral fishing grounds mourned by crying Indians will thus generate the electricity that activates Iron Eyes Cody’s tear, falling once more for a trashed world.


———————
* In more recent years, Burson-Marsteller performed crisis management for Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster, for reactor builders Babcock & Wilcox after Three Mile Island, for British Petroleum after their Torrey Canyon oil spill, for Dow-Corning after silicone-breast-implant lawsuits, and for the government of Saudi Arabia after thirteen of its citizens helped carry out the attacks of September 11. One of Burson-Marsteller’s key accomplishments was helping to invent the concept of astroturf. Corporate-sponsored groups designed to look grassroots, astroturf organizations are able to reach the media, and in many cases, the hearts of the public, in ways that corporate flaks never could. Their particular specialty was astroturf environmental groups: they helped spawn the Coalition for Clean and Renewable Energy, bankrolled by Hydro Quebec; the Foundation for Clean Air Progress, a consortium of energy, industry, and agricultural companies formed to fight clean air legislation; and the American Energy Alliance, which lobbied to defeat President Bill Clinton’s proposed Btu tax. Until his April 2008 ouster, Burson-Marsteller CEO Mark Penn was also a chief strategist for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:28 pm

This one is four hours long but deserves to be posted here:


American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:35 pm

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1027-03.htm

Published on Saturday, October 27, 2001

How Wall Street Created a Nation

by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman


Oviodio Diaz Espino was working as a corporate lawyer at J.P. Morgan in New York when he went to a Christmas Party in 1997. At the party, Diaz met a movie producer, Webster Stone. Stone noticed Diaz had a foreign accent and asked him where he was from. Diaz said Panama. Stone asked Diaz who he worked for. Diaz said J.P. Morgan.

Stone excitedly threw his arms in the air and said -- "Oh my God -- you are the man I've been looking for!"

"Did you know that J.P. Morgan was the treasurer of Panama during its first year of existence?."

"Are you aware that the Republic of Panama was created in Suite 1162 of the Waldorf Astoria?"

Diaz was not, and was intrigued. Stone had been working on a script for Robert Redford about how a group of Wall Street movers and shakers created Panama.

Garry Trudeau was writing the script. The movie project was eventually dropped (too many villains, no heroes), but Stone turned over his files to an amazed Diaz, who dropped everything and began investigating.

Diaz spent two years with his head buried in records at the New York Public Library, searching to confirm Stone's allegation that his country was created by Wall Street.

And confirm it he did. Diaz lays out the story in a new book, How Wall Street Created a Nation: J.P. Morgan, Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal (Four Walls Eight Windows, 2001).

Diaz's story is about a corporate hijacking of U.S. foreign policy, about how corporate interests and government interests become so entwined that you can't tell the difference.

In a nutshell, this is what Diaz found:

In 1900, a group of investors led by William Nelson Cromwell, the founder of the "prestigious" New York law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banker J.P. Morgan, created a secret syndicate of Wall Street financiers and politicians to buy the shares of the bankrupt French Panama Canal Company, which owned the right to build the Panama Canal, from thousands of small shareholders throughout Europe. They invested about $3.5 million and gained control of the company.

The covert investors then spent the next three years getting the United States government to buy the holdings for $40 million, the payment of which would flow back to them. In order to do this, they first had to defeat an entrenched Nicaragua lobby. Nicaragua was the preferred route for the canal because of its two big lakes, and also because the French had already tried to build a canal in Panama but had failed miserably.

And the U.S. was already on its way to building the canal in Nicaragua. The House of Representatives unanimously passed a Nicaragua canal bill, a treaty was signed with Nicaragua, President McKinley had already signed the bill, and the excavation had already began in Nicaragua. It was a done deal -- until Cromwell arrived on Capitol Hill and began throwing money around.

Senator Mark "Dollar" Hanna, who was at that time the chair of the Republican Party and probably the most powerful man in America, received $60,000, at the time the largest donation to any politician.

In return, Hanna began a campaign to build the canal in Panama instead. U.S. policy was reversed, and in 1902, Congress decided that the Canal was to go through Panama.

Only one problem -- Panama was at the time a province of Colombia, and the United States needed Colombia's approval to move ahead. Teddy Roosevelt sent Cromwell, who stood to benefit financially from the deal, to negotiate with Colombia. Colombia balked, demanding more money. Cromwell decided to circumvent Colombia, and to instead get Panama to secede and create it's own country -- which it did.

"What is shocking about this part of the story is that Wall Street planned, financed and executed the entire independence of Panama," Diaz says. In effect, Cromwell and J.P. Morgan hired Panama's Jefferson and Washington, a tale of intrigue that Diaz documents. Panama was declared a nation, Cromwell negotiated a canal treaty with his cronies, and made off with millions. (Or as Senator Samuel Hayakawa put it years later, "we stole it, fair and square.")

Last week, we called up a Sullivan & Cromwell managing partner here in Washington and asked if the law firm had any reaction to the allegations that the firm's founding father had engaged in such skullduggery.

The partner says, "Well, David McCullough wrote a book about the Panama Canal (The Path Between the Seas) -- take a look at it."

Diaz says, "McCullough does not dedicate one page to the question about the secret conspiracy and speculation by the Wall Street financiers."

The Sullivan & Cromwell partner also asked us, "What is the relevance of this story 100 years later?" We put the question to Diaz.

"I want people to know a chapter in world history that brought down a French republic, a Colombian government, created a new republic, shook the political foundations in Washington with corruption and gave birth to American imperialism in Latin America," Diaz says.

"It was one of the biggest scams in history. And I believe that alone is worth knowing about."



Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org)



###
Last edited by American Dream on Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:30 pm

The first video should really be titled "Sisters and Brothers"...





American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:58 pm

http://www.prwatch.org/node/10980

Profit Motive Underlies Outbreak of Immigration Bills

Submitted by Brendan Fischer on August 24, 2011

Image



July 29 marked the one-year anniversary of Arizona's controversial immigration law, a year that has seen similar anti-immigrant bills emerge across the country. Thanks to the release of over 800 pieces of "model legislation" by the Center for Media and Democracy, we can now pinpoint the source of the outbreak to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a bill factory for legislation that benefits the bottom line of its corporate members. While it has been reported that more immigrants behind bars means more income for ALEC member Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), less discussed has been how immigrant detention benefits commercial bail-bond agencies, an industry represented in ALEC through the American Bail Coalition.

Immigrant Detention and For-Profit Criminal Justice

The ALEC "No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act" requires that state law enforcement officers enforce complex federal immigration law, gives private citizens the right to sue police or sheriff's departments if they do not think the law is being enforced (regardless of whether law enforcement had been prioritizing more important issues like investigating violent crimes), makes presence on state soil without federal immigration status a criminal offense, and requires that employers use the flawed e-Verify system for hiring employees. This ALEC bill legalizes racial profiling and became Arizona's SB1070.

Countless immigrant families that have been torn apart by the law. "Children don't know what to do without their parents," 10-year-old Catherine Figueroa told a Congressional panel in 2010; Figeuroa's mother and father were arrested by Arizona state law enforcement on immigration charges.

To be clear, the bill's sponsor Arizona Republican Rep. Pearce had long supported tough state-level immigration enforcement, but failed to get a bill into law in '05, '06, '07, '08, and '09. Pearce only found success in 2010, after his idea for an immigration bill had been approved and endorsed by ALEC corporations. Xenophobia alone had not been sufficient to codify anti-immigrant sentiment into law -- it required the support of the for-profit criminal justice industry.

Dollars for Detention

DBA Press / In These Times and National Public Radio documented how Arizona Republican Rep. Pearce collaborated with CCA and other members of the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force in December 2009 to create the ALEC "model" immigration bill that became SB1070.

Before the ALEC meeting, for-profit prison operator CCA had identified immigrant detention as a profit center important for its future growth, stating it anticipated receiving "a significant portion of our revenues" from detaining immigrants. Even a hedge fund with a big stake in CCA was touting immigration detention as proof CCA would be profitable. As CMD has documented, ALEC corporations hold the trump card in task force meetings -- without the support of corporations, a proposed piece of legislation does not become an ALEC "model bill."

ALEC not only develops corporate-sponsored model legislation, but also acts as a "corporate match-making service" (according to Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan), opening new channels for corporate influence and contributions by creating new relationships between corporations and legislators. Indeed, after the Arizona bill was introduced, 30 of the bill's 36 co-sponsors promptly received campaign contributions from the for-profit prison industry.

An immigrant contesting their deportation can wait up to a year for a hearing, even though many of those detained have not committed a crime and have no criminal record. Immigrant detention can cost taxpayers $122 a day. Because for-profit corporations operate about half of all immigrant detention facilities, these taxpayer dollars flow into the pockets of CCA and other for-profit prison providers.

Immigration Bonds Profit For-Profit Bail Bondsmen

An immigrant facing removal may remain incarcerated, benefiting the for-profit prison industry, or released on bond, often paying a commercial bail bondsman for their release. The for-profit bail bond industry's trade association, the American Bail Coalition (ABC), is an ALEC member and helped pass the ALEC anti-immigrant laws.

Immigration bonding can be even more profitable than regular bail bonding — the minimum immigration bond is $1,500, the bond is usually $5,000-$10,000, and can be much higher. A for-profit bail bondsman who accepts 10 percent of that bail as a nonrefundable fee can rake in significant profits for doing very little.

ABC sat on the ALEC task force that approved the ALEC anti-immigrant bills, and the chairman of the corporate Private Enterprise Board at the time was ABC general counsel Jerry Watson. Watson was very familiar with the profits that can be made by collecting bail bonds from detained immigrants. His law firm biography lists him as "specializing in the field of ... immigration bonding."

One Year of Anti-Immigrant Laws is Too Long

Thanks to the ALEC Exposed project, we now know ALEC corporations approved at least two other pieces of anti-immigrant legislation and a model resolution in the same period. These models were reflected in the anti-immigrant legislation introduced in thirty states between 2010 and 2011.

Many legal scholars hold that these "breathing while brown" bills illegally encourage racial discrimination in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees. Publicly, the Arizona law and subsequent anti-immigrant legislation have been justified by playing on xenophobic fears and by perpetuating myths about headless bodies in the desert. But behind closed doors at ALEC meetings, specific industries plotted to increase profits by targeting those who cross the border to work toward a better life. America is a country of immigrants, and states that implement ALEC anti-immigrant bills are sacrificing core American values to benefit the bottom line of a few well-connected corporations.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:30 pm

excerpts from the book

Predatory States

Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America

by J. Patrice McSherry

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005, paperback
p241

Operation Condor was a top-secret component of a larger inter-American counterinsurgency strategy - led, financed, and overseen by Washington - to prevent and reverse social and political movements in Latin America in favor of structural change... the Condor system was a criminal operation that used terrorist practices to eliminate political adversaries, and extinguish their ideas, outside the rule of law.

During the Cold War, military, intelligence, and police commanders built and worked within parallel, or parastatal, structures to carry out counterterrorist campaigns in the shadows, concealed from domestic and international view ... secret forces and infrastructure developed as a hidden part of the state to carry out covert counterinsurgency wars. A vast parallel infrastructure of secret detention centers and clandestine killing machinery enabled the military states to avoid national and international law and scrutiny, and facilitated their use of disappearance, torture, and assassination out of the public eye. Anticommunist officials adopted extreme "black world" measures to solidify or reorient the existing political and socioeconomic systems in the hemisphere and to advance the power and privilege of anticommunist, pro-U.S. elites.

p242

The crimes of Operation Condor in the terrifying 1970s have continued to haunt the region long after the end of the Cold War. The counterinsurgents reshaped and transformed conventional armies into lethal killing machines that respected no laws or limits, with commanders who deliberately chose to their political opponents, secretly and without due process.

... Many Condor commanders and operatives, and other veterans of the region's dirty wars, continued to wield power in their societies and block democratizing measures long after transitions from military rule. Others became common criminals, engaged in kidnapping-extortion, theft and larceny, and drug trafficking. The legacy of Operation Condor was also reflected in the still-unsolved cases of thousands of disappeared persons in Latin America, including children, whose families still mourn. The emergence of court cases in Latin America, Europe, and the United States in recent years, seeking to hold Condor officers accountable, is evocative of previous efforts to track down and prosecute Nazi criminals from the World War II era, efforts that continue to this day. Such trials have been condemned by conservative forces in the world, which counsel immunity from prosecution for crimes committed on the Western side during the Cold War. But the evidence suggests that the monumental terror and trauma visited upon Latin American societies during that epoch can only be healed through process of truth and justice.

... Powerful forces within the U.S. government apparently believe that the full historical record is too revealing, too shocking, or too incriminating to allow public disclosure. When President Bill Clinton ordered the declassification of government documents relevant to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón's inquiries in 1998, the Pentagon and especially the CIA ferociously resisted compliance, and the declassification on Argentina in 2002 contained no documents from these two branches of the U.S. security apparatus. The impression left by such secrecy is that the CIA and the Pentagon have the most to hide. Yet like Condor itself, U.S. clandestine warfare and covert operations left a trail behind.

p244

The United States, combined forces with national elites and military-security institutions in Latin America to carry out the anticommunist crusade. The U.S. government was the predominant designer of the continental security agenda, and Washington exerted heavy influence in its implementation.

p245

As leftist and nationalist leaders won elections throughout Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, and new revolutionary and progressive movements emerged, U.S. security strategists feared that the informal U.S. economic and political empire in the hemisphere was threatened. Localized elites similarly feared the threat to their traditional dominance. U.S. policy served, in most cases, to strengthen traditional elites and military-security forces, while leftist and progressive social movements and individuals were crushed.

p245

Why [did] the worlds most powerful liberal democracy (U.S.] sponsor and collaborate with repressive dictatorships that brutalized their own societies [in Latin America]? Seeking to protect and expand U.S. economic, political, and security interests, Washington turned to reactionary forces worldwide whose most important asset was anticommunism.

p245

As Washington sought to preserve its hegemony in the hemisphere, local elites and military forces in Latin America sought to strengthen themselves and weaken the social forces that challenged them. The anti-left campaign swept through the region, and beginning in the 1960s, repressive, right-wing military governments seized power and established national security states in almost all of Latin America.

p245

Counterinsurgency war [in Latin America] was a means to demobilize popular movements, terrorize society, and solidify military power in these countries. Social change in the interest of disadvantaged sectors of society was halted, the economic power of traditional elite classes reasserted, and inequitable class divisions reinforced. In many cases, military institutions became autonomous actors with their own interests in advancing their power.

p246

U.S. promotion of clandestine warfare, "unofficial" military and intelligence units, and covert operations [in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s] - including the use of terror - in the world deeply damaged not only the target societies, but also the U.S. democratic process itself, as officials maneuvered to avoid constitutional oversight, deceived and manipulated Congress and the U.S. public, and degraded constitutional rights and freedoms through obsessive secrecy. Most seriously, the complicity of the U.S. government in crimes against humanity in Latin America was a perversion of the principles and values broadly supported by the U.S. public.




http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/P ... ondor.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:04 am

http://www.maebrussell.com/Aspartame/Sw ... stika.html

An excerpt from The Swirl and the Swastika: NutraSweet & the Military-Medical-Industrial Complex by Alex Constantine (one of several articles from the book Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine)



I recognized my two selves, a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle.

--Edgar Monsanto Queeny,
Monsanto chairman, 1943-63,
The Spirit of Enterprise, 1934



The FDA is ever mindful to refer to aspartame, widely known as NutraSweet, as a "food additive," never a "drug." A "drug" on the label of a Diet-Coke might discourage the consumer. And because aspartame is classified a food additive, adverse reactions are not reported to a federal agency, nor is continued safety monitoring required by law.(1) NutraSweet is a non-nutritive sweetener. The brand name is a misnomer. Try NonNutraSweet.

Food additives seldom cause brain lesions, headaches, mood alterations, skin polyps, blindness, brain tumors, insomnia and depression, or erode intelligence and short-term memory. Aspartame, according to some of the most capable scientists in the country, does. In 1991 the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, published a bibliography, Adverse Effects of Aspartame, listing no less than 167 reasons to avoid it.(2)

Aspartame is an DNA derivative, a combination of two amino acids (long supplied by a pair of Maryland biotechnology firms: Genex Corp. of Rockville and Purification Engineering in Baltimore.(3)) The Pentagon once listed it in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress.(4)

But instead of poisoning enemy populations, the "food additive" is currently marketed as a sweetening agent in some 1200 food products.

In light of the chemo-warfare implications, the pasts of G.D. Searle and aspartame are ominous. Established in 1888 on the north side of Chicago, G.D. Searle has long been a fixture of the medical establishment. The company manufactures everything from prescription drugs to nuclear imaging optical equipment.(5)

Directors of G.D. Searle include such geopolitical actuaries as Andre M. de Staercke, Reagan's ambassador to Belgium, and Reuben Richards, an executive vice president at Citibank. Also Arthur Wood, the retired CEO of Sears, Roebuck & Co., from the clan of General Robert E. Wood, wartime chairman of the America First Committee.(6) America Firsters, organized by native Nazis cloaked as isolationists, were quietly financed by the likes of Sullivan & Cromwell's Allen Dulles and Edwin Webster of Kidder, Peabody.(7)

Until the acquisition by Monsanto in 1985, the firm's chairman was William L. Searle, a Harvard graduate, Naval reservist and--a grim irony in view of aspartame's adverse effects--an officer in the Army Chemical Corps in the early 1950s, when the same division tested LSD on groups of human subjects in concert with the CIA.(8)

The chief of the chemical Warfare Division at this time was Dr. Laurence Laird Layton, whose son Larry was convicted for the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan at Jonestown ("Come to the pavilion! What a legacy!"). Jonestown, of course, bore a remarkable likeness to a concentration camp, and kept a full store of pharmaceutical drugs. (The Jonestown pharmacy was stocked with a variety of behavior control drugs: qualudes, valium, morphine, demerol and 11,000 doses of thorazine--a better supply, in fact, than the Guyanese government's own, not to mention a surfeit of cyanide.(9))

Dr. Layton was married to the daughter of Hugo Phillip, a German banker and stockbroker representing the likes of Siemens & Halske, the makers of cyanide for the Final Solution, and I.G. Farben, the manufacturer of a lethal nerve gas put to the same purpose.(10) Dr. Layton, a Quaker, developed a form of purified uranium used to set off the Manhattan Project's first self-sustaining chain reaction at the University of Chicago in 1942 by his wife's German-born uncle, Dr. James Franck. At Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, Dr. Layton concentrated his efforts, as did I.G. Farben, on the development of nerve gasses.(11)


Footnotes
1. "Sweet Talk," Science and the Citizen column, Scientific American, July, 1987, p. 15.

2. "Adverse Effects of Aspartame--January '86 through December '90," Current Bibliography series, National Library of Medicine pamphlet, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991.

3. "Pepsi Switches Sweeteners--Aspartame Winning Diet Cola Market," Washington Post, November 2, 1984, p. A-1.

4. Mae Brussell, World Watchers #842, KAZU-FM, Monterey, Calif., January 25, 1988.

5. Moody's Industrial Manual, 1975, p. 2606.

6. G.D. Searle's 1981 Annual Report. Also, Arnold Foster and Benjamin R. Epstein, Cross-Currents, Doubleday & Co. (New York: 1956), p. 153.

7. Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius, A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, William Morrow (New York: 1988), pp. 137-38, 163.

8. John Marks, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control, Times Books (New York: 1979), pp. 58, 67 & 212. Marks writes that incapacitating "large numbers of people fell to the Army Chemical Corps, which also tested LSD and even stronger hallucinogens. The CIA concentrated on individuals."

9. John Peer Nugent, White Night: The Untold Story of What Happened Before--and Beyond--Jonestown, Rawson, Wade (New York: 1979), pp. 143 & 177.

10. Michael Meiers, Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment: A Review of the Evidence, Mellen House (Lampeter, UK: 1988), p. 42.

11. Ibid., p. 43.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:02 am

http://www.drugwar.com/neocolonialism.shtm

Drug War: Covert Money, Power & Policy: Neocolonialism

Image


Coffee prices multiply approximately 3-fold from producer's wholesale to retail. Heroin multiplies approximately 200-fold from its Prohibition-inflated wholesale price to retail. Heroin now retails, by weight, for 10 times the price of gold. That, of course, makes it the basis of military power in Burma.

Military power is built on money, and, thanks to Prohibition, drug trafficking is the most profitable business on the planet. As the State Department itself puts it, in its end-of-year 1996 Enforcement Affairs report, "In terms of weight and availability, there is currently no commodity more lucrative than drugs. They are relatively cheap to produce and offer enormous profit margins that allow the drug trade to generate criminal revenues on a scale without historical precedent."

As anyone who has grown it knows, pot is as cheap and easy to grow as corn or squash, and can be mass-produced for a few dollars a pound. A legal pound of primo pot would retail for about $300. An illegal pound of primo pot now retails for about $3000.

The U.N estimates the global drug trade in the early 1990's to be worth 400 billion untaxed dollars a year. In 1994 Apolinar Biaz-Callejas of the Andean Commission of Jurists put it at $460 billion. That's about one-tenth of all global commerce. The legal value of that trade would be about a tenth of that.

Since military power is built on money, and since governments, or at least relations between governments, are built on military power, the structural effect of the artificial value has been to create, over the decades, an unbreakable symbiosis between drug-dealing and covert military intelligence. Each is the greatest strategic ally of the other. The political effect has been the institutionalization of global industrial fascism, death-squad genocide, wherever campesinos threaten to take control of their own land. I speak of Burma, Guatemala, the Philippines, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uruguay, Congo, Liberia, Nigeria - the list is endless.

According to the U.N. Drug Control Program, the biggest heroin and cocaine trading institutions in the world are the Burmese, Pakistani, Mexican, Peruvian and Colombian militaries - all armed and trained by U.S. military intelligence - in the name of the anti-drug effort, of course. Funny how all that effort never has any strategic effect.

The centers of power controlling the trade in these demanded global commodities are the same centers of power disseminating the artificial hysteria necessary for their continued criminalization. That keeps the retail price a hundred times higher than the legal value and the trade exclusively in the hands of the muscle.

Another name for the muscle is military intelligence. The $500 billion dollar drug trade is run by allies we train and arm. Batista was no more an aberration than Somoza, or Diem, or Ne Win, or Chiang, or the Shah, or Marcos, or Salazar, or Papadopoulos, or Stroessner, or Mobutu, or Amin, or Videla, or Noriega, or Cedras, or Samper, or Salinas, or Suharto, or Fujimori.

The politic Clinton administration, on June 28, 1996, released the report of its Intelligence Oversight Board: “The Army School of the Americas . . . used improper instruction materials . . . certain passages appeared to condone practices such as executions of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion, and false imprisonment.” As Clinton’s continued support for the military fascists in Indonesia, Burma, Peru, Colombia, etc. proves, that understatement was just a “partial hangout,” intelligence damage control, not a basic policy shift.

Guatemala is the archetypal CIA-OPS operation, a real pattern-setter. In October of 1944 a popular coup led by liberal young army officers finished the brutal 14-year dictatorship of General Jorge Úbico.

Image
The triumvirate that led the 1944 coup: Major Francisco Arana, Jorge Toriello and Captain Jacobo Arbenz; Rafael Morales

In March, Dr. Juan Arévalo, an idealistic scholar, was elected president with 85% of the vote. Arévalo's political hero was Franklin Roosevelt, whose "four freedoms" - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear - became the basis of his political program.

The 1951 elections saw Arévalo replaced by his Defense Minister, 41 year old Jacobo Arbenz, one of the engineers of the 1944 October Revolution that brought electoral democracy to Guatemala. Arbenz was elected with the votes of 63% of an electorate that now included literate women. The problem with the brilliantly competent Arbenz was that he proceeded to do everything Arévalo had so eloquently promised.

Arbenz nationalized nothing except some unused rural land. He left all businesses in place, but set out to break the most destructive monopolies, what he called "feudalism," by competing with them, creating a "a national and independent capitalism."

He began the construction of a government-run hydroelectric facility to compete with the Fruit-run monopoly and also initiated rural electrification and telephone service. These were, of course, the same infrastructure techniques that had been used to build the United States. Private enterprise built none of our highways, public schools or harbors, and almost all of our seminal railroads and hydroelectric facilities were publicly financed.

Arbenz then challenged United Fruit's rural slave-labor system, which dominated 90% of the country's 3 million people, 60% of them Indians, and most of the rest mestizos, known as ladinos. The 1952 Agrarian Reform Law aimed mostly at plantations larger than 670 acres, although fincas of over 223 acres were vulnerable if more than a third of the land was unused. Arbenz confiscated only unused arable land, distributing 1.5 million acres to 100,000 landless families, in 42 acre plots. Arbenz himself, his extraordinary Salvadoran wife and his Foreign Minister, lost thousands of acres.

Image
Arbenz at his inauguration; Rafael Morales

Practicing sweat-equity free-enterprise, Arbenz immediately put the confiscated land into production by providing government-run support systems, as Roosevelt had done. He instituted no political repression of any kind in a mixed economy that was, for the first time, beginning to grow by leaps and bounds. United Fruit, Ike and the Dulles brothers insisted that this constituted "Communism in the Caribbean" and "a Russian toehold" in the hemisphere.

Guatemala, of course, had virtually no relations at all with Russia. The Communist Party, in fact, had been the only party that remained illegal under the idealistic libertarian Arévalo, who insisted that communism was "contrary to human nature." Arbenz' Revolutionary Action Party legalized the Guatemalan Workers Party in 1951, and it held 4 of 56 seats in Congress.

Arbenz used Arévalo's 1947 Labor Code, which was based on Roosevelt's Wagner Act. It insisted on the right of plantation workers to unionize, strike and bargain collectively. For the first time in Guatemalan history, the campesinos had military protection. Arbenz established rural cooperatives, public schools, public clinics, public buses and local cultural institutions. Everything Arbenz did, in fact, conformed to John Kennedy's 1961 Alliance for Progress model.

One of the designers of the Alliance for Progress, Kennedy's Special Assistant Arthur Schlesinger, wrote in 1946: "All across Latin America the ancient oligarchies - landholders, Church, and Army - are losing their grip. There is a groundswell of inarticulate mass dissatisfaction on the part of peons, Indians, miners, plantation workers, factory hands, classes held down past all endurance and now approaching a state of revolt."

Like Arbenz, Schlesinger understood that the key to political stability was economic, so he looked to the inclusive social democratic parties, which built from the ground up. Kennedy would have given Arbenz all the help he could, in order, as Schlesinger put it, "to check Peronismo and Communism." The Dulles brothers, quite literally, chose Peronismo.

Since Arbenz was serious about land reform, he put committed Marxists, whom he trusted not to sell out, in charge of administering the Agrarian Reform program. But they were bound by the strictures of the law, and the basis of that law was sweat-equity free-enterprise. The market that the campesinos were encouraged to enter was just that, a free market. Arbenz' Agrarian Reform Program was his idea of a rural Small Business Administration. He was succeeding in rendering thousands of campesinos economically independent, creating a genuinely nationalist, capitalist alternative to corporate colonialism. What the U.S. proceeded to do, however, convinced the 25 year-old Argentine doctor Ché Guevara, who was part of this, and quite a few others, that militaristic communism was indeed the only alternative to United Fruit.

Arbenz seized nearly 400,000 of United Fruit's 550,000 acres, all unused, and all originally seized from the Indians. He compensated United Fruit in government bonds based on the company's own radically deflated 1952 book value, which the company had used to lower its already miniscule land taxes. The company was enraged, and the company was led by Sam "the Banana Man" Zemurray, one of the craftiest and most dangerous fighters ever to rise from the streets of New Orleans.

Zemurray's team included not only his Mafia partners on the New Orleans docks, led by the deadly Carlos Marcello, but the Boston Brahmin Thomas Cabot, for a short while a president of United Fruit. Thomas Cabot was the brother of John Moors Cabot, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Another major Fruit stockholder was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who violently denounced Arévalo's unionism from the Senate floor in 1949.

Both Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, CIA Director since 1953, were major Fruit stockholders. Through their law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, they had helped arrange, through Schroeder Banking, the 1936 United Fruit takeover of Guatemala's rail system, the International Railways of Central America.

Allen Dulles was a director of the British-based Schroeder Banking Ltd, which he had turned into a key conduit of CIA funds. United Fruit was, therefore, a de facto CIA proprietary. When the Dulles brothers engineered the destruction of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, the largest corporate beneficiary was the de-nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, largely controlled by Schroeder Banking. Like Arévalo, Mossadegh had in fact refused to legalize the Communist (Tudeh) Party. Mossadegh's threat was economic nationalism, not the communism the Dulles brothers had falsely accused him of. Like Arbenz, Mossadegh was a liberal democrat replaced by a murderous fascist dope peddler. The results, as we have seen, have not been happy.

Peron's Argentina, Stroessner's Paraguay and Papadopoulos' Greece became major drug entrepôts thanks to cooperating German, British, French and American secret services. During the 1947 civil war in Greece between the popular leftist coalition that had defeated the Nazis and the British-backed Royalists, the U.S., using Gehlen's agents, backed IDEA, the Holy Bond of Greek Officers. These were the fascist elements in the professional army that had fought with the Nazis during the war. With enough American matériel for 15,000 men, Colonel Papadopoulos, a Nazi war criminal, was able to take control of Greek intelligence, the KYP, and thereby control the Greek military. In 1967, Papadopoulos took direct control of Greece in a bloody coup that initiated a period of death squad assassinations for which Greek democrats have yet to forgive the U.S.

Aside from the "Peronist" Dulles brothers and the high command in the State Department, Zemurray's United Fruit team included "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, one of Roosevelt's original brain trusters. Corcoran represented the Teamster insurance company, U. S. Life, Chiang Kai-shek's brother-in-law, and the CIA's proprietary airline, Civil Air Transport, which serviced the Kuomintang opium armies in Burma.

The KMT's main Bangkok connection, General Phao, the commander of the Thai police who coordinated CAT air traffic with the KMT, was also the commander of the Thai government's relationship with the CIA. Explained KMT Gen. Tuan Shi-wen, "To fight you must have an army, and an army must have guns, and to buy guns you must have money. In these mountains, the only money is opium." According to Professor McCoy, to whom Gen. Tuan was speaking, the first snow-white #4 heroin lab was opened by KMT-affiliated Hong Kong chemists on the Thai-Burma border in the late 60's. The KMT are also known, fittingly, as the "White Chinese."

The KMT's lawyer, "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, was also United Fruit's lawyer. Corcoran was intimate with the entire leadership of the CIA, which he had helped to organize, and which was, in any case, extremely sympathetic to United Fruit. Walter Bedell Smith, Gen. Eisenhower's wartime chief of staff and Truman's CIA director, was now John Foster Dulles' Undersecretary of State. In 1953 he had asked Corcoran for the presidency of United Fruit, and in 1955 was named to its board of directors. Gen. Robert Cutler, chairman of the National Security Council, already sat on the United Fruit board. Robert Hill, ambassador to Costa Rica, got to the UF board in 1960. Hill was connected to Grace Shipping, another CIA friend heavily invested in Guatemala.

Sam "the Banana Man" Zemurray's team also included Edward Bernays, the formidable "father of public relations," who filled the American media with phony reportage about "communism in Guatemala." The right-wing John Clements, a Hearst vice-president with his own major magazines and PR firm, did the same. Once the "demographics" had been taken care of, Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers had the support of every Democrat in Congress. With Nicaragua's Somoza, the Dominican Republic's Trujillo and Cuba's Batista champing at the bit, Operation Success began in early June of 1954.

With control of the air, the sea and all the neighboring countries, Allen Dulles' CIA had no trouble overwhelming Jacobo Arbenz with a military and propaganda campaign coordinated from both inside and outside the country. Aerial bombardment of the presidential palace was combined with a mercenary ground force of about 180 men, led by Guatemalan Col. Castillo Armas, the size and popularity of which was wildly exaggerated by well placed Radio Liberty transmitters.

In 1957 the intrepid Mafia point-man and Batista operative, Johnny Rosselli, made another trip to Guatemala City, as he had done many times throughout 1956. This time the trip was in reaction to Castillo's jailing of his partner, casino operator Ted Lewin. Castillo was promptly gunned down, and Col. Enrique Trinidad Oliva, Johnny Rosselli's gambling and narcotics partner, became the new head of Guatemala's secret police.

Col. Trinidad Oliva was also the key CIA contact in the Guatemalan government, working under his half-brother, the defense minister. Trinidad Oliva coordinated all "foreign aid" coming through the CIA conduit ICA, the International Cooperation Administration, the forerunner of the Agency for International Development, AID.

Rosselli and Trinidad then helped the murderous old Gen. Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes, one of Úbico's assassins with close ties to mob partner Trujillo, to become head of state. Mario Sandoval Alarcón. "the father of Latin America's death squads," organized the right-wing of Castillo's party into the National Liberation Movement and hired himself out to Trinidad and Rosselli.

The same year that Johnny Rosselli helped the CIA engineer the change in the Guatemalan government, he was asked by his Syndicate associates to put together Giancana in Chicago, Costello in New York, Lansky in Miami, and Marcello in New Orleans for the huge $50 million Tropicana construction project in Las Vegas. According to Fred Black, a political fixer who was close to Rosselli, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson, Rosselli's influence was such that he gave orders to the Dorfmans, who controlled the Teamsters' huge Central States Pension Fund. During the 50's and 60's, it was Johnny Rosselli who "set up protection" in Las Vegas.

Throughout 1956 and 57 Rosselli travelled back and forth from Mexico City, the planning center for all CIA operations in Latin America, and Guatemala City. An experienced ICA operative noted that "John had access to everyone and everything that was going on there. He had an open door at the embassy in Guatemala, and in Costa Rica. He was in there plenty of times. I know because I saw him. He supplied information to the government, and had a hand in a lot of the intrigues that were going on."

This means, operationally, that Johnny Rosselli's interests became the CIA's interests. "Throughout Latin America," notes Frank McNeil, a junior political officer in the Guatemalan Embassy in 1960, "there were two American governments - one intelligence and one official." McNeil's boss, Ambassador John Muccio, learned of the Bay of Pigs invasion force being trained in Guatemala only after the story broke in The New York Times. As John Kennedy found out to his chagrin, Rosselli, his Syndicate and Batistiano allies, had more operational clout than the State Department.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:42 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:00 pm

Wycliffe Bible Translators and the CIA

The Summer Institute of Linguistic Connection
SIL and the CIA


http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/feb99/1127.html

"Thy Will Be Done"
NELSON ROCKEFELLER and Evangelism in the Age of Oil
by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett
Harper Collins, 1995. 960 pages

reviewed by Carmelo Ruiz

Carmelo Ruiz is a Puerto Rican journalist and research associate at the institute for Social Ecology, email ise@ igc.apc.org at Goddard College,
Vermont.



In 1976, reporters Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett traveled to Brazil as part of a journalistic team to write stories about the work of Christian missionaries in the Amazon basin.

High on Colby and Dennett's list of priorities was to learn about a mysterious missionary organization called the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). This outfit, also known as the Wycliffe Bible Translators, had gotten kudos from both conservatives and liberals for translating the Bible into hundreds of indigenous languages in Central and South America and helping native peoples cope with the intrusion of Western civilization into their lives.

However, Colby and Dennett had heard of a darker side to SIL.

Numerous critics had alleged that SIL was the vanguard of the destruction of both the rainforests and their native inhabitants.

They had heard from Latin American acquaintances that SIL was, in military fashion, a scouting party that surveyed the Amazonian hinterlands for potential sources of opposition to natural resource exploitation (read cattle ranching, clearcutting and strip mining) among native peoples and that it employed a virulent brand of Christian fundamentalism that relied on linguistics to undermine the social cohesion of aboriginal communities and accelerate their assimilation into Western culture.In addition to all this, numerous articles in the Latin American press accused SIL of being funded by the American intelligence community.

That last charge sounded particularly believable, since the authors' trip took place in the wake of recent revelations by the Church Committee of the US Senate, which investigated the activities of US intelligence agencies. It bears mentioning that Colby was by then no stranger to corporate and political intrigue. In 1974, writing as Gerard Colby Zilg, he published Dupont: Behind the Nylon Curtain, a 600+ page tome that narrated the Dupont family's corrupt history, from its profiteering on gunpowder sales to its manufacture of ozone-depleting gases. However, don't expect to see it in bookstores. When a Dupont PR representative said the book was scurrilous and actionable, publisher Prentice Hall was intimidated into letting Dupont go out of print. (In 1984, an expanded and updated 900 page-long edition of the book was published, which included, among other things, the Dupont's little-known connection to the Nicaraguan contras. Unfortunately, it met the same fate as the previous edition.)

Dennett was also a veteran journalist, having recently been stationed in Beirut, where she covered the civil war then raging in Lebanon. The authors found SIL a veritable empire whose missionary activities spanned every country in the Amazon basin, with a network of bases that look more like picket-fenced American suburbia than the frontier outposts for the global economy that they actually are. SIL even has its own air force and communications system, the Jungle Aviation and Radio Service (JAARS), which permits it to act virtually independently from the governments of the countries where it operates. After years of research, Colby and Dennett found a number of irrefutable links between SIL and US counterinsurgency operations. Among these, SIL agressively denied that the native peoples of Brazil and Guatemala were being slaughtered by the military regimes of their countries; it allowed its base in the Ecuadoran Amazon to be used by Green Berets who were combing the Western Amazon for signs of armed insurgency; and it assisted the Peruvian air force, which had napalmed the Mayoruna and Campa Indians.

If Colby and Dennett had limited themselves to just exposing SIL, Thy Will be Done would still have been a formidable journalistic achievement. But the authors went on to research the American institutions, private and governmental, that provided support for SIL's mission. These included Standard Oil of New Jersey; the Pew family, creators of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the US Agency for International Development, and the US military through its donations of surplus military equipment. Although they could find no smoking gun directly linking the CIA to SIL, they did find several circumstantial and indirect links, such as financial support from a foundation that was later exposed as a CIA front and the fact that JAARS's top pilot, Lawrence Montgomery, was on the >Agency's payroll.

In the course of their investigation, the authors learned that SIL had a big debt to institutions and individuals associated with the Rockefeller family. SIL founder William Cameron (Cam) Townsend was inspired by the antihookworm and antimalaria campaigns of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, and his linguistics methods owed much to the work of linguist Edward Sapir of the University of Chicago, an institution that was also supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Another influence on Townsend was Mexican anthropologist Manuel Gameo, whose interdisciplinary studies on native peoples were sponsored by the University of Chicago, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund and the Social Science Research Council. The last two were run by Beardsley Ruml, a member of the inner circle of the Rockefeller family. One thinker who had a great influence on Townsend's approach to native cultures was John Mott, one of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s most trusted envoys. Mott was a millenarian who hoped to evangelize the world in his generation, but rather than embracing fundamentalism, he rejected it in favor of a broad-minded science-based approach. In a report he co-authored in 1932 called Rethinking Missions, Mott called for more cultural tolerance and social concern on the part of missionaries working abroad and less reliance on vociferous evangelical proselytizing. Such an approach, he argued, would win more converts in the long run and neutralize the nationalistic and communist revolts then brewing in what years later would come to be called the Third World.

The authors follow Nelson Rockefeller's consuming interest in Latin America: his days in Venezuela working for Standard Oil subsidiary Creole Petroleum, where he developed his concepts of corporate social responsibility; his tenure as coordinator of the CIAA; his brief stint as Assistant Secretary of State, in which he was a key behind-the-scenes player in the international negotiations that led to the founding of the United Nations and the Organization of American States; his formation of IBEC, his service to the Eisenhower administration as special assistant for cold war strategy, a position in which he was briefed on top secret CIA operations, including coup d'etats and the infamous MKULTRA mind control experiments, his membership in president Nixon's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board at a time when the CIA was destabilizing Salvador Allende's democratic socialist government in Chile, and much more.

Of special interest to Colby and Dennett were a series of by-invitation-only seminars hosted by Nelson under the sponsorship of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) in Quantico naval base during the Eisenhower administration. The Quantico seminars, known officially as the RBF Special Studies Project, advocated increased military spending and a more confrontational policy towards the Soviet Union. The participants included men who would later become instrumental in developing the Kennedy administration's counterinsurgency doctrine, such as Eugene Rostow, Edward Lansdale, Paul Nitze, Adolf Berle, McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow, Henry Kissinger and Dean Rusk (who was then president of the Rockefeller Foundation and would become Kennedy's Secretary of State).

The book only skims through Nelson's deeds as governor of New York, although it does mention his ignominious performance during the Attica prison uprising. Colby and Dennett focus instead on his presidential ambitions, which came to a climax with his botched attempt to beat Barry Goldwater to the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, and his international activities, such as his disastrous 1969 tour of the Americas. Nelson's crowning political achievement was getting appointed to the vice presidency of the United States in 1974. Unelected Vice President Rockefeller was then called on by unelected President Ford to chair a commission to investigate CIA abuses. As the authors point out, no one could have been less qualified for that last job.

Those who may feel tempted to dismiss Thy Will be Done's conclusions as conspiracy theory will have a hell of a time trying to refute the book's arguments and conclusions. The 830 pages of text, 92 pages of footnotes and bibliography and dozens of charts, graphs, photographs and maps eloquently document and support every single charge made by the authors. It is precisely in order to placate the skeptics that Colby and Dennett adopted this mindbogglingly exhaustive approach. In spite of this, the book is amazingly readable and does not come across as stuffy and academic.

Those who read books on American foreign policy in search of titillating revelations of sensational CIA covert operations while neglecting to study the social, political and historical context in which they are embedded will find this book a difficult, even annoying, read. Conspiracy buffs may have an encyclopedic knowledge of CIA intrigues and scandals, but they're not interested at all in doing the hard intellectual work of learning about the nature of the system of corporate profit and exploitation which intelligence agencies were created to serve. They will undoubtedly be frustrated by the book's scholarly dose of anthropology, linguistics and history, and will probably skim through the pages in search of startling revelations of covert intrigue and secret wars. The authors' implicit message to the self-proclaimed conspiracy researchers is clear: that all the muckraking investigative journalism in the world will not bring about social change if it is not accompanied by a critical analysis of the economic, political and historical context of the times we're living.

Upon a superficial examination, one would tend to think that the book will appeal to the Bible-thumping, right-wing populists of the John Birch fringe who despise the Rockefellers. This band of the American political spectrum, which has been known to publicize bizarre allegations of a Rockefeller--orchestrated plot to create a socialist world government, will be baffled and perplexed by one of Thy Will be Done's chief conclusions: that they've been had. According to Colby and Dennett, far from being a threat to the Machiavellian power of the Rockefellers, the Christian fundamentalists were extremely useful in furthering the global designs of the heirs of the Standard Oil fortune.

On the other hand, left-leaning liberals will find the book's conclusions even harder to swallow, since the Rockefeller philanthropies (which include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund) are among the main funding sources of liberal political activism in the US, including civil liberties, feminism and the environmental movement. Beneficiaries of Rockefeller charitable giving in recent years have included groups like Essential Information, the ACLU, the Ms. Foundation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Environmental Action, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, the Center for Responsive Politics, the NAACP who are much more likely to say, "Wait, you're being a little unbalanced. Sure, they've done terrible things in the past, but they're funding some really terrific stuff nowadays." As much as one may try to rationalize the embarassing predicament of taking money from the ultra-rich to finance social change, the question remains: What are the prospects for an American progressive agenda when it is heavily dependent on funding from a philanthropic system that owes its fortune to commercial activities that destroy ecosystems worldwide, erode biological diversity and create a holocaust for indigenous peoples? Colby and Dennett do not pose that question to readers, but it will certainly hover ominously over the mind of any American reader whose political beliefs are at least five degrees to the left of National Public Radio or The New Republic.

Thy Will be Done is a very challenging and deeply disturbing book. Although much lip service has been paid to the concept of holistic thinking, Colby and Dennett do actually put together the pieces of the macabre puzzle of the destruction of the Amazon rain-forest and the genocide of its indigenous dwellers and reach conclusions that are unsettling for conservatives and liberals alike. All or most environmentalists agree that the destruction of the Amazon rainforest can't be seen as separate from a host of social, political and economic factors in South America as well as in industrialized countries like the US, but it takes nothing less than a book like Thy Will be Done to show what this actually means.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests