|
Edited on Fri Aug-19-05 10:19 AM by 1932
John Perkiins says that there are three stages to American foreign policy: (1) The E(c.)H(it)M(en) convince a foreign leader to accept US loans (which just go to American construction companies), which puts the country into debt, on which they default, which then causes the US to demand their collateral, which is usually land that gets sold to oil companies and the right to the country's votes in the UN; (2) if they don't take the loans, the US sends in (or allows to be sent in, without interference) the jackals, who are assassins and people who sabotage democratic elections; and (3) if the jackals don't succeed, we send in the miliary.
He says Afghanistan and Iraq are places where the EHM and the jackals didn't succeed so we sent in the military. He says that Venezuela is a place where the EHM and Jackals haven't succeded.
Other interesting tidbits:
Just after he finished his Peace Corp committment in Ecuador, he was told by "Uncle Frank" in the NSA that his skills would be valuable becuase there is plenty of oil in South America and since Vietnam didn't work out, we'd be looking to control it down there. (In other words, Vietnam was a war for oil and the US does a great deal to make oil companies rich in its drive to control the fuel of economic development).
He says that America has built an empire without armies but with men in suits (the EHM) and that empires never end up well.
He says there's no global conspiracy of the corporatorcracy. He says that they don't need to collaborate to plot out their greedy plans. He said that we live in a society with messed up values (accumulated power and wealth is good even if it impoverishes a great number of people) and those values are the substitue for guys getting together in a room somewhere to decide what to destroy next.
He also said something that reminded me of a Fox News story the other day. Perkins says that our culture and the media never question American policy because the primary goal is to convince people to consume.
Fox was spinning a report that wealth doesn't make people happy but inequality makes people miserable. Fox interpreted this two ways (1) you don't want to be rich (let the ultra-rich have their money, and people who work should be complacent with their relative lack of wealth because, so the spin goes, individually rising your economic power to meet the power of the most powerful won't make you happier) and (2) you'll be happy if you consume as much as your neighbors.
That was amazing spin.
By reporting on a study that said that extreme disparities in wealth are bad for society (which was something that FDR knew and addressed) Fox (1) inculcated a sense that people shouldn't care about incredible wealth disparity (by speaking of individual wealth rather than collective improvements in wealth), and (2) convinced people that consumption could make you happy if it means you're keeping up with the joneses.
Slick. John Perkins is right about the media.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
