Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies

TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI Al-Jazeera English [Qatar state media  / indirect funding also from Thani ruling family via third entity] Julian Assange on the Panama Papers [skip Al-Jazeera introduction] What kind of person would reveal those secrets & why? 1:24 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Assuming they were an insider, or they were an individual computer hacker coming from the outside, this a technical person.  Or this person had help from a technical person.  I think it's likely that this represents radicalisation of a technical class.  That's something that we've seen, for example, with Snowden. So these are usually young men, who are technically educated, know how to extract material.  But, of course, they have to have the idea and the idea is given to them by successful examples and now there have been a range of successful examples. Al-Jazeera Interviewer It's also to do with hardware, though, isn't it.  Because back in 2010, most journalists at most news organisations wouldn't have had a clue about encryption. Back in 2013 when Snowden came out, most Guardian journalists he was dealing with, he had to school on encryption.  Now so many news outlets are providing these boxes, these (for lack of a better term) 'safe havens' for data, that five years ago only organisations like yours and a few others did.  That's a big change, as well, isn't it? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Well, I don't believe that  Sueddeutsche [Sueddeutsche Zeitung] got their material that way.  However, their journalists have been educated in the technology. But it's no surprise that it was a German newspaper, because Germany is the centre of technical education of journalists and is also the centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class.  Both of those two things combined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The head of the ICIJ said ICIJ, the consortium, has no plans to release the full data set.  He said:  "We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly." Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Yeah, that's a concern.  So we're very pleased about the work that SZ -- Sueddeutsche Zeitung -- did in beginning and developing that source.  We think that's really good work.  The work of the source, of course, is the most impressive and then pulling together that collaboration is also impressive work. Saying that you're going to censor and not release a lot of the material -- in fact, what must be 99% of the material -- that's a big problem. It's fine to have some kind of staggered release because you want to balance the supply and demand curve. But what I want to hear is that there is a path -- a transparent path -- to publishing the vast majority of that data set, because that's what's interesting from a legal perspective, from a historical perspective. One of the fundamental missed lessons from the WikiLeaks experience is about how to deal with scale.  OK, one part of dealing with scale is stitch together a big international collaboration:  get more bodies, more eyeballs on the material.  The other way to deal with scale is that scale is inherent in the material:  when you've got millions of documents, you need to make millions of documents available [and] citable, so it's not just a few hundred journalists, it's all the lawyers in the world, it's all the police in the world. Al-Jazeera Interviewer As someone who pretty much wrote the book on multimedia outlet collaborations, you knew that this stuff was coming. When you saw the first wave -- the first two or three days of reporting  -- what stood out for you and what did you not see that you thought you would in the reporting? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks We've been covering the offshore sector for a long time, since 2007.  In fact, WikiLeaks has used the offshore sector for protection from banking blockades, so we even had to research it for our own purposes. But in terms of the initial angling of the story, that can be a bit strange.  There was clearly a conscious effort to go with the Putin-bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions-bashing etc. For some reason, some papers, like The Guardian thought that was necessary. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Have we seen any other examples in the parochial reporting media outlets from various countries doing what The Guardian appears to have done, which is point at a distant target while not paying as much attention, proportionally speaking, to a domestic target much closer to home? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Sure, that was done in Sweden with SVT -- the Swedish state TV -- beating up on Iceland. Iceland's a small Scandinavian neighbour, sort of a -- you know, viewed as quite provincial and fun to beat up on.  But the Swedish trusts were not really examined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Am I the only one who's surprised that more than 100 news organisations can get involved with a story like this and somehow, in an industry that is famous for rumour-mongering and incurable gossip, they managed to keep a lid on the whole story until it came out. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks I think it is interesting.  We knew. We know other people in other news organisations who knew, but who didn't say anything. I think because no-one knows of the law-firm concerned [Mossack Fonseca]; it doesn't have name recognition. Then the individual details are -- they're quite technical.  You can't tweet this story.  You can't spill the beans with just a small comment.  So I think there just wasn't the market to do it.  It could also be that so many news organisations were involved, so they had incentives to not report. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The item that strikes me about this is that we're sitting in an embassy in London that you are not free to leave, and a lot of politicians -- primarily in the United States, but also elsewhere -- when the leaks came out in 2010, they turned you into the embodiment of the problem and, in a way, it kind of reminds me of that Napster story, the free music service that the music industry went after in a big way, destroyed in a court of law and woke up the next morning and found out that Napster wasn't their problem:  that technology was their problem.   There is no music industry per se, compared to what there was before today, and I'm wondering if you feel like that now would be a good time to point out that you weren't necessarily their problem.  Their problem is the technology and you can't lock that up in an embassy in west London. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Look, WikiLeaks set an example and the example was the threat, and the example was a threat because the technology, over time, became more available to other people who could then follow the example. Looking forward as to how I think the Panama Papers will go, it's going to be hard to go forward without a bulk publishing effort.  There's just not the mass to deal with the reliance that the establishment of the UK, United States and, in fact, most countries have in the offshore sector. Now, what you have in practice at the moment is basically a two-tiered tax system, where the middle class and the working poor pay income tax and the wealthy essentially don't pay anything. That's a question about the structure of society, and that big picture is not being engaged with in the journalism that it has done.  It is 'Oh, North Korea', 'Oh, Russia', 'Oh, sanctions breaking', 'Oh, --' maybe someone dodging inheritance tax a little bit.  But there is a big picture here as well.  Al-Jazeera Interviewer Stories that we can put a face on.  They like to do the stories that they can put a face on. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Stories and scandals that you can put a face on can be good for marketing reasons, but what are you marketing in the end? What WikiLeaks does and what I believe should have been done with this story is that the scandals are there to MARKET THE ARCHIVE, because the ARCHIVE that has the SCALE that can deal with the problem. -- end audio:  9:12 --    SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI PRIME REASON NOT TO LEAK TO HAMSTRUNG MAINSTREAM PRESS TRADE SECRETS LAWS - USED TO SILENCE PUBLISHERS TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM [where audio unclear gaps left ] Male Because of the activity of WikiLeaks -- [cuts to] 0:04 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks The question is, how much can a cashed up oligarch or company tax people who engage in publishing material about it, by abusing the process, grabbing onto hooks like trade secret law, to force publishers (and in this case service providers and individuals), into very expensive litigation. The experience from the United States has been a disastrous one. Trade secrets law is used to create taxes on publishers who publish quotes, say, from internal e-mails -- like we've seen ... with the Panama Papers. Now, the situation, however, is already bad here in Europe. One of our partner publications, Deutsche [Süddeutsche ?] Zeitungen in Germany (SZ), who was the principal who got hold of the Panama Papers, who developed that source.  How many did they publish? How many Panama Papers did they publish, the principal indy organisation involved?  Zero. They have published zero.  They have published an occasional quote, but they have released zero Panama Papers. So, why is that?  Because of fears of litigation risk. Already we are at the stage, where a fairly strong mainstream press organisation in Germany that is willing at least to take on some of the stories coming from ... feels it's not in a position to be able to publish a single document. Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM Translation "... scandal machinery starts against all enemies of the West from Russia via North Korea to Syria reveals a view of the parties. Both criticized for state near NDR [Norddeutscher Rundfunk / North German Broadcasting], and strictly pro-American media are involved."  "Also interesting are the donors. CPI and ICIJ with which the SZ cooperated for research, "financed by donations, more recently, among other foundations from Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and the US, including the Ford Foundation, the Adessium Foundation, founded by George Soros Open Society Foundation; also. "it says on the by the Pulitzer Center of Crisis Reporting"" http://www.neopresse.com/medien/die-anti-russland-kampagne-hinter-panama-papers/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ EXTRACT Questions must be asked of the tactics of the ICIJ, and indeed, their backers. The organisation, which describes itself as “a global network of more than 190 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories” lists as some of its recent financial funders: Adessium Foundation Funds big green, as well as financial industry lobbyists, often in partnership with the George Soros-backed Open Society initiatives or foundations. The group also supports the EUObserver website, which dedicates itself to non-biased European Union reporting, though receives 64 per cent of its funding from predominantly pro-EU foundations. Open Society Foundations Chaired by Hungarian-American billionaire and Hillary Clinton donor George Soros, the Open Society Foundations back hundreds of pro open borders, mass immigration groups across the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Mr. Soros is a known rival of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and has recently written about how Mr. Putin is a “greater threat” to the West than Islamic State. The Sigrid Rausing Trust The Sigrid Rausing Trust, similarly to the Open Society Foundations, backs open borders and pro mass migration groups across the United Kingdom, and funds anti-Israel groups in the Middle East. The organisation funds “No Borders” in Ukraine, “Reprieve” in the UK – which defends Guantanamo Bay detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the radical left group “Southall Black Sisters” in Britain.   Graeme Wood An Australian billionaire who has bankrolled anti coal projects in his home country, as well as supporting the Guardian website – which critics have highlighted the hypocrisy of for their own offshore tax set up. Mr. Wood was responsible for Australia’s “biggest ever political donation of $1.6 million in 2010 to the Greens” and funded the failed Global Mail news website. The Ford Foundation The Ford Foundation is one of the largest funders on the political left, giving out over $560 million just in 2013. The Ford Foundation has funded everything from Sesame Street to the radical TV show Democracy Now. [funding] ... dozens of far left groups with agendas ranging from environmentalism to abortion, the Ford Foundation is one of the premier funders of the open borders movement, beginning with its 1968 grant to create the group MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, as helping to create the group National Council of La Raza. MALDEF and La Raza have become to the most influential groups in the US open borders movement. The Ford foundation is also been a significant funder for the ACLU and the National Lawyers guild, both key legal players in the fight for open borders. Additionally, the Ford Foundation laid the intellectual groundwork for the modern open borders movement and its multiculturalist agenda with a series of grants in the 60s and 70s that created Women’s Studies and Black Studies programs at major universities across America. In a 1992 conference that Ford sponsored called “Cultural Diversity Enhancement” the closing speaker was Eve Grossman, a Princeton dean, who made the agenda very clear: “If we want to change the world, we have to change the students.” Pew Charitable Trust Like like The Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust is a major funder of a wide range of left-wing groups with focuses on arts and culture, environmental issues as well as public research opinion polling through the Pew Research group. In 2014 alone, Pew gave out over $110 million in grants. A quick look at the Pew Charitable Trust’s website includes a number of helpful articles if you’re an illegal alien and you’d like to drive, such as the recent pop quiz Do You Know the Facts About Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants? and Alternative Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants. David and Lucile Packard Foundation Another heavy hitter in the world of left-wing grant writing, the Packard Foundation gave out nearly $300 million in 2013 along. Aside from funding institutional left groups like Human Rights Watch, The Center for Reproductive Rights, And the Environmental Working Group, Packard is also funded open borders groups such as National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Law Center, and the ACLU. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT   Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies Germany as the 'centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class' I cannot buy ... unless we're talking pussy, SJW, US-Anglo oligarchy serving and new world capitalist oligarchy order nation-destroying, liberalism agenda furthering, 'radicalism'. This 'responsible' journalism refrain is one we've heard before, with the Snowden 'leaks,' amounting to pious proclamations about journalistic 'responsibility', affirmation of the wonders of what's referred to as 'democracy' (ie rule by oligarchy), and ... the withholding of  99% of the information supposedly 'leaked'.  Some 'democracy' and some 'leak' that is. Corporate journalism, government & oligarchy sponsored 'liberty' promoting NGOs, & journalistic 'responsibility' trumpeting figures and ruling establishment sponsored journalistic 'responsibility' advocating NGOs (withholding information), aren't compatible with challenging the system that is also sponsor.  What they're good for is promoting the agenda of the ruling capitalist order, and an order with an eye for dominating the 'global market' capitalist world trade monopoly they seek to establish, the manifestation of which depends on an agenda that is bent on destroying European societies. We're never going to see the bulk of this 'leaked' material, let alone have access to material in full, because these aren't genuine leaks or genuine actors, in my opinion. The leaks are likely intended to damage or eliminate those that stand in the way of establishing global capitalist trade monopoly, which depends on the existence a unipolar US-led world order -- an order pursed by the US oligarchy serving American state that is designer and nurturer of this capitalist agenda, since at least the end of WWII (if not earlier). Oops, I think WikiLeaks is taking the Panama Papers seriously? LEAKER BEWARE I think the moral of this story is:  don't leak to mainstream media.  On the one hand, you have the corporate press that has its benefactors' and government's agenda dictating and restricting output. On the other hand, it looks as though you also have mainstream 'independent' media, but this platform is unable to publish as it is legally hamstrung, in the face of risk of exposure to costly litigation. *I'm still not convinced.  LOL

Naomi Klein 'The Shock Doctrine' - El Modelo is Finito & Neo-Liberalism Sucks

Transcript: [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] [transcript directly below via Big Think channel YouTube - LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY Naomi Klein on Global Neoliberalism Published on 23 Apr 2012 Naomi Klein on the end of "El Modelo" Question: Why did you write The Shock Doctrine? Naomi Klein: It came out of reporting that I was doing in Iraq after the invasion the first year of occupation. But I guess it dates back earlier than that. I happen to have been in Argentina making a documentary film when the war in Iraq began. And it was a really amazing time to be in Latin America. This was 2002, 2003. And this was, I guess, the beginning of what we now think of as this pink tide that has swept Latin America. But it was a moment in Latin American history -- certainly a moment in Argentinian history -- where the economic model that Latin Americans call neo-Liberalism, Americans call the free market. But these policies of privatization; free trade . . . the so-called free trade deregulation in the interest of corporations; deep cuts to social spending; healthcare and education cuts; things like that, in Argentina they actually just call this "el modelo" -- the model. Everybody knows what the model is. It's the so-called Washington Consensus. It's the policies that have been imposed on Latin America first through military dictatorships, then as conditions attached to loans that were needed during economic crises . . . the so-called "debt crisis" of the 1980s. When I was in Argentina the model was collapsing, and Argentinians overthrew five presidents in three weeks. So it was this moment of incredible tumult and political excitement because people were trying to figure out what would come next. But it went beyond Argentina. In Bolivia they hadn't yet elected Evo Morales, but they had these huge protests against water privatization. And Bechtel had just been thrown out of Bolivia. And in Brazil they had just elected Lula. And of course Chavez was already in power in Venezuela, but he had successfully overcome a coup attempt. He had been brought back to power. So there were all of these things going on in Latin America that were all connected in this rejection of this economic model. So to be in Latin America when the invasion of Iraq began was a really unique vantage point from which to watch the war. I'm very grateful to have had that experience to have been able to watch that through the eyes of my Latin American friends who saw the war so differently from . . . from the way it was seen, I think, by so many of us in North America. They saw a real connection between their rejection of these economic policies and the fact that the same economic program was being imposed in Iraq through tremendous violence. And you really saw and felt those connections in Latin America. You know Bechtel just thrown out of Bolivia suddenly shows up in Baghdad with the exclusive contract to rebuild their water system. And what it felt like was that . . . was that there was a change going on; that this model that had been imposed coercively though peacefully through the International Monetary Fund, through the World Bank, through the World Trade Organization -- that that wasn't working anymore. People were rejecting it that the legacy of these policies . . . the legacy of inequality was so dramatic that the sales pitch of "Just wait for the trickledown" wasn't working anymore. And so now there was this new phase. And it wasn't even asking, and it wasn't negotiating. It was just imposing through raw violence. And that's where I came up with the thesis for the book, which is we have entered this new phase that I'm calling "disaster capitalism"; or The Shock Doctrine using a shock -- in this case the shock and awe invasion of Iraq -- to impose what economists call "economic shock therapy". So I think it was . . . It was definitely that experience of seeing it from Latin America -- a continent in revolt against these policies -- that made it easier to identify this as a new phase. And once I identified that I started to see these patterns recurring. After the Asian tsunami there was a very similar push to use the shock of that natural disaster to push through, once again, these same policies. Water privatization, electricity privatization, labor market [flexibilisation]..., displacing poor people on the coasts with hotel developers. So a sort of social re-engineering of societies in the interest of corporations, which I think is what we've been doing under the banner of free trade. But now it's under the banner of post-disaster reconstruction. [above transcript, via Big Think channel YouTube - LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY -------/\/\/ Continued: Further (DIY) transcript beginning at 4:48 [of 14:24]  [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] 4:47 - Is shock necessary for imposing neo-liberal economic policies? Naomi Klein Well, if we look at the history of the advancement of this really quite radical economic model of privatising key state assets, deep cuts to these key social spending areas that people tend to protect, like healthcare and eduction, or these reform to labour laws that take away protections, take away pensions, take away the safety net. What we know is that when politicians try to do this during normal circumstances, people tend to organise and resist, because they like their healthcare systems and they actually like, you know, having labour protections. So the use of crisis for political ends has been a part of the advancement of this ideology in many lesser ways. You know, in my country -- in Canada -- we have a public healthcare system, we have a pretty strong social safety net. This is really how we distinguish ourselves from the United States. We lost a lot of these protections in the mid-1990s.  Not because the Canadians wanted to.  In fact they had just elected a Liberal government that ran on the platform slogan "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."  But we ended up getting an austerity budget with deep cuts to a lot of the social protections because there was a debt crisis.  That's another kind of a shock, and it was really hyped in the media.  If we think back, it's true in the United States, as well, this endless rhetoric that, you know, our countries are going to go bankrupt unless we do deep, deep, welfare reform or reform of unemployment insurance. So, what I do in The Shock Doctrine is that I take another look at 35 years of history in which this economic model has swept the globe, from former Eastern bloc countries, China, Latin America, Africa, and North America.  And I look at how crisis -- various different kinds of crises have facilitated the advancement of this ideology -- have prepared the ground. What I'm arguing in the book is that the shocks are getting bigger, that a debt crisis no longer does the trick, that a hyperinflation crisis isn't enough to disorient a whole society ... or convince them to accept their bitter medicine; that there needs to be something more disorienting and, so, what we are seeing now is that bigger shocks are being harnessed. But I do believe that crisis is required to rationalise policies that would be rejected under normal circumstances. It's not a secret that people do protect those policies that make their lives easier. 7:34 How do you reconcile this with China & India's development? Naomi Klein: My argument is not that no-one benefits. My argument is that the legacy of this economic system is tremendous inequality. It's an opening up of a gap -- a gaping gap -- between the haves and the have nots. And that's certainly the case in China.  That's certainly the case in India.  And in both countries, you have governments that have identified inequality as their greatest political challenges to, what the Chinese call, 'social stability'; because when you have such a dramatic gap between a peasant still living on $1 a day and the super rich, who are part of the Davos stratosphere, it creates a tremendous amount of resentment and instability within a country.  So, in China, they're seeing unprecedented levels of protest for this era, that had 87,000 [comment:  what?  error?  that's abt. 280 a day] protests a year ... starting in 2005 and the number of protests have been going up and up, which has required more and more surveillance, more and more repression, particularly in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, a lot of concern about this instability. So, I think the difficulty, really, about this economic model of free trade is generalising the idea that you can just talk about 'Is it good for China?' or 'Is it good for India?' It's definitely --  it's good for a lot of people in India, it's good for a lot of people in China. It's brutal for a lot of people in both of those countries, because part of these policies require displacement in the name of mega-projects, in the name of building a new export processing zone. So a huge part of this economic model requires displacing millions of people from where they live. So then they become migrants.   Where do they go?  Well, they go to the cities first and move to the slums. And, so, the flip side of this economic model of the sort of dazzling version where the world is flat is the explosion of slum dwellers, with the projections that one in three people in the world will be living in slums within the next decade. So, you really can't make these generalisations.  And that's what we know from having lived with these economic policies now for some three decades.  I think in the early stages of this economic transformation, it was possible to just use the language of 'GDP', you know, 'growth' is going to 'trickle-down', and all the promises that were a part of the first phase of this expansion.  But now you have all these parts of the world that have actually tried it.  Right? And the legacy in Latin America is this legacy of following the rules. In countries like Argentina, which were held up as the model students of the 1990s -- the model students of the International Monetary Fund --  and then so much inequality, so much capital flight, that 60% of the population fell into poverty. So that's why the model's in crisis:  the model's in crisis because people have a track record and they can measure the rhetoric against the reality. 10:59 - What system works? Naomi Klein: I think that mixed economies work better than a fundamentalist market system. I'm not a utopian and I don't believe it's perfect:  there's still going to be violence, there's still going to be repression, there's still going to be poor people -- but acceptable to UN measures of standard of living. What we see is that countries which have a mixed economy -- ie have markets, so that people are able to go shopping, so I'm not talking about a totalitarian Communist state -- but also have social protections that identify areas that are too important to leave to the market, whether it's education, healthcare -- the minimal standards of life that everybody must have. There are countries that really commit themselves to that vision of a mixed economy. The Scandinavian countries are the obvious example. Canada, before this restructuring that I'm referring to, in the 1990s was another. But it's certainly, in comparison to the United States and Britain, it continues to be. Germany as well, before their transformation.  I mean, by UN rankings, these are the best countries in the world to live in. And the countries that are trying to resist liberalism -- this economic model -- are being vilified as tyrannical, Communist and all the ways that Hugo Chavez is being vilified right now in the United States.  If you actually look what the economic program is, it's pretty Keynesian.  And it's really just a recovering of some of these principles that the state can have a role in the redistribution of wealth. And these ideas are treated as very radical, when they're coming from poorer countries that have traditionally played an economic role of straight extraction ... they've just straight supplied, whether raw resources, labour.  And that's a very profitable relationship for a North American and European multinational, so when those countries challenge that and say, "Actually, we'd like an economic system more like yours," right, then there's tremendous push-back. But, historically, if we follow the US military coups -- the CIA backed coups, starting with Mosaddegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala -- you have this pattern of presenting developing world leaders as much more radical than they actually are. Mosaddegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala (these were the first two CIA coups in 1953 and 1954):  they were economic nationalists who were trying to build mixed economies and their attempts to build those mixed economies stepped on the toes of some powerful multinationals. In the case of Mosaddegh, it was BP, and in the case of Arbenz, it was the United Fruit Company. That is actually what led to the blow-back. -- 14:15 - end audio -- -------/\/\/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat Bechtel Bechtel Corporation -- largest construction and civil engineering company in USA -- ranking as 4th-largest privately owned company in USA -- HQ, San Francisco -- f. 1898, Warren A. Bechtel, construction of railroads w. team of mules -- series of railroad contracts during the early 1900s -- incorporated 1925, as leading construction company Western USA -- worked w/ California Standard Oil Company building pipelines & refineries -- 1931 - joined consortium contractors Hoover Dam - won bid. -- Warren Bechtel died unexpectedly in Moscow on business 1933. -- Hoover dam was finished 1935, Bechtel's first megaproject -- got rich building WWII x60 cargo ships with no prior cargo experience -- worked pipeline Yukon to Alaska for US Dept. of War -- expanded abroad; turnkey projects (concept pioneered by Stephen Bechtel -- 1940 Venezuela Mene Grande pipeline - first project abroad -- 1947 - Trans-Arabian Pipeline, Saudi Arabia + Jordan + Syria, ending Lebanon -- expansion 1940s Middle East -- 1949 - working w. nuclear power:  Experimental Breeder Reactor I Idaho -- built Dresden Generation Station, first commercial nuke for Illinois 1957 -- Trans Mountain Pipeline in 1952 (Canada) -- preliminary study for the English Channel (1957) -- Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system (1959) -- 1960s & 1970s, Bechtel involved in constructing 40% USA nuke plants -- 1972 - Bechtel involved in abt. 20% of all US new power-generating capacity -- by end 1970s moved from nukes construction to nukes clean-up projects -- clean-ups incl. Three Mile Island 1979 -- built the Ankara-Gerede Motorway in Turkey (part network of roads Europe & Turkey) -- project management:  undersea tunnel linking the UK and France (Channel Tunnel) -- recession 1980 ->> goes environmental clean-up + alternative energy projects -- Gulf war, Bechtel - extinguishing oil well fires in Kuwait in 1991 -- part of rebuild the infrastructure of Kuwait -- numerous other big projects abroad -- Bolivia:   2000, after a protest against water prices being raised by Bechtel owned co. -- Bechtel owned company pulls out of Bolivia & sues for $25 million in losses -- settled claim 2006 for $0.30 GOOD LUCK DOING THAT UNDER THE AMERICAN FREE TRADE CORPORATE SLAVE GIVE UP NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AGREEMENTS - NO CHANCE -- 2003, Bechtel won a $680 million contract -- rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq for U.S. Agency for International Development WHAT A RORT -- ILLEGALLY DESTROY THE COUNTRY & THEN GIVE U.S. COMPANIES CONTRACTS TO REBUILD     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT This was a random video selection. Deregulated trade sounds:  crap. Just as I thought, everyone will be in slums. Why don't governments make the bulk of capital non-transferrable, to prevent companies starving the poor when they decide they've had enough of bleeding one location, in preference for bleeding another for greater profit?   India and China are creating a massive gap between the wealthy and poor, and they're supposed to be socialists of some kind.  That's just not right.  Everyone should suffer equally.  ;)  No, I mean it.  :) America's a complete write-off and an appalling disgrace.  It's oligarchs' paradise with no safety nets and no anything, but modern-day slavery at an Amazon warehouse.   Nations that enslave their populations have no right to lecture the world on human rights, democracy, freedom, women's rights or whatever else these oligarch-serving politicians and their oligarch-funded NGO echo-chambers use as pretexts to open new slave markets abroad. The US masses are beyond help.  It must be some amazing kind of brainwashing that has kept the masses down, self-flagellating ... wearing a 'kick me' sign, begging to remain oligarch-enslaved.  That's quite an education and media indoctrination achievement.  Wow.  I'm impressed. I've not read Klein's book.  I'm just ranting whatever comes to mind. Once the US free trade agreements are signed up, we're all f*cked ... and we can look forward to living in slums.

Noam Chomsky: What Is Globalisation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME TRANSCRIPT [for quotations, confirm audio] SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME Noam Chomsky:  What Is Globalization? *needs proof-reading -------/\/\/   Noam Chomsky: Actually, the best definition that I know, if I can remember, is by a well-known Canadian development economist, Gerry Helleiner, who tried to summarise it in a little ditty, which went something like this (don't hold me to the exact words).  He said: The poor complain They always do But that's just idle chatter Our system brings rewards to all At least, to all who matter [Laughter] Essentially, that captures it.  OK, I can go home. [Laughter] Whenever I say 'globalisation', I mean in quotes:  now, what's called 'globalisation' is one specific modality of international integration. There's nothing wrong with international integration.  That's a great thing. It's nice to meet people from other countries and all sorts of other things. But there are various forms of possible international integration, and the one that's called 'globalisation' is one particular one. Like, it's not the new international economic order that the South was calling for, and it's not the new global system that they're now calling for; it's a different one. This new one, the one that is called, [is] the official one:  you know, the one that Thomas Friedman writes laudatory books about, and so on. Among its other properties are that a country has to open up their borders to free imports, so they have to accept imports from a highly subsidised US, and Eurpean and Canadian, agribusiness which, of course, instantly wipes out domestic production for domestic needs and that means that poor farmers are starving. One thing they can do is flee to the cities, which has the nice effect that they create a massive labour force which lowers wages, and it means that US and European manufacturers, or by now Japanese and Korean manufacturers, who are putting say assembly plants or whatever abroad, can benefit from cheaper labour and, consequently, wages can go down and, in fact, do go down while the economy booms. Mexico's a dramatic case. But if farmers don't move to urban slums to become an excess labour force and try to produce something, it can't be commodities for the domestic market for food, because they will be wiped out by imported goods. So, once again, they become what's known as a 'rational peasant' in the technical literature. A 'rational peasant' is a peasant who understands that you have to produce for export and you have to seek the maximum profit. OK, so you sort of spell that out, produce for export, stable markets, maximum profit. Well, you get the same answer as before:  cocoa, poppies, and so on. And that's what's happening. So, the globalisation and, in particular, the undermining of the attempts of the South 30 years ago to create a form of globalisation directed toward the interests of the developing word -- that means almost the entire world -- one of the major consequences of this (and it's no big secret, you can read it in standard books of political economy and so on), was to greatly accelerate production of what we call 'drugs'. I mean, not the most lethal drugs.  The most lethal ones are produced in places like North Carolina. But what we call 'lethal drugs' here, peasants have been driven to it.  They have no choices. In part by the choice by the powerful states 30 years ago to institute a particular form of international economic integration --  what's called 'globalisation'  -- in preference to another one. One which would have, for example, as one of its properties among many others, things like stabilisation of primary commodity prices and what we call 'the neoliberal programs', like opening up your borders to imports from subsidised agri-export from northern agribusiness that has the same effect. There's a lot more like this. I mean, a lot of the -- what happens to the 'rational peasants', incidentally, after they've learned their lessons properly, you know, they are kind of like the equivalent of going to Harvard or MIT, or  Chicago Graduate School, and getting a degree in economics, so they become 'rational peasants'. Well, once they've learned the lesson, they're rewarded. They're rewarded with helicopter and gun ships that you and I pay for, with chemical and biological warfare and putting experimental new biological techniques of who knows what effect, by what's called here a 'drug war'. That's the reward for having learned the lessons, after having been essentially forced into a particular kind of production by the way globalisation works out. That's one of its less discussed features. Going back to the declaration of the south:  the poor are complaining as they always do. They're calling for globalisation, for international economic integration, but are calling for a form that will be on the right of development and, in particular, the right of independent development. It means no external compulsion. SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME -------/\/\/ Gerald Helleiner Professor Emeritus (ie. retired professor - fm. L. ēmerērī, to earn by service - TFD) Department of Economics Distinguished Research Fellow, Munk Centre for International Studies University of Toronto 1991 to 1999, Professor Helleiner: Research Director of:  Group of 24 (ie deveoping countries' caucus at IMF & World Bank) http://www.policyinnovations.org/innovators/people/data/07382 *By 'south', I first assumed Chomsky is referring to South America.  But I think he might be referring to the south of the United States, being (presumably) the centre of American agribusiness and perhaps biotechnology, as well?  So it's this US economic sector that would be seeking globalisation (I think). Biotech Industry North Carolina -- abt. 600 bioscience companies that directly employ over 60,000 -- in addition to, 2,000 additional North Carolina industry support companies     http://directory.ncbiotech.org/ -- many world’s largest biotechnology & pharmaceutical facilities are located in North Carolina -- home to:  Bayer (biggest plasma-based factory in world) -- home to:  Wyeth (largest vaccine facility in world) -- home to:  Baxter (largest intravenous solutions facility); -- home to:  Biogen Idec (largest manufacturing biologics facility) -- 2005:  USA 1,415 biotechnology companies, total revenue:  $50.7 billion -- of these 329 publicly held, total market capitalisation $410 billion -- North Carolina:  $3 billion annual revenue -- aiming to build biotechnology workforce at 125,000 in $24 billion industry by 2023 -- global biotech generates $40 billion in sales & expected to grow to $120 billion -- possibly as at 2007 estimate (undated document) - copyright is at 2007    http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6255 Biotechnology use of biological substances to engineer or manufacture a product or substance use of living systems and organisms -- ie.  use of microorganisms to perform industrial or manufacturing processes applications:  eg. drugs, synthetic hormones, bulk foodstuffs, bioconversion of organic waste     http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biotechnology Thomas Friedman Thomas Loren Friedman b. Minnesota 1953 resides:   Bethesda, Maryland (with wife & family) Jewish:  5 day per week Hebrew school to Bar Mitzvah St Louis Park High School 1968 Israel visit + following high school summers, at kibbutz (Haifa) high school years feature:  celebration of Israel victory Six-Day-War University of Minnesota - 2 years Brandeis University, Mediterranean studies degree (1975) University of Oxford (St Antony's College) -- at Oxford, earns Master Philosophy in Middle Eastern Studies -- Thomas Friedman attended Oxford as:  Marshall Scholar     Oxford University - Oxford England     world's oldest surviving university     Marshall Scholarship     -- post graduate scholarship (USA) for any university in UK     -- along w. Fulbright Scholarship, only broadly available scholarship for UK study     -- considered prestigious scholarship     -- as at current dates:  to 40 from pool of 1,000 selected     -- scholarship was created by the Parliament of UK     -- on passing of:   Marshall Aid Commemoration Act (1953)     -- 'living gift' to USA re post WWII 'Recovery Plan' aka 'Marshall Plan'     --  living memorial to George Marshall     -- inspired by Rhodes Scholarship     -- as well as academic pursuits, aimed to provide insight into British way of life     -- plus strengthen 'Special Relationship' b/w USA & UK         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Scholarship       George Marshall     George Catlett Marshall, Jr.     USA - 1880-1959     scion of an old Virginia family (ie. descended)     Marshall was a Freemason:  by 1941 Grand Master District of Columbia     WWI mentor:  General John Joseph Pershing     -- Marshall posted to HQ of American Expeditionary Force     -- key planner of American ops re defeat Germans Western Front 1918     -- Perishing known for:  training and teaching modern, mechanized warfare             Marshall:     Chief of Staff USA under x2 USA presidents     Secretary of State  - Harry S. Truman     Secretary of Defence - Harry S. Truman     US Army Chief of Staff - WWII     Chief military adviser -  Franklin D. Roosevelt     -- hailed by Winston Churchill for:     -- leadership of the Allied victory in WWII     -- received Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for the Marshall Plan     -- but US State Dept. developed most of the Marshall Plan (for 'economic recovery')        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall         -- Thomas Friedman married into Bucksbaum family     wife daughter of:  Matthew Bucksbaum (d. 2013)     2011, Matthew Bucksbaum was worth an estimated US$1.2 billion     Matthew Bucksbaum - co-founder General Growth Properties (w. brothers)     formerly US Air Forces -- a cryptographer, New Guinea     BA Economics University of Iowa     family owned chain of x3 grocery stores     1945 borrow $1.2 million for first shopping centre Iowa - expanded into enclosed malls 1960s     own & manage shopping malls throughout USA     120 regional shopping malls in forty states     Revenue     US $3.02 billion     Net income US $994 million     family business struck financial probs. 2008     *value of family fortune SHRANK by 97% since Dec. 2007     2009 Chapter 11 bankruptcy:  largest real estate bankruptcy since 1980     "Unlike most Chapter 11 bankruptcies, existing General Growth stockholders were not wiped out upon the company's exit from bankruptcy" - creation of new company as spinoff: Howard Hughes Corp.     Hughes Corp assets include:  91km squared Las Vegas 'master-planned community, & other shopping centres.     2011-2012, General Growth spun off 30 mall properties into a public company, Rouse Properties, Inc     What?  So it looks like a bankruptcy that wasn't a bankruptcy?     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Growth_Properties     Thomas Friedman -- career as journalist: -- United Press International (London) after obtaining Masters at Oxford -- dispatched to Beirut -- lived Beirut 1979 to 1981 covering Lebanon Civil War -- 1981 - New York Times - redispatchd to Beirut at start 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon -- covered Sabra & Shatila massacre -- won Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting (shared w. anor from WaPo) -- shared win with David K. Shipler - George Polk Award, foreign reporting -- 1984 - New York Times, Jerusalem Bureau Chief to 1988 -- yet another Pulitzer re coverage:  First Palestinian Intifada -- book:  From Beirut to Jerusalem (1989 US National Book Award for Nonfiction) -- George HW Bush admin,  Secretary of State James Baker - covered by Thomas Friedman -- 1992 - election of Bill Clinton:  Friedman becomes White House correspondent for NYT -- 1994 - more on foreign policy & economics - op-ed page NYT as foreign affairs columnist 1995 -- 2002 Friedman gets Pulitzer Prize for Commentary:     -- his supposed clarity of vision on 'worldwide impact of the terrorist threat' -- 2002 - met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah & encouraged end of Arab-Israeli conflict -- sought normalisation of Arab-Israeli relations in exchange for return of refugees -- plus end to Israel territorial occupations -- Abdullah proposed:  Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit -- Freidman strong supporter:  Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit "Several days later, on September 11, all at once Saudi Arabia was transformed from a critic into an object of criticism. It emerged that 15 Saudis were involved in the terror attacks on the United States." "The following February, to soften the criticism, Abdullah invited columnist Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times to dine with him." "Friedman wrote that he took advantage of the opportunity to tell his host that in one of his recent columns, he had proposed that the 22 members of the Arab League, who were to convene for a summit in Beirut on March 27-28, should offer Israel, in return for its withdrawal to the June 4 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the establishment of full diplomatic and trade relations and the provision of security guarantees." Abdulllah:  "I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level." " " ...  prince had authorized [Thomas Friedman] to quote his words. President Bush welcomed the initiative. So did prime minister Ariel Sharon. He sent a message to Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, and to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, asking them to arrange a meeting between him and senior Saudis, either openly or in secret. At the end of February, Sharon offered to deliver a speech before the Arab League and present his conditions for peace. The Arab leaders rejected the idea on the grounds that it was just a maneuver to win recognition without giving anything in return. " Haaretz - March 6, 2007 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-arab-initiative-1.214741 GLOBALISATION Thomas Friedman -- 2004 visits Bangalore, India + Dalian, China. -- globalisation discussed as far back as 1999 (The Lexus & the Olive Tree) -- writes follow-up analysis:  The World is Flat (2005) -- argues:  countries must sacrifice degree of economic sovereignty to global institutions -- eg. capital markets + multinational corporations -- referred to as the 'golden straitjacket' -- capital markets = financial markets -- buy / sell:  long-term debt or equity-backed securities -- Friedman an advocate of globalisation -- concerned re lack of independence re US energy -- Saudi's described as 'pushers' (oil producers) to consumer 'addicts' -- pro US energy independence -- ensuing petrodollar depletion PLUS growing population of young -- will coerce authoritarian rulers out of Middle East -- Friedman sees this as best way to:  spread stability & modernisation in autocratic & theocratic region -- would supposedly ease world tensions caused by energy demand -- which is worsened by India and China as emerging economies -- opponents of free trade say:  Friedman does not consider purchasing power of domestic labour as key driver in economic output -- Friedman says when low-skill & low-wage jobs are exported to foreign countries -- advanced, higher-skilled jobs will be 'freed up' and made available for those displaced (by outsourcing) -- Friedman views American immigration laws as too restrictive & damaging to economic output CENSORSHIP Friedman called for the U.S. State Department to --  "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears" -- said the governmental speech-monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate violence -- ie should censor those Friedman considers 'excuse-makers' for terrorists (apologists) blaming third-party SERBIA During illegal 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia Friedman:  1999: "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation ... You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) labelled Freidman's remarks "war-mongering" and "crude race-hatred and war-crime agitation". Norman Solomon 2007, says:  "a tone of sadism could be discerned" in Friedman's article.     Solomon, anti-war campaigner     -- behind 14,000 person e-mail petition to govt of Ecuador     -- urging Ecuador to grant Julian Assange asylum     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Solomon IRAQ Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq: establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize. 2003 - Wall Street Journal article:  re lack of compliance w/ UNSC resolution re Iraq 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' Friedman later rebuked George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "hyping" the evidence Big on the 'converting Iraq to democracy' theme, which reminds me of the Goebbels propaganda swing lyrics: "Listen to the BBC, BBC, BBC, Listen to the BBC, tra-la-la-la, Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? Who wants to make free people free?" Friedman 2004:  dismisses the justification for war based on Iraq's lack of compliance with UN Resolutions --  "The right reason for this war ... was to oust Saddam's regime and partner with the Iraqi people ..." -- refers to Arab Human Development report -- claiming lack of freedom, women's empowerment & modern eduction cause of Arab ills -- Friedman's right reason for war was:  to partner with Arab moderates in long-term strategy of 'dehumiliation' and 'redignification'  "Listen to the BBC, BBC, BBC, Listen to the BBC, tra-la-la-la, Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? Who wants to make free people free?" ISRAEL --  according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians -- Glenn Greenwald and professor Noam Chomsky also accused Friedman of endorsing and encouraging terrorism by Israeli forces -- Belen Fernandez:  Friedman's suggestion Israeli forces unaware re allied Lebanese militias carrying out out Sabra and Shatila massacre while under Israeli guard, contradicts other journalist assessments & observers. -- Belen Fernandez: Friedman most worried about successfully maintaining Israel's Jewish ethnocracy and actively opposing a "one-man, one-vote" system of democracy. -- critics on Israel side as well - eg. re suggestion Israel relinquish territory conquered 1967 -- Friedman wrote congressional ovations re Bibi Netanyahu "bought & paid for by Israel lobby" - sparked criticism.  Friedman suggests a more precise term:  "engineered" by Israel lobby. + more entries [I'm getting bored] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman Arab Human Development Report sponsored by:  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) platform for 'Arab scholars' Democracy & human rights angle. Education system requires transformation. Report calls for the adoption of time-bound affirmative action - re women contends that this is:  imperative to dismantle structures of centuries of discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Human_Development_Report UNDP f. 1965 to help the economic and political aspects of underdeveloped countries 2013, UNDP’s budget - approximately 5 billion USD -- offices & staff are on ground in 177 countries --  links and coordinates global and national efforts re 'development priorities' of host countries --  supports national democratic transitions --  improving institutional capacity --  educating & advocating re democratic reforms --  facilitates consensus etc. re existing 'democratic institutions' -- works at the macro level to:     -- reform trade     -- encourage debt relief + foreign investment     -- facilitate benefit from globalisation by the poor -- coordinates efforts b/w governments, NGOs, + outside donors -- reduces risk of armed conflicts or disasters NSA surveillance -- Snowden 2013 -- British & American intel agencies NSA targets include:      -- UNDP     -- UN's children's charity Unicef     -- Médecins Sans Frontières     -- Economic Community of West African States   (ECOWAS) -- some criticism re irregularities in finances in North Korea -- mid-2006:  UNDP halted disarmament programs Uganda re human rights abuses -- in forcible disarmament programs carried out by Uganda People's Defence Force -- UNDP criticised [not clear to me why]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Really disliked the Friedman guy, as I was checking this out. Noam Chomsky's likeable and always interesting. Friedman sounds sort of mixed up and all over the place. Gets criticised by everybody. I'm wondering if this is what all White House correspondents are like: ie in the mould of Friedman? Anyway, that's a bit on what was supposed to be about globalisation ... but I went off on a tangent checking everyone out. I've looked at this in one sitting & I'm over it now.   Need a break. -------/\/\/ *I don't get the biotech revenues and estimates at all.  Numbers isn't my thing.  Don't get the comparison between the North Carolina figures & the world figures. *I thought Friedman's formative years, in terms of education and affinity with the state of Israel, was interesting in terms of his later becoming a correspondent re Middle Eastern affairs.  As in, Friedman would surely have a pro-Israel bias, as a result?   *United Nations Development Program, sound like just another way for Western imperialists to control the rest of the world.

TRANSCRIPT - Assange Re: Stratfor (US Private Intel Contractor) - circa: 28 February 2012

ꕤ TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] Stratfor US Private Intel Contractor ꕤ  Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Assange (Video) TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] Julian Assange circa:  28 February 2012 "Together with 25 other media partners from around the world, we have been investigating the activities of this company for some months, and what we have discovered is a company that is a private intelligence Enron. On the surface, it presents as if it's a media organisation, providing a private subscription intelligence newsletter, but underneath it is running paid informants networks, laundering those payments through the Bahamas, and through Switzerland, through private credit cards.  It is monitoring Bhopal activists for Dow Chemicals.  It is monitoring PETA activists for Coca Cola. So, it is engaged in a seedy business, and not ready to be content with merely monitoring activist for big corporations or providing private intelligence to the US military. It has now started its own internal strategic private investment fund, where it is using this information from insiders -- paid information from insiders -- in order to invest in what it calls a wide variety of geopolitical financial instruments, such as stocks, bonds, and currencies, and this makes News of the World look like kindergarten. I think it is an important exposure for us. It is part of a long continuation that we have had in exposing the activities of secret organisations. Late last year, we worked on the spy files release, showing some 176 organisations involved in providing surveillance agreements and, in some cases, bulk surveillance agreements to monitor whole countries, and so this is a private intelligence organisation. The activities of intelligence organisations increasingly are privatised and, once privatised, they're taken out of the realm of the Freedom of Information Act, of US military law, and so they are are often used by governments who want to conceal a particular activity. But Statfor is simply out of control.  I mean, even as a private intelligence organisation, it has been completely hopeless in protecting the identity of its informants, or even providing accurate information.  It has engaged in internal deals with its captive financial investment firms that it is setting up.  So it really is some type of Enron, where there is not even proper corporate control within the organisation." -- end audio -- LINK | RELATED POST ꕤ