The Pentagon and the CIA have had a long history in researching technologies that today fall under the name non-lethal weapons, but this vogue term is mainly used to indicate technologies such as Active Denial System, used in Iraq, and The Scream, used in Israel against settlers.
We are talking about what Kucinich attempted to bring to open discussion in a bill: H.R. 2977, spaced based weapons that can alter consciousness, and effect people negatively: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html
There is no hint that such a catagory of technology weapons contains what has been referred to as mind invasive technologies that are now operational, and have application off the battlefield.
Today's capabilities, shrouded in secrecy, and Black Budget Projects, may very well be aimed at civilians.
I urge you to look at this blog: http://teatree.wordpress.com/ and consider the implications of such capabilities, owned by the Pentagon, Military, CIA, but possibly used for non-military purposes.
Domestic spying, in the news, seems like a cake walk compared to what is highlighted in the following, which isthe hidden arsenals for civilian uses, and developed by DARPA, as well as private contractors:
Harnessing neuroscience to military capability, this technology is the result of decades of research and experimentation, most particularly in the Soviet Union and the United States. (Welsh, 1997, 2000) We have failed to comprehend that the result of the technology that originated in the years of the arms race between the soviet Union and the West, has resulted in using satellite technology not only for surveillance and communication systems but also to lock on to human beings, manipulating brain frequencies by directing laser beams, neural-particle beams, electro-magnetic radiation, sonar waves, radiofrequency radiation (RFR), soliton waves, torsion fields and by use of these or other energy fields which form the areas of study for astro-physics. Since the operations are characterised by secrecy, it seems inevitable that the methods that we do know about, that is, the exploitation of the ionosphere, our natural shield, are already outdated as we begin to grasp the implications of their use. The patents deriving from Bernard J. Eastlund’s work provide the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth’s atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than accomplished by the prior art, the detonation of nuclear devices at various yields and various altitudes. (ref High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, HAARP). Carol Smith, On a Need for a New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis, in Light of Mind Invasive Technologies http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/Vol3/JPSS-CS2.html
by Gusto
Thursday, 30 July, 2009
Tuesday, 28 July, 2009
Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order
Russia, Oil and Revolution
By the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire had a virtual monopoly over the United States, and even many foreign countries. In 1890, the King of Holland gave his blessing for the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company, which was mainly founded to refine and sell kerosene from Indonesia, a Dutch colony.
Also in 1890, a British company was founded with the intended purpose of shipping oil, the Shell Transport and Trading Company, and it “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and eventually, “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”
Russia entered into the Industrial Revolution later than any other large country and empire of its time. By the 1870s, “Russia’s oil fields, including those in Baku, were challenging Standard Oil’s supremacy in Europe. Russia’s ascendancy in natural resources disrupted the strategic balance of power in Europe and troubled Britain.”
Britain thus attempted to begin oil explorations in the Middle East, specifically in Persia (Iran), first through Baron Julius de Reuter, the founder of Reuters News Service, who gained exploration rights from the Shah of Iran. Reuter’s attempt at uncovering vast quantities of oil failed, and a man named William Knox D’Arcy took the lead in Persia.
By the middle of the 19th century, “the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world, perhaps in all of history.
Their five international banking houses comprised one of the first multinational corporations.” Alfonse de Rothschild was “heavily invested in Russian oil at least forty years before William Knox D’Arcy began tying up Persian oil concessions for the British. Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly Standard Oil, was the Baron [Rothschild]’s pet project.” In the early 1880s, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region.
By the mid-1880s, “the Rothschilds were poised to become the chief oil supplier, not only to Europe but to the Far East,” however, “the Baku-Batum railroad was already proving inadequate to transport the volume of oil being produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal, which shortened the journey to the Far East by four thousand miles. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez.”
When the Egyptian government was bankrupt in 1874, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli turned to his close friends, the Rothschilds, “for the colossal cash advance necessary” to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company. By this time, the Rothschilds were already principle shareholders in the Bank of France, and the Bank of England, sitting alongside other notable shareholders such as Baring Brothers, Morgan Grenfell and Lazard Brothers.
The Rothschilds “had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.”
When the Czar died, he was succeeded by his son, Czar Nicholas II, who instituted anti-Semitic pogroms, discriminating against Jews, which had the effect of stimulating a massive emigration of Jews out of Russia and Eastern Europe and into Western Europe. However, these East European and Russian Jewish émigrés grew up in a newly industrializing nation in which the tyranny of the government and collusion between it and powerful financial and industrial interests left the great majority of people dispossessed and incited more socialist tendencies in thought and action.
The English Rothschilds were very alarmed “when the socialist tendencies of the émigrés contributed to a massively disruptive tailors’ strike in the East End of London in 1888. A young Georgian communist who would become known to the world as Joseph Stalin was already organizing laborers to strike at the Rothschild oil interests in Batum.”
The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain, as they were intensely anti-Czarist and progressively socialist, and the Rothschilds were known for their heavy collaboration with the Czarist regimes of Russia.
One potential solution considered to the problem of increased socialist-leaning Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish émigrés to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.
On top of this, as the pre-eminent Zionist in Britain, his proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, in that several years prior, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, and it was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests.
The Rothschilds, despite their overtly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rhetoric, did not stop their support of the Russian regime and economic activities within anti-Semitic Russia. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, “had gone so far as to co-sign an agreement with rival producers – including America’s Standard Oil [of Rockefeller interests] – to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Russian government.”
In 1902, the Rothschilds “entered into a partnership with Royal Dutch and Shell (soon to become a single global company) to form the Asiatic Petroleum Company for exploiting the fields of Southern Russia.”
In the early 1900s, the Rothchilds were the primary oil interests in Russia, second in the world only to the Rockefellers. As industrialization was under way, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people.
This spurred protests and riots, and a “young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general, [and] the Rothschilds in particular. Mass action by oil workers in Baku [the major oil fields in Russia] in 1903 was the spark that set off the first general strike across the Russian landmass.”
Then with the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, and further protests, came the Revolution of 1905. In the following years, the Rothschilds sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, gaining significant shares in the international oil company.
The specter of political and social instability within Russia was high and did not go without notice from international banking, oil, and industrial interests. Naturally, the international banking houses were keeping a close eye on developments within Russia. The Rothschilds had to lessen their overt involvement with Russia, as they could not maintain such a relationship with the most anti-Jewish nation in the world at the time, while also claiming to be the primary advocates of Jewish aspirations for a homeland.
This is why they sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, but then gained significant shares in the company itself. So while publicly cutting their ties with Russia, they still held massive interests in its industrial capacity. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the Rothschilds “refused to participate in underwriting a major loan, this at a time when Russia desperately needed funds to stabilize the regime.”
So, in 1906, John D. Rockefeller stepped in to aid Czarist Russia, and offered $200,000,000, or “400,000,000 rubles for a concession for railroads from Tashkend to Tomsk and from Tehita to Polamoshna and a grant of land on both sides of the prospective lines.”
These international financiers were still clearly intent upon maintaining their interests within Russia.
However, the Russian governments refusal to allow the deal between the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and other major oil monopolies to divide up the world’s oil reserves, may well have spurred discontent among these powerful interests. If Russia refused to allow them to control all the oil and have a right to all oil, did this mean that Russia was planning on building a domestic oil industry?
If this were the case, it could pose a threat to all the entrenched economic and financial interests, particularly those of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, as Russia’s significant oil reserves and resources would allow it to possibly even surpass the United States in industrialization. Further, Czarist Russia became an increasingly unstable investment environment, controlled by an increasingly unpredictable monarchy.
The 1917 October Revolution “inspired workers’ uprisings in the oil fields against low wages and harsh working conditions. In 1919, Azerbaijan took advantage of the political unrest to declare sovereignty over the Baku fields. That same year SONJ [Standard Oil of New Jersey] made an agreement with the Azerbaijani government to purchase undeveloped land for exploration in the Baku region. Amidst the chaos, foreign oil companies rushed into Russia hoping to collect concessions at reduced rates. The Nobel brothers sold much of their operations to SONJ (today ExxonMobil) to build an alliance in 1920.”
Antony C. Sutton, economist, historian and author, as well as research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, that both fascist and communist systems are “based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion.
Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists,” and that, “the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.”
Thus, the major money powers of the west decided to put their money behind the creation of a totalitarian communist state in Russia, in order to create a captive economy, which they could exploit and remove from competititon.
When the Revolution began, Trotsky was in New York, and was immediately granted an American passport by President Wilson, and then given a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa, in order to return to Russia and “carry forward” the revolution. Trotsky, while traveling, was arrested in Canada, but was released as a result of British intervention.
Trotsky traveled on board a ship in 1917, leaving New York, along with an interesting cast of fellow passengers, including “other Trotskyite revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, American Communists, and a man named Charles Crane.
Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee, whose son, Richard Crane, was an assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, played a significant part in what occurred in Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, said that Crane, “did much to bring on the [Alexander] Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” Kerensky was the second Prime Minister in the Russian Provisional Government, which followed the collapse of the Czarist government, and preceded the Bolshevik. Crane also thought that the Kerensky government “is the revolution in its first phase only.”
The Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, which broke out in 1914, and had all the major European powers at war. Morgan and Rockefeller interests, organized in Wall Street and centralized in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, used “the Red Cross Mission as its operational vehicle” in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.
The Red Cross Mission in Russia got its endowment from wealthy people such as J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, Cleveland H. Dodge, and Mrs. Russell Sage, and “in World War I the Red Cross depended heavily on Wall Street, and specifically the Morgan firm.” When the American Red Cross set up a mission to Russia, “William Boyce Thompson, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, had ‘offered to pay the entire expense of the commission’.”
All expenses were paid for by William Boyce Thompson, who was a major stockholder in Chase National Bank, whose President had Thompson appointed head of the New York Fed.
The Mission was primarily made up of lawyers, financiers, their assistants, people affiliated with Standard Oil and the Rockefeller’s National City Bank. The Mission supported through a loan, the Provisional government of Alexander Kerensky, yet, William B. Thompson of the New York Fed “made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.” Interestingly, when the Bolsheviks took control, “The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree – the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.”
Ultimately, the Red Cross mission in Russia “was in fact a mission of Wall Street financiers to influence and pave the way for control, through either Kerensky or the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of the Russian market and resources.”
The American International Corporation (AIC), was “created in 1915 to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.”
It was created and controlled by Morgan, Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and its directors were affiliated with National City Bank (Rockefeller), the Carnegie Foundation, General Electric, the DuPont family, New York Life Insurance, American Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Members of its board financially supported the Bolsheviks and urged the US State Department to recognize the Bolshevik government.
In 1920, Russian gold was being siphoned through Sweden, where it was melted down and stamped with the Swedish mint, funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Guaranty Trust Company (Morgan), two of the primary banking interests behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.
During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.
As Antony Sutton wrote, “Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy,” and that, “The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.”
Eventually, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious, and Wall Street won. Under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the early 1930s, Soviet industrialization “required Western technology and expertise,” and in a “frequently overlooked contribution” that came “from abroad,” American firms aided in the industrialization of the USSR, including Ford, General Electric and DuPont, with Standard Oil, General Electric, Austin Co., General Motors, International Harvester, and Caterpillar Tractor trading heavily with the Soviet Union.
Standard Oil bought “gargantuan quantities of Red Oil,” General Electric received a $100,000,000 contract from the Soviet Union to build “the four largest hydroelectric generators in the world,” Austin Co., got a $50,000,000 contract to erect the City of Austingrad, “complete with tractor and automobile factories involving an additional $30,000,000 contract for parts and technical assistance with Ford Motor Corp.”
On top of this, “Other [Soviet] business friends are General Motors, DuPont de Nemours, International Harvester, John Deere Co., Caterpillar Tractor, Radio Corp. and the U. S. Shipping Board, which sold the Reds a fleet of 25 cargo steamers.” Banks with close ties to the Russian economy included Chase National, National City Bank and Equitable Trust, all of which are either Rockefeller or Morgan interests.
World War Restructures World Order
In the midst of World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.”
The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.
“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US, and “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.”
On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.
The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.MThey were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”
The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”
There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.
World War I had marked a monumental period in history in what can be understood as “transitional imperialism.” What I mean by this is that historically, periods of imperial decline and transition (that is, the rise or fall of an empire or empires), are often marked by increased international violence and war.
World War I was the result of the culmination of imperial ambitions by various powers. This was the natural result of the wave of “New Imperialism” that swept the industrialized world in the 1870s. In 1879, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary created the Dual Alliance to combat growing Russian influence in the Balkans with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Italy joined in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance. In 1892, the Franco-Russia Alliance was made, which was a military alliance between France and the Russian Empire to counteract the German Empire’s supremacy over Europe.
In 1904, the Entente Cordiale, a series of agreements between France and Britain, was agreed upon in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. In 1907, the Anglo-Russia Entente was formed in an effort to end their long-running Great Game by setting the boundaries of their imperial control over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet.
It also acted as a balance to the growing German Empire’s might and influence in Europe. After the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Triple Entente was cemented between Britain, Russia and France as a significant counter to the Triple Alliance.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire had been a long and slow process. The Ottoman Empire dated back to 1299, and lasted until 1923. “From 1517 until the end of World War I, a period of 400 years, the Ottoman Empire was the ruling power in the central Middle East. Ottoman administrative institutions and practices shaped the peoples of the modern Middle East and left a legacy that endured after the empire’s disappearance.”
In the late 16th century, “Ottoman raw materials, normally channeled into internal consumption and industry, were increasingly exchanged for European manufactured products. This trade benefited Ottoman merchants but led to a decline in state revenues and a shortage of raw materials for domestic consumption.
As the costs of scarce materials rose, the empire suffered from inflation, and the state was unable to procure sufficient revenues to meet its expenses. Without these revenues, the institutions that supported the Ottoman system, especially the armed forces, were undermined.”
This was largely done through commercial treaties known as Capitulations. The first Capitulation “was negotiated with France in 1536; it allowed French merchants to trade freely in Ottoman ports, to be exempt from Ottoman taxes, and to import and export goods at low tariff rates.
In addition, the treaty granted extraterritorial privileges to French merchants by permitting them to come under the legal jurisdiction of the French consul in Istanbul, thus making them subject to French rather than Ottoman-Islamic law. This first treaty was the model for subsequent agreements signed with other European states.”
The Ottoman state had been sufficiently weakened by the early 20th century, which happened to be the same time period that Europeans, particularly the British, were looking at Middle East oil to fuel their empires.
The major European alliances sought to take advantage of this weakened Ottoman position. In 1909, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inciting the anger of the Russia Empire.
The First Balkan War was fought between 1912 and 1913, in which Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria fought the Ottoman Empire. The settlement that followed angered Bulgaria, which then began to engage in territorial disputes with Serbia and Romania. Bulgaria then attacked Greece and Serbia in 1913, followed by Romania and the Ottoman Empire declaring war against Bulgaria, which was the Second Balkan War.
This further destabilized the region, and Austria-Hungary grew wary of the growing influence of Serbia. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, where the assassin was from, and then declared war. The Russian Empire mobilized for war the next day, with German mobilization following behind, and France behind it. Germany then declared war on Russia, and World War I was under way.
The end of the Great War saw the disillusion of the Ottoman Empire, breaking up its territory, which was carved up between France and Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. The German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires also officially ended as a result of the war, for which Germany was given the sole blame for the war and punished through the Versailles reparations.
The Russian Empire ended with the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in Russia pulling out of the war in 1917, the same year the United States entered the war. The Great War turned the United States into a powerful nation in the world, becoming a leading creditor nation with significant international influence. The British and French maintained their empires, though they were in decline. However, they attempted to maintain significant control over the Middle East.
World War I was thus the culmination of a massive build-up of imperial nations seeking expanded influence and markets for their capital. Entering the War, there were many empires, leaving it, there were two dominant European Empires (France and Britain) and an emerging new force in the world, the United States.
The Great Depression
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . . . Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.
Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927
Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who worked closely together throughout the 1920s, decided to “use the financial power of Britain and the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.”
These men were not working for the governments and nations of whom they purportedly represented, but “were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”
In the 1920s, the United States experienced a stock market boom, which was a result of the commercial banks providing “funds for the purchase of stock and took the latter as collateral,” creating a massive wave of underwriting and purchasing of securities. The stock market speculation that followed was the result of the banks “borrowing substantially from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Federal Reserve System was helping to finance the great stock market boom.”
In 1927, a meeting took place in New York City between Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, the German central bank of the Weimar Republic; Charles Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France and Benjamin Strong of the New York Fed.
The topic of the meeting was the “persistently weak reserve position of the Bank of England. This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve System would ease interest rates to encourage lending. Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.” The Fed obliged.
The Bank of England had a weak reserve position because of Britain’s position as champion of the gold standard. Foreign central banks, including the Bank of France, were transferring their exchange holdings into gold, of which the Bank of England did not have enough to supply. So the Fed lowered its discount rate, and began buying securities to equal French gold purchases. Money in the US, then, “was going increasingly into stock-market speculation rather than into production of real wealth.”
In early 1929, the Federal Reserve board of governors “called upon the member banks to reduce their loans on stock-exchange collateral,” and took other actions with the publicly pronounced aim of reducing “the amount of credit available for speculation.” Yet, it had the reverse effect, as “the available credit went more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.”
On September 26, 1929, London was hit with a financial panic, and the Bank of England raised its bank rate, causing British money to leave Wall Street, “and the over inflated market commenced to sag,” leading to a panic by mid-October.
The longest-serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote that the Fed triggered the speculative boom through its pumping excess credit into the economy (sound familiar?), and eventually this resulted in the American and British economies collapsing due to the massive imbalances produced.
Britain then “abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.”
The Bank for International Settlements
In 1929, the Young Committee was formed to create a program for the settlement of German reparations payments that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty, written at the Paris Peace talks in 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, founder of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), as a subsidiary of General Electric.
He was also President and CEO of GE from 1922 until 1939, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1928, and was also, in 1929, deputy chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. When Young was sent to Europe in 1929 to form the program for German reparations payments he was accompanied by J.P Morgan, Jr.
What emerged from the Committee was the creation of the Young Plan, which “was assertedly a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge German real assets for a gigantic mortgage held in the United States.”
Further, the Young Plan “increased unemployment more and more,” allowing Hitler to say he would “do away with unemployment,” which, “really was the reason of the enormous success Hitler had in the election.”
The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[
The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.” As Carroll Quigley explained:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”
In a letter dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt told Edward M. House, “The real truth .. is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson - and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W[oodrow]. W[ilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States - only on a far bigger and broader basis.”
Banking on Hitler
Throughout the 1930s, with the loans provided through the Dawes and Young Plans, Germany was able to create a few dominant industrial cartels, which were all financed by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.
These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”
Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.” On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.
Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank throughout Weimar Germany, stayed on as President of the German central bank from 1933 until 1939, and was thus a central figure in Nazi Germany, being a major driver being the German plans for reindustrialization, redevelopment and rearmament. Hitler, in 1934, made Schacht his Minister of Economics.
Central banks across Europe began to purchase Nazi gold, which was smuggled and melted down and re-stamped in Switzerland, (much like was done with Soviet gold). Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States all “traded with the Nazis with gold transferred by the BIS.”
This was done as a collaborative effort among central banks, as “the BIS did enter into gold and currency transactions with Nazi Germany through its participation with the Reichsbank.” Schacht wielded his significant influence and “had become instrumental in placing high-ranking Nazi officials and foreign collaborators on the BIS Board of Directors.
Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon
World War Two also marked a period of massive imperial transition. The build-up of the Third Reich led to Nazi imperialism throughout Europe and North Africa and the Japanese Empire expanded into China.
At the end of the War, the British and French Empires were all but vanished, holding onto remaining colonies in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union was devastated and Germany, with much of Europe, was in ruins. What emerged from this war that was most significant was the rise of a new empire, the American Empire.
America’s intervention into the war and expansion into Europe as a liberating force allowed it to set up bases throughout Europe as well as in Japan on the Pacific. The Soviet Union, having taken Europe from the East, expanded its influence and dominance across Eastern Europe. Following Churchill’s speech that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe, the Cold War was underway. Thus, World War II ended the age of many European empires, even of those in decline, and created a bi-polar world, which was divided between the USSR and the USA.
Following World War II, the US, as the only major nation in the world whose industrial base survived the devastation of the war, assumed the position of global hegemon. It began to set up the infrastructure, both national and international, to assume the position of global superpower, exerting its hegemony across the globe.
The crown had been passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. Ultimately, both were and are owned and controlled by the same interests, primarily represented through the central banks and the private banking interests that make up the dominant shareholders.
Before America had even entered the war in late 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the round table groups Carroll Quigley discussed as having originated from the secret society of Cecil Rhodes, was planning on America entering the war.
The CFR had essentially captured US foreign policy firmly in the grips of the banking elite. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913) ensured that the United States would become indebted to and owned by international banking interests, and thus, act in their interest.
The Fed financed the US role in World War I, provided the credit for speculation, which led to the Great Depression, and massive consolidation for the interests that own the Federal Reserve System. It then financed US entry into World War II.
The CFR, established six years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. It was to alter America’s conceptualization of its place within the world – from isolationist industrial nation to an engine of empire working for international banking and corporate American interests. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire – encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view.
By altering one’s ideology to that of promoting such an internationalist agenda, the big money that was behind it would ensure one’s rise through government, industry, academia and media.
The other major think tanks and policy institutions in the United States are also represented at the CFR. They are constitutive of divisions within the elite, however, such divisions are predicated on the basis of how to use American imperial power, where to use it, on what basis to justify it, and other various methodological differences.
The divide amongst elites was never on the questions of: should we use American imperial power, why has America become an Empire, or should there even be an empire? If one takes such considerations to heart and questions these concepts, be it within the foreign policy establishment, intelligence, military, academia, finance, corporate world, or media; chances are, such a person is not a member of the CFR.
The CFR effectively undertook a policy coup d’état over American foreign policy with the Second World War. When war broke out, the Council began a “strictly confidential” project called the War and Peace Studies, in which top CFR members collaborated with the US State Department in determining US policy, and the project was entirely financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.
The post-War world was already being designed by members of the Council, who would go into government in order to enact these designs.
The policy of “containment” towards the Soviet Union that would define American foreign policy for nearly half a century was envisaged in a 1947 edition of Foreign Affairs, the academic journal of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So too were the ideological foundations for the Marshall Plan and NATO envisaged at the Council on Foreign Relations, with members of the Council recruited to enact, implement and lead these institutions. The Council also played a role in the establishment and promotion of the United Nations, which was subsequently built on land bought from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The Rise of the American Empire and Keynesian Political Economy
Within liberal political economy, a prominent individual and British economist, John Maynard Keynes, undertook the process of evolving liberal theory into what later became known as Keynesian economics.
Following in the footsteps of the dominance of the liberal order, in which the economic and political realms were viewed as separate, and necessarily so, Keynes sought to re-imagine the political-economic relationship.
His work was largely influenced by the events leading up to and following the Great Depression, which was largely seen as a failure of the liberal economic order. Keynes wanted to combine state and market forces, not rejecting the liberal notion of the “invisible hand,” however, relegated that to a more distinct area, and imagined a broader role for the state in the economy.
Keynes advocated for the state to act, or invest, when private individuals would not, in an effort to stave off financial or economic crises. Thus, Keynes would argue, the state strengthens the market.
A Marxist theorist would likely point to this as an example of how the state, within a capitalist society, functions as an institutional organ which protects the interests of the capitalist class. Keynes advocated a liberal international order composed of free markets, however he recommended state intervention domestically, particularly to protect jobs and control inflation.
Keynesian political economic theory served in large part as a basis for the creation of the Bretton-Woods System, established in 1944, and his concept of embedded liberalism (promotion of liberal international economy, and state intervention in domestic economy), reigned supreme until the 1970s.
In 1944, representatives of the 44 Allied nations met for the Bretton Woods conference (the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) in New Hampshire, in an effort to reorganize and regulate the international financial and monetary order following the war.
The UK was represented by John Maynard Keynes; with the American contingent represented by Harry Dexter White, an American economist and senior US Treasury department official. It was out of this conference that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), now part of the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO), originated. They were designed to be the institutionalized economic foundations of exerting American hegemony across the globe; they were, in essence, engines of economic empire.
In 1947, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which created the position of Secretary of Defense overseeing the entire military establishment, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as well as created the CIA modeled on its war time incarnation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS); and the Act also created the National Security Council, headed by a National Security Adviser, and designed to give the President further advice on foreign affairs issues separate from the State Department. Essentially, the Act created the basis for the national security state apparatus for empire building.
The founding of the CIA was urged by the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1940s, and the architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions; were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Deputy Directors of the CIA for the first two decades were all “from the same New York legal and financial circles.”
By the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire had a virtual monopoly over the United States, and even many foreign countries. In 1890, the King of Holland gave his blessing for the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company, which was mainly founded to refine and sell kerosene from Indonesia, a Dutch colony.
Also in 1890, a British company was founded with the intended purpose of shipping oil, the Shell Transport and Trading Company, and it “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and eventually, “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”
Russia entered into the Industrial Revolution later than any other large country and empire of its time. By the 1870s, “Russia’s oil fields, including those in Baku, were challenging Standard Oil’s supremacy in Europe. Russia’s ascendancy in natural resources disrupted the strategic balance of power in Europe and troubled Britain.”
Britain thus attempted to begin oil explorations in the Middle East, specifically in Persia (Iran), first through Baron Julius de Reuter, the founder of Reuters News Service, who gained exploration rights from the Shah of Iran. Reuter’s attempt at uncovering vast quantities of oil failed, and a man named William Knox D’Arcy took the lead in Persia.
By the middle of the 19th century, “the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world, perhaps in all of history.
Their five international banking houses comprised one of the first multinational corporations.” Alfonse de Rothschild was “heavily invested in Russian oil at least forty years before William Knox D’Arcy began tying up Persian oil concessions for the British. Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly Standard Oil, was the Baron [Rothschild]’s pet project.” In the early 1880s, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region.
By the mid-1880s, “the Rothschilds were poised to become the chief oil supplier, not only to Europe but to the Far East,” however, “the Baku-Batum railroad was already proving inadequate to transport the volume of oil being produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal, which shortened the journey to the Far East by four thousand miles. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez.”
When the Egyptian government was bankrupt in 1874, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli turned to his close friends, the Rothschilds, “for the colossal cash advance necessary” to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company. By this time, the Rothschilds were already principle shareholders in the Bank of France, and the Bank of England, sitting alongside other notable shareholders such as Baring Brothers, Morgan Grenfell and Lazard Brothers.
The Rothschilds “had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.”
When the Czar died, he was succeeded by his son, Czar Nicholas II, who instituted anti-Semitic pogroms, discriminating against Jews, which had the effect of stimulating a massive emigration of Jews out of Russia and Eastern Europe and into Western Europe. However, these East European and Russian Jewish émigrés grew up in a newly industrializing nation in which the tyranny of the government and collusion between it and powerful financial and industrial interests left the great majority of people dispossessed and incited more socialist tendencies in thought and action.
The English Rothschilds were very alarmed “when the socialist tendencies of the émigrés contributed to a massively disruptive tailors’ strike in the East End of London in 1888. A young Georgian communist who would become known to the world as Joseph Stalin was already organizing laborers to strike at the Rothschild oil interests in Batum.”
The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain, as they were intensely anti-Czarist and progressively socialist, and the Rothschilds were known for their heavy collaboration with the Czarist regimes of Russia.
One potential solution considered to the problem of increased socialist-leaning Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish émigrés to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.
On top of this, as the pre-eminent Zionist in Britain, his proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, in that several years prior, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, and it was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests.
The Rothschilds, despite their overtly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rhetoric, did not stop their support of the Russian regime and economic activities within anti-Semitic Russia. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, “had gone so far as to co-sign an agreement with rival producers – including America’s Standard Oil [of Rockefeller interests] – to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Russian government.”
In 1902, the Rothschilds “entered into a partnership with Royal Dutch and Shell (soon to become a single global company) to form the Asiatic Petroleum Company for exploiting the fields of Southern Russia.”
In the early 1900s, the Rothchilds were the primary oil interests in Russia, second in the world only to the Rockefellers. As industrialization was under way, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people.
This spurred protests and riots, and a “young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general, [and] the Rothschilds in particular. Mass action by oil workers in Baku [the major oil fields in Russia] in 1903 was the spark that set off the first general strike across the Russian landmass.”
Then with the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, and further protests, came the Revolution of 1905. In the following years, the Rothschilds sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, gaining significant shares in the international oil company.
The specter of political and social instability within Russia was high and did not go without notice from international banking, oil, and industrial interests. Naturally, the international banking houses were keeping a close eye on developments within Russia. The Rothschilds had to lessen their overt involvement with Russia, as they could not maintain such a relationship with the most anti-Jewish nation in the world at the time, while also claiming to be the primary advocates of Jewish aspirations for a homeland.
This is why they sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, but then gained significant shares in the company itself. So while publicly cutting their ties with Russia, they still held massive interests in its industrial capacity. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the Rothschilds “refused to participate in underwriting a major loan, this at a time when Russia desperately needed funds to stabilize the regime.”
So, in 1906, John D. Rockefeller stepped in to aid Czarist Russia, and offered $200,000,000, or “400,000,000 rubles for a concession for railroads from Tashkend to Tomsk and from Tehita to Polamoshna and a grant of land on both sides of the prospective lines.”
These international financiers were still clearly intent upon maintaining their interests within Russia.
However, the Russian governments refusal to allow the deal between the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and other major oil monopolies to divide up the world’s oil reserves, may well have spurred discontent among these powerful interests. If Russia refused to allow them to control all the oil and have a right to all oil, did this mean that Russia was planning on building a domestic oil industry?
If this were the case, it could pose a threat to all the entrenched economic and financial interests, particularly those of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, as Russia’s significant oil reserves and resources would allow it to possibly even surpass the United States in industrialization. Further, Czarist Russia became an increasingly unstable investment environment, controlled by an increasingly unpredictable monarchy.
The 1917 October Revolution “inspired workers’ uprisings in the oil fields against low wages and harsh working conditions. In 1919, Azerbaijan took advantage of the political unrest to declare sovereignty over the Baku fields. That same year SONJ [Standard Oil of New Jersey] made an agreement with the Azerbaijani government to purchase undeveloped land for exploration in the Baku region. Amidst the chaos, foreign oil companies rushed into Russia hoping to collect concessions at reduced rates. The Nobel brothers sold much of their operations to SONJ (today ExxonMobil) to build an alliance in 1920.”
Antony C. Sutton, economist, historian and author, as well as research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, that both fascist and communist systems are “based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion.
Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists,” and that, “the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.”
Thus, the major money powers of the west decided to put their money behind the creation of a totalitarian communist state in Russia, in order to create a captive economy, which they could exploit and remove from competititon.
When the Revolution began, Trotsky was in New York, and was immediately granted an American passport by President Wilson, and then given a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa, in order to return to Russia and “carry forward” the revolution. Trotsky, while traveling, was arrested in Canada, but was released as a result of British intervention.
Trotsky traveled on board a ship in 1917, leaving New York, along with an interesting cast of fellow passengers, including “other Trotskyite revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, American Communists, and a man named Charles Crane.
Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee, whose son, Richard Crane, was an assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, played a significant part in what occurred in Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, said that Crane, “did much to bring on the [Alexander] Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” Kerensky was the second Prime Minister in the Russian Provisional Government, which followed the collapse of the Czarist government, and preceded the Bolshevik. Crane also thought that the Kerensky government “is the revolution in its first phase only.”
The Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, which broke out in 1914, and had all the major European powers at war. Morgan and Rockefeller interests, organized in Wall Street and centralized in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, used “the Red Cross Mission as its operational vehicle” in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.
The Red Cross Mission in Russia got its endowment from wealthy people such as J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, Cleveland H. Dodge, and Mrs. Russell Sage, and “in World War I the Red Cross depended heavily on Wall Street, and specifically the Morgan firm.” When the American Red Cross set up a mission to Russia, “William Boyce Thompson, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, had ‘offered to pay the entire expense of the commission’.”
All expenses were paid for by William Boyce Thompson, who was a major stockholder in Chase National Bank, whose President had Thompson appointed head of the New York Fed.
The Mission was primarily made up of lawyers, financiers, their assistants, people affiliated with Standard Oil and the Rockefeller’s National City Bank. The Mission supported through a loan, the Provisional government of Alexander Kerensky, yet, William B. Thompson of the New York Fed “made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.” Interestingly, when the Bolsheviks took control, “The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree – the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.”
Ultimately, the Red Cross mission in Russia “was in fact a mission of Wall Street financiers to influence and pave the way for control, through either Kerensky or the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of the Russian market and resources.”
The American International Corporation (AIC), was “created in 1915 to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.”
It was created and controlled by Morgan, Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and its directors were affiliated with National City Bank (Rockefeller), the Carnegie Foundation, General Electric, the DuPont family, New York Life Insurance, American Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Members of its board financially supported the Bolsheviks and urged the US State Department to recognize the Bolshevik government.
In 1920, Russian gold was being siphoned through Sweden, where it was melted down and stamped with the Swedish mint, funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Guaranty Trust Company (Morgan), two of the primary banking interests behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.
During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.
As Antony Sutton wrote, “Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy,” and that, “The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.”
Eventually, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious, and Wall Street won. Under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the early 1930s, Soviet industrialization “required Western technology and expertise,” and in a “frequently overlooked contribution” that came “from abroad,” American firms aided in the industrialization of the USSR, including Ford, General Electric and DuPont, with Standard Oil, General Electric, Austin Co., General Motors, International Harvester, and Caterpillar Tractor trading heavily with the Soviet Union.
Standard Oil bought “gargantuan quantities of Red Oil,” General Electric received a $100,000,000 contract from the Soviet Union to build “the four largest hydroelectric generators in the world,” Austin Co., got a $50,000,000 contract to erect the City of Austingrad, “complete with tractor and automobile factories involving an additional $30,000,000 contract for parts and technical assistance with Ford Motor Corp.”
On top of this, “Other [Soviet] business friends are General Motors, DuPont de Nemours, International Harvester, John Deere Co., Caterpillar Tractor, Radio Corp. and the U. S. Shipping Board, which sold the Reds a fleet of 25 cargo steamers.” Banks with close ties to the Russian economy included Chase National, National City Bank and Equitable Trust, all of which are either Rockefeller or Morgan interests.
World War Restructures World Order
In the midst of World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.”
The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.
“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US, and “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.”
On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.
The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.MThey were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”
The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”
There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.
World War I had marked a monumental period in history in what can be understood as “transitional imperialism.” What I mean by this is that historically, periods of imperial decline and transition (that is, the rise or fall of an empire or empires), are often marked by increased international violence and war.
World War I was the result of the culmination of imperial ambitions by various powers. This was the natural result of the wave of “New Imperialism” that swept the industrialized world in the 1870s. In 1879, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary created the Dual Alliance to combat growing Russian influence in the Balkans with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Italy joined in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance. In 1892, the Franco-Russia Alliance was made, which was a military alliance between France and the Russian Empire to counteract the German Empire’s supremacy over Europe.
In 1904, the Entente Cordiale, a series of agreements between France and Britain, was agreed upon in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. In 1907, the Anglo-Russia Entente was formed in an effort to end their long-running Great Game by setting the boundaries of their imperial control over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet.
It also acted as a balance to the growing German Empire’s might and influence in Europe. After the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Triple Entente was cemented between Britain, Russia and France as a significant counter to the Triple Alliance.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire had been a long and slow process. The Ottoman Empire dated back to 1299, and lasted until 1923. “From 1517 until the end of World War I, a period of 400 years, the Ottoman Empire was the ruling power in the central Middle East. Ottoman administrative institutions and practices shaped the peoples of the modern Middle East and left a legacy that endured after the empire’s disappearance.”
In the late 16th century, “Ottoman raw materials, normally channeled into internal consumption and industry, were increasingly exchanged for European manufactured products. This trade benefited Ottoman merchants but led to a decline in state revenues and a shortage of raw materials for domestic consumption.
As the costs of scarce materials rose, the empire suffered from inflation, and the state was unable to procure sufficient revenues to meet its expenses. Without these revenues, the institutions that supported the Ottoman system, especially the armed forces, were undermined.”
This was largely done through commercial treaties known as Capitulations. The first Capitulation “was negotiated with France in 1536; it allowed French merchants to trade freely in Ottoman ports, to be exempt from Ottoman taxes, and to import and export goods at low tariff rates.
In addition, the treaty granted extraterritorial privileges to French merchants by permitting them to come under the legal jurisdiction of the French consul in Istanbul, thus making them subject to French rather than Ottoman-Islamic law. This first treaty was the model for subsequent agreements signed with other European states.”
The Ottoman state had been sufficiently weakened by the early 20th century, which happened to be the same time period that Europeans, particularly the British, were looking at Middle East oil to fuel their empires.
The major European alliances sought to take advantage of this weakened Ottoman position. In 1909, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inciting the anger of the Russia Empire.
The First Balkan War was fought between 1912 and 1913, in which Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria fought the Ottoman Empire. The settlement that followed angered Bulgaria, which then began to engage in territorial disputes with Serbia and Romania. Bulgaria then attacked Greece and Serbia in 1913, followed by Romania and the Ottoman Empire declaring war against Bulgaria, which was the Second Balkan War.
This further destabilized the region, and Austria-Hungary grew wary of the growing influence of Serbia. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, where the assassin was from, and then declared war. The Russian Empire mobilized for war the next day, with German mobilization following behind, and France behind it. Germany then declared war on Russia, and World War I was under way.
The end of the Great War saw the disillusion of the Ottoman Empire, breaking up its territory, which was carved up between France and Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. The German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires also officially ended as a result of the war, for which Germany was given the sole blame for the war and punished through the Versailles reparations.
The Russian Empire ended with the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in Russia pulling out of the war in 1917, the same year the United States entered the war. The Great War turned the United States into a powerful nation in the world, becoming a leading creditor nation with significant international influence. The British and French maintained their empires, though they were in decline. However, they attempted to maintain significant control over the Middle East.
World War I was thus the culmination of a massive build-up of imperial nations seeking expanded influence and markets for their capital. Entering the War, there were many empires, leaving it, there were two dominant European Empires (France and Britain) and an emerging new force in the world, the United States.
The Great Depression
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . . . Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.
Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927
Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who worked closely together throughout the 1920s, decided to “use the financial power of Britain and the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.”
These men were not working for the governments and nations of whom they purportedly represented, but “were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”
In the 1920s, the United States experienced a stock market boom, which was a result of the commercial banks providing “funds for the purchase of stock and took the latter as collateral,” creating a massive wave of underwriting and purchasing of securities. The stock market speculation that followed was the result of the banks “borrowing substantially from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Federal Reserve System was helping to finance the great stock market boom.”
In 1927, a meeting took place in New York City between Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, the German central bank of the Weimar Republic; Charles Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France and Benjamin Strong of the New York Fed.
The topic of the meeting was the “persistently weak reserve position of the Bank of England. This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve System would ease interest rates to encourage lending. Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.” The Fed obliged.
The Bank of England had a weak reserve position because of Britain’s position as champion of the gold standard. Foreign central banks, including the Bank of France, were transferring their exchange holdings into gold, of which the Bank of England did not have enough to supply. So the Fed lowered its discount rate, and began buying securities to equal French gold purchases. Money in the US, then, “was going increasingly into stock-market speculation rather than into production of real wealth.”
In early 1929, the Federal Reserve board of governors “called upon the member banks to reduce their loans on stock-exchange collateral,” and took other actions with the publicly pronounced aim of reducing “the amount of credit available for speculation.” Yet, it had the reverse effect, as “the available credit went more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.”
On September 26, 1929, London was hit with a financial panic, and the Bank of England raised its bank rate, causing British money to leave Wall Street, “and the over inflated market commenced to sag,” leading to a panic by mid-October.
The longest-serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote that the Fed triggered the speculative boom through its pumping excess credit into the economy (sound familiar?), and eventually this resulted in the American and British economies collapsing due to the massive imbalances produced.
Britain then “abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.”
The Bank for International Settlements
In 1929, the Young Committee was formed to create a program for the settlement of German reparations payments that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty, written at the Paris Peace talks in 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, founder of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), as a subsidiary of General Electric.
He was also President and CEO of GE from 1922 until 1939, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1928, and was also, in 1929, deputy chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. When Young was sent to Europe in 1929 to form the program for German reparations payments he was accompanied by J.P Morgan, Jr.
What emerged from the Committee was the creation of the Young Plan, which “was assertedly a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge German real assets for a gigantic mortgage held in the United States.”
Further, the Young Plan “increased unemployment more and more,” allowing Hitler to say he would “do away with unemployment,” which, “really was the reason of the enormous success Hitler had in the election.”
The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[
The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.” As Carroll Quigley explained:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”
In a letter dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt told Edward M. House, “The real truth .. is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson - and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W[oodrow]. W[ilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States - only on a far bigger and broader basis.”
Banking on Hitler
Throughout the 1930s, with the loans provided through the Dawes and Young Plans, Germany was able to create a few dominant industrial cartels, which were all financed by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.
These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”
Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.” On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.
Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank throughout Weimar Germany, stayed on as President of the German central bank from 1933 until 1939, and was thus a central figure in Nazi Germany, being a major driver being the German plans for reindustrialization, redevelopment and rearmament. Hitler, in 1934, made Schacht his Minister of Economics.
Central banks across Europe began to purchase Nazi gold, which was smuggled and melted down and re-stamped in Switzerland, (much like was done with Soviet gold). Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States all “traded with the Nazis with gold transferred by the BIS.”
This was done as a collaborative effort among central banks, as “the BIS did enter into gold and currency transactions with Nazi Germany through its participation with the Reichsbank.” Schacht wielded his significant influence and “had become instrumental in placing high-ranking Nazi officials and foreign collaborators on the BIS Board of Directors.
Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon
World War Two also marked a period of massive imperial transition. The build-up of the Third Reich led to Nazi imperialism throughout Europe and North Africa and the Japanese Empire expanded into China.
At the end of the War, the British and French Empires were all but vanished, holding onto remaining colonies in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union was devastated and Germany, with much of Europe, was in ruins. What emerged from this war that was most significant was the rise of a new empire, the American Empire.
America’s intervention into the war and expansion into Europe as a liberating force allowed it to set up bases throughout Europe as well as in Japan on the Pacific. The Soviet Union, having taken Europe from the East, expanded its influence and dominance across Eastern Europe. Following Churchill’s speech that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe, the Cold War was underway. Thus, World War II ended the age of many European empires, even of those in decline, and created a bi-polar world, which was divided between the USSR and the USA.
Following World War II, the US, as the only major nation in the world whose industrial base survived the devastation of the war, assumed the position of global hegemon. It began to set up the infrastructure, both national and international, to assume the position of global superpower, exerting its hegemony across the globe.
The crown had been passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. Ultimately, both were and are owned and controlled by the same interests, primarily represented through the central banks and the private banking interests that make up the dominant shareholders.
Before America had even entered the war in late 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the round table groups Carroll Quigley discussed as having originated from the secret society of Cecil Rhodes, was planning on America entering the war.
The CFR had essentially captured US foreign policy firmly in the grips of the banking elite. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913) ensured that the United States would become indebted to and owned by international banking interests, and thus, act in their interest.
The Fed financed the US role in World War I, provided the credit for speculation, which led to the Great Depression, and massive consolidation for the interests that own the Federal Reserve System. It then financed US entry into World War II.
The CFR, established six years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. It was to alter America’s conceptualization of its place within the world – from isolationist industrial nation to an engine of empire working for international banking and corporate American interests. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire – encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view.
By altering one’s ideology to that of promoting such an internationalist agenda, the big money that was behind it would ensure one’s rise through government, industry, academia and media.
The other major think tanks and policy institutions in the United States are also represented at the CFR. They are constitutive of divisions within the elite, however, such divisions are predicated on the basis of how to use American imperial power, where to use it, on what basis to justify it, and other various methodological differences.
The divide amongst elites was never on the questions of: should we use American imperial power, why has America become an Empire, or should there even be an empire? If one takes such considerations to heart and questions these concepts, be it within the foreign policy establishment, intelligence, military, academia, finance, corporate world, or media; chances are, such a person is not a member of the CFR.
The CFR effectively undertook a policy coup d’état over American foreign policy with the Second World War. When war broke out, the Council began a “strictly confidential” project called the War and Peace Studies, in which top CFR members collaborated with the US State Department in determining US policy, and the project was entirely financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.
The post-War world was already being designed by members of the Council, who would go into government in order to enact these designs.
The policy of “containment” towards the Soviet Union that would define American foreign policy for nearly half a century was envisaged in a 1947 edition of Foreign Affairs, the academic journal of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So too were the ideological foundations for the Marshall Plan and NATO envisaged at the Council on Foreign Relations, with members of the Council recruited to enact, implement and lead these institutions. The Council also played a role in the establishment and promotion of the United Nations, which was subsequently built on land bought from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The Rise of the American Empire and Keynesian Political Economy
Within liberal political economy, a prominent individual and British economist, John Maynard Keynes, undertook the process of evolving liberal theory into what later became known as Keynesian economics.
Following in the footsteps of the dominance of the liberal order, in which the economic and political realms were viewed as separate, and necessarily so, Keynes sought to re-imagine the political-economic relationship.
His work was largely influenced by the events leading up to and following the Great Depression, which was largely seen as a failure of the liberal economic order. Keynes wanted to combine state and market forces, not rejecting the liberal notion of the “invisible hand,” however, relegated that to a more distinct area, and imagined a broader role for the state in the economy.
Keynes advocated for the state to act, or invest, when private individuals would not, in an effort to stave off financial or economic crises. Thus, Keynes would argue, the state strengthens the market.
A Marxist theorist would likely point to this as an example of how the state, within a capitalist society, functions as an institutional organ which protects the interests of the capitalist class. Keynes advocated a liberal international order composed of free markets, however he recommended state intervention domestically, particularly to protect jobs and control inflation.
Keynesian political economic theory served in large part as a basis for the creation of the Bretton-Woods System, established in 1944, and his concept of embedded liberalism (promotion of liberal international economy, and state intervention in domestic economy), reigned supreme until the 1970s.
In 1944, representatives of the 44 Allied nations met for the Bretton Woods conference (the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) in New Hampshire, in an effort to reorganize and regulate the international financial and monetary order following the war.
The UK was represented by John Maynard Keynes; with the American contingent represented by Harry Dexter White, an American economist and senior US Treasury department official. It was out of this conference that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), now part of the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO), originated. They were designed to be the institutionalized economic foundations of exerting American hegemony across the globe; they were, in essence, engines of economic empire.
In 1947, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which created the position of Secretary of Defense overseeing the entire military establishment, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as well as created the CIA modeled on its war time incarnation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS); and the Act also created the National Security Council, headed by a National Security Adviser, and designed to give the President further advice on foreign affairs issues separate from the State Department. Essentially, the Act created the basis for the national security state apparatus for empire building.
The founding of the CIA was urged by the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1940s, and the architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions; were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Deputy Directors of the CIA for the first two decades were all “from the same New York legal and financial circles.”
Monday, 27 July, 2009
Has The Cure For Cancer Been Here All Along?
Cancer treatment and medication is a multi-billion dollar industry--so why would hospitals and pharmaceutical companies want a cure?
Have you ever heard of a doctor giving someone with stage 4 or 5 cancer a 90-100% chance of success at beating the disease?
I didn't think so. Well, there is a way you can beat these dismal odds. If you, a friend, family member, or even an acquaintance has cancer, wouldn't you like to know the cure?
If you want to know how to beat cancer, you may need look no further than cancercuresecrets.com
They provide information that has been put under wraps for years.
Did you know there is a doctor in Mexico who has a 98% success rate with curing bone cancer?
Did you know clinics exist that can offer a 90-100% success rate with curing 4 and 5 stage cancers?
Did you know there is a new form of super supplement that helps people quietly cure themselves of cancer?
Most of us didn't know that there exists a cancer treatment so effective, it kills cancer cells 100% of the time, anywhere in the body, with no toxic side- effects!
Unfortunately, most cancer patients don't know about this treatment... and they continue to suffer through hours of debilitating chemotherapy.
For decades, pharmaceutical companies have developed new drugs to help treat the symptoms of diseases such as cancer and AIDS.
What about the cause?
Why haven't their efforts been aimed at prevention, the cure before the disease?
The answer is simple.
If you have cancer, the average cost of treatment is $250,000-$750,000.
If people didn't get cancer and other serious diseases, these companies would lose huge amounts of money. Their main interest, right or wrong, is staying in business.
Many people scoff at these disturbing ideas. They want to believe that they are in control of their own lives.
But if you believe there aren't immoral and unethical people out there just sitting around thinking of ways to make money at the expense of others, you are wrong.
We live in a world where people cannibalize their neighbors and blow up buildings full of people, so is it that hard to believe that there are people willing to let you stay sick so they can make billions of dollars?
The answers you need may have been suppressed, but they are out there.
Have you ever heard of a doctor giving someone with stage 4 or 5 cancer a 90-100% chance of success at beating the disease?
I didn't think so. Well, there is a way you can beat these dismal odds. If you, a friend, family member, or even an acquaintance has cancer, wouldn't you like to know the cure?
If you want to know how to beat cancer, you may need look no further than cancercuresecrets.com
They provide information that has been put under wraps for years.
Did you know there is a doctor in Mexico who has a 98% success rate with curing bone cancer?
Did you know clinics exist that can offer a 90-100% success rate with curing 4 and 5 stage cancers?
Did you know there is a new form of super supplement that helps people quietly cure themselves of cancer?
Most of us didn't know that there exists a cancer treatment so effective, it kills cancer cells 100% of the time, anywhere in the body, with no toxic side- effects!
Unfortunately, most cancer patients don't know about this treatment... and they continue to suffer through hours of debilitating chemotherapy.
For decades, pharmaceutical companies have developed new drugs to help treat the symptoms of diseases such as cancer and AIDS.
What about the cause?
Why haven't their efforts been aimed at prevention, the cure before the disease?
The answer is simple.
If you have cancer, the average cost of treatment is $250,000-$750,000.
If people didn't get cancer and other serious diseases, these companies would lose huge amounts of money. Their main interest, right or wrong, is staying in business.
Many people scoff at these disturbing ideas. They want to believe that they are in control of their own lives.
But if you believe there aren't immoral and unethical people out there just sitting around thinking of ways to make money at the expense of others, you are wrong.
We live in a world where people cannibalize their neighbors and blow up buildings full of people, so is it that hard to believe that there are people willing to let you stay sick so they can make billions of dollars?
The answers you need may have been suppressed, but they are out there.
Sunday, 26 July, 2009
Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?
Are there people who believe only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - or only part of a god?
It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist".
What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be?
Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.)
Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?
Christians, among other things, mean by "fundamentalist atheists" those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet, in its bleeding-heart modern form,
Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast,
Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles.
It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breathtaking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.
For example:
Vast Nigerian congregations are told that believing will ensure a high income - indeed they are told by Reverend X that they will be luckier and richer if they join his congregation than if they join that of Reverend Y.
What happened to the eye of the needle?
Oh well, granted: that tiny loophole was closed long ago.
What then of "my kingdom is not of this world"? What of the blessedness of poverty and humility?
The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are now so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.
One does not have to venture as far as Nigeria to see the hypocrisies of reinvention at work. Rome will do, where the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place where the souls of unbaptised babies go.
Meanwhile, some cardinals are floating the idea that condoms are acceptable, within marital relationships only of course, in countries with high incidences of HIV infection.
This latter, which to anyone but an observant Catholic is not merely a plain piece of common sense but a humanitarian imperative, is an amazing development in its context.
Sensible Catholics have for generations been ignoring the views on contraception held by reactionary old men in the Vatican, but alas, since it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?), insufficient numbers of Catholics have been able to be sensible. Look at Ireland until very recent times for an example of the misery Catholicism inflicts when it can.
"Intellectual infancy":
The phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. Three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools; all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal.
Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration.
For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven.
Take your pick of which version of this story to tell:
let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.
So, in order not to be a "fundamentalist" atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over?
Should a "moderate atheist" be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history?
Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers?
Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone's soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?
As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist", denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws.
This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so.
(Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)
By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer
when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."
In conclusion,
It is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But, by definition, a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when;
and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.
But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief.
Any view of the world that does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology.
If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence.
This is the essence of science.
It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.
And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible".
It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist".
What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be?
Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.)
Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?
Christians, among other things, mean by "fundamentalist atheists" those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet, in its bleeding-heart modern form,
Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast,
Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles.
It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breathtaking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.
For example:
Vast Nigerian congregations are told that believing will ensure a high income - indeed they are told by Reverend X that they will be luckier and richer if they join his congregation than if they join that of Reverend Y.
What happened to the eye of the needle?
Oh well, granted: that tiny loophole was closed long ago.
What then of "my kingdom is not of this world"? What of the blessedness of poverty and humility?
The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are now so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.
One does not have to venture as far as Nigeria to see the hypocrisies of reinvention at work. Rome will do, where the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place where the souls of unbaptised babies go.
Meanwhile, some cardinals are floating the idea that condoms are acceptable, within marital relationships only of course, in countries with high incidences of HIV infection.
This latter, which to anyone but an observant Catholic is not merely a plain piece of common sense but a humanitarian imperative, is an amazing development in its context.
Sensible Catholics have for generations been ignoring the views on contraception held by reactionary old men in the Vatican, but alas, since it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?), insufficient numbers of Catholics have been able to be sensible. Look at Ireland until very recent times for an example of the misery Catholicism inflicts when it can.
"Intellectual infancy":
The phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. Three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools; all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal.
Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration.
For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven.
Take your pick of which version of this story to tell:
let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.
So, in order not to be a "fundamentalist" atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over?
Should a "moderate atheist" be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history?
Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers?
Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone's soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?
As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist", denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws.
This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so.
(Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)
By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer
when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."
In conclusion,
It is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But, by definition, a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when;
and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.
But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief.
Any view of the world that does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology.
If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence.
This is the essence of science.
It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.
And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible".
Saturday, 25 July, 2009
Wall Street’s Greatest Fraud
Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme has to be the greatest fraud of all time, right? Allen Stanford is likely a distant second, correct?
Well, actually, no. Madoff has certainly reserved a special place in financial ‘hell’ for his fraud, but make no mistake, the single greatest fraud ever perpetrated on investors is the collective Wall Street enterprise that marketed and distributed Auction-Rate Securities.
The ARS market at its peak was a $330 BILLION market. Of that initial size, those on Wall Street tracking developments within the ARS market project that $165 BILLION held by thousands of retail and institutional investors remain frozen.
The Wall Street Journal highlights the next in what could be a long running series of ARS investigations in writing.
Well, actually, no. Madoff has certainly reserved a special place in financial ‘hell’ for his fraud, but make no mistake, the single greatest fraud ever perpetrated on investors is the collective Wall Street enterprise that marketed and distributed Auction-Rate Securities.
The ARS market at its peak was a $330 BILLION market. Of that initial size, those on Wall Street tracking developments within the ARS market project that $165 BILLION held by thousands of retail and institutional investors remain frozen.
The Wall Street Journal highlights the next in what could be a long running series of ARS investigations in writing.
Cuomo Says Schwab Faces Fraud Suit: http://tinyurl.com/mtk7f8
In an official notice sent to Charles Schwab & Co. Friday, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo warned that his office plans to sue the largest online brokerage firm for civil fraud over its marketing and sales of auction-rate securities to clients. Emails and testimony cited in the letter show Schwab’s brokers had little idea of what they were selling and later failed to tell clients that the market was collapsing.
You may be heartened to see AG Cuomo launch this action against Schwab but It makes you wonder why he does not simultaneously take the same action against EVERY bank, broker, and investment management firm involved in the marketing and distribution of ARS.
Regular readers of Sense on Cents know that I believe the ARS trail leads back to the Wall Street self-regulatory organization, FINRA. For the benefit of our newer readers, allow me to reconnect the dots once again.
In reading FINRA’s 2007 Annual Report, I unearthed that FINRA owned $647 million ARS. In reviewing NASD’s (FINRA’s parent) 2003-2005 Annual Reports, I highlighted that the NASD did NOT account for ARS as cash. I pursued this story of FINRA’s ownership of ARS and Bloomberg broke it in late April. There is much more that needs to be exposed. The WSJ continues:
Mr. Cuomo writes in the letter that his office would be open to a settlement with Schwab, but it must agree to buy back the securities from investors still stuck with them.
Why just Schwab? Why shouldn’t every institution involved in this fraud be similarly engaged and held to the same standard right NOW!! Who are some of these outfits? Oppenheimer and Co. and PIMCO to start.
More than a dozen Wall Street firms and small brokerages agreed to pay more than $60 billion to buy back the securities from investors after investigators found they didn’t properly inform clients about the risks, or that the market was crumbling, increasing their losses. Schwab is among a handful that haven’t settled.
“The Attorney General’s allegations are without merit,” Schwab said in a statement. “They unfairly lay blame on our company for an illiquid market and improper behavior by the large Wall Street firms that created” and then stopped supporting the market.
At Charles Schwab, which uses the advertising slogan “Talk to Chuck,” brokers admitted their ignorance about the product, according to Mr. Cuomo’s letter.
“Schwab brokers, while trained to levels beyond industry standards, could not be expected to foresee and disclose market risks that even regulators and market experts did not foresee,” Schwab said.
The attorney general’s investigation of Schwab found that brokers were unaware of and misleading about the risks of the securities — promoting them to customers as cash-like investments, according to the letter.
It also found that some traders and executives knew the market was cracking as early as the autumn of 2007 and took steps to protect the company, but didn’t disclose those problems to customers.
Schwab mistakenly believes they are being singled out. EVERY institution should be pursued in similar fashion. Last I checked, ignorance of the law is no excuse for perpetrating a crime.
Who is charged with protecting investors and making sure investment products are marketed and sold appropriately? FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association):
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. All told, FINRA oversees nearly 4,850 brokerage firms, about 173,000 branch offices and approximately 649,000 registered securities representatives.
Created in July 2007 through the consolidation of NASD and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the New York Stock Exchange, FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services.
FINRA failed miserably in protecting investors from this Auction-Rate Securities fraud.
Schwab mistakenly believes they are being singled out. EVERY institution should be pursued in similar fashion. Last I checked, ignorance of the law is no excuse for perpetrating a crime.
Who is charged with protecting investors and making sure investment products are marketed and sold appropriately? FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association):
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. All told, FINRA oversees nearly 4,850 brokerage firms, about 173,000 branch offices and approximately 649,000 registered securities representatives.
Created in July 2007 through the consolidation of NASD and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the New York Stock Exchange, FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services.
FINRA failed miserably in protecting investors from this Auction-Rate Securities fraud.
Was FINRA merely asleep at the wheel and missed this fraud?
Anything but.
FINRA owned $647 million ARS and liquidated them in Spring 2007. Lehman Bros. liquidated ARS positions in the same time frame.
While AG Cuomo should pursue each and every institution involved in this fraud, in my opinion, he is working from the top down.
FINRA owned $647 million ARS and liquidated them in Spring 2007. Lehman Bros. liquidated ARS positions in the same time frame.
While AG Cuomo should pursue each and every institution involved in this fraud, in my opinion, he is working from the top down.
He should start at the bottom by pursuing FINRA’s actions and involvement in this fraud.
The world will end in 2012, say experts
Scientific experts from around the world are predicting that five years from now, all life on Earth could well come to an end. Some are saying it’ll be humans that would set it off.
Others believe that a natural phenomenon will be the cause. And the religious folks are saying it’ll be God himself who would press the stop button.
The following are some likely arguments as to why the world would end by the year 2012.
Reason one:
Reason one:
Mayan calendar The first to predict 2012 as the end of the world were the Mayans, a bloodthirsty race that were good at two things -- building highly accurate astrological equipment out of stone and sacrificing virgins.
Thousands of years ago they managed to calculate the length of the lunar moon as 329.53020 days, only 34 seconds out. The Mayan calendar predicts that the earth will end on December 21, 2012. Given that they were pretty close to the mark with the lunar cycle, it’s likely they’ve got the end of the world right as well.
Reason two:
Reason two:
Sun storms Solar experts from around the world monitoring the sun have made a startling discovery. Our sun is in a bit of strife. The energy output of the sun is, like most things in nature, cyclic and it’s supposed to be in the middle of a period of relative stability. However, recent solar storms have been bombarding the earth with lot of radiation energy. It’s been knocking out power grids and destroying satellites. This activity is predicted to get worse and calculations suggest it’ll reach its deadly peak sometime in 2012.
Reason three:
Reason three:
The atom smasher Scientists in Europe have been building the world’s largest particle accelerator. Basically, its a 27 km tunnel designed to smash atoms together to find out what makes the universe tick.
However, the mega-gadget has caused serious concern, with some scientists suggesting that it’s properly even a bad idea to turn it on in the first place. They’re predicting all manner of deadly results, including mini black holes. So when this machine is fired up for its first serious experiment in 2012, the world could be crushed into a super-dense blob the size of a basketball.
Reason four:
The Bible says itIf having scientists warning us about the end of the world isn’t bad enough, religious folks are getting in on the act as well. Interpretations of the Christian Bible reveal that the date for Armageddon, the final battle between good an evil, has been set for 2012. The I Ching, also known as the Chinese Book of Changes, says the same thing, as do various sections of the Hindu teachings.
Reason five:
Reason five:
Super volcano Yellowstone National Park in United States is famous for its thermal springs and old faithful geyser. The reason for this is simple -- it’s sitting on top of the world’s biggest volcano and geological experts are beginning to get nervous sweats.
The Yellowstone volcano has a pattern of erupting every 650,000 years or so, and we’re many years overdue for an explosion that will fill the atmosphere with ash, blocking the sun and plunging the earth into a frozen winter that could last up to 15,000 years.
The pressure under the Yellowstone is building steadily, and geologists have set 2012 as a likely date for the big bang.
"Conspiracy theorist" Lou Dobbs
CNN "conspiracy theorist" Lou Dobbs discredits his network; one wild claim at a time
Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims; his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility.
Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his prime-time CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims -- his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility. Dobbs has promoted the fringe notions -- labeled "conspiracy theories" by his own CNN colleagues that President Obama has failed to produce a valid birth certificate and that the U.S. government is conspiring to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union."
CNN had to express regret over Dobbs' program's use of a hate group's graphic to advance the idea that Mexican immigrants are plotting to retake the American Southwest. And Dobbs was criticized on CNN's Reliable Sources by both a liberal and a conservative guest for his refusal to correct his show's gross overstatement of the number of new leprosy cases in the U.S. (which he had attributed to undocumented immigration).
Obama's birth certificate
During the July 15 edition of his radio program, Dobbs devoted substantial airtime to the issue of Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that the president needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "that everyone is purporting to validate the president" has "some issues; I mean, it's peculiar," and stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal."
Dobbs also mentioned the issue of Obama's birth certificate on the July 15 edition of his CNN show. Referring to the document that FactCheck.org posted, Dobbs said, "It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession."
Dobbs continued to repeat the "birther" claims on both CNN and his radio show, stating on the July 20 edition of his CNN program that the birth certificate questions offered by "passionate supporters" "won't go away because they haven't been dealt with, it seems possible to, straightforwardly and quickly," and saying on the July 21 edition of his CNN show, "We had people, including reporters from the LA Times, calling up because I referred to this.; Instead of calling the White House to ask why they didn't do it, they're calling me to ask why I said I don't know what the reality is. No one does."
Additionally, on the July 21 edition of his radio show, Dobbs criticized "certain quarters of the national liberal media that are just absolutely trying to knock down the issue of President Obama's birth certificate," stating that they are "focused on being subservient and servile to this presidency rather than being inquisitive and doing their jobs with, you know, the White House." On July 22, Dobbs again asserted on his radio show that Obama could "make the whole controversy disappear; by simply releasing his original birth certificate."
By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project" that is "more conspiratorial than factual," and have characterized those who make these claims as "nut jobs" and "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hats."
In a July 22 column published on CNN.com, CNN contributor Roland S. Martin stated, "The nut jobs that continue to promote this story are wacky, right-wing radio and TV talk shows hosts and no-credibility bloggers. They have latched onto this story like bloodsucking leeches, and actually want us to believe this story has legs."
"North American Union"
Dobbs' has also promoted conspiracy theories regarding purported government plans for a "North American Union," while other CNN reporters appear to dismiss these theories out of hand.
For example, on the August 21, 2007, edition of The Situation Room, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux aired a video clip of then; President Bush's response to a question about the North American Union.
In that response, Bush said, "It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
Malveaux said Bush's denial followed "a lot of talk in the blogosphere and conspiracy theorists." According to a search of the Nexis database conducted at the time, the North American Union had been mentioned on 53 Lou Dobbs Tonight broadcasts prior to Malveaux's statement. Indeed, during a Malveaux report just the day before; on the August 20, 2007, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight; on-screen text read: "Critics say SPP {Security & Prosperity Partnership} an Attempt to Create a N. Amer. Union."
Indeed, Dobbs has a long history of promoting this conspiracy theory. For instance, during the June 21, 2006, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked:
"Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com."
Similarly, on the November 29, 2006, edition of his show, Dobbs asserted that "the Bush administration is determined to create a North American union without consultation or approval of the people of this country or our Congress." Following a report in which CNN correspondent Christine Romans stated, "Critics say foreign policy elites are promoting a European-style union, erasing borders between the three countries and eventually moving to a single North American currency called the Amero" and cited a denial from the Commerce Department, Dobbs stated, "What they're doing is creating a brave new world, an Orwellian world, in which the will of the people is absolutely irrelevant."
"La Reconquista"
Dobbs has also repeatedly linked immigration to fears that some Mexicans plan to take over the American Southwest for Mexico. On the March 31, 2006, edition of his show, Dobbs introduced a report by Romans by stating,
"There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover."
Romans stated, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say, "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism."
On the May 23, 2006, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "you could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," an apparent, baseless reference to those who purportedly espouse the concept of "reconquista," a term associated with El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, a document drafted in the early formation of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztalan, or MEChA), which critics claim outlines a plan for recapturing the southwestern United States for Mexico.
During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" says: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
On May 25, 2006, in response to the criticism of CNN over the appearance of the CCC graphic during the May 23, 2006, show, a CNN spokeswoman said that a "freelance field producer" had "grabbed the Council of Conservative Citizens map without knowing the nature of the organization" and that its inclusion in the segment "regrettably, was missed in the vetting process."
Leprosy and Immigration
Dobbs also came under intense fire following his program's gross overstatement of the number of new leprosy cases in the U.S. and for implying that immigrants were responsible for the purported spike in the disease's incidence. On the April 14, 2005, edition of his show, Dobbs said, "The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans."
He then introduced a report in which Romans stated that "the woman in our piece {lawyer Madeline Cosman} told us that there were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years. Leprosy in this country." "Incredible," Dobbs replied.
However, as Media Matters and others; including CBS's 60 Minutes and The New York Times, noted, the claim was wildly inflated. According to the National Hansen's Disease Program (NHDP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there were 398 U.S. cases of Hansen's disease, or leprosy, reported between 2002 and 2004 "the past three years" at the time Romans made her statement. Cosman's claims were originally published in the journal of an organization that has, among other things, promoted conspiracy theories about the death of Vince Foster.
Despite the fact that Romans' original 2005 reporting on leprosy has been proven false, Dobbs has never admitted to the error on his show and indeed defended Romans' reporting on numerous occasions. For example, on the May 6, 2007, edition of 60 Minutes, Dobbs said of the leprosy claim, "If we reported it, it's a fact." On the June 18, 2007, edition of his show, Dobbs tried to downplay his program's airing and affirming of the falsehood, saying the comment was "eight seconds long and as I said, took place two and a half years ago."
On the June 3, 2007, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, both Rachel Sklar of the progressive Huffington Post and Mary Katherine Ham of the conservative Townhall.com criticized Dobbs' refusal to correct the falsehood.
In my opinion, Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims; his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility.
Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims; his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility.
Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his prime-time CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims -- his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility. Dobbs has promoted the fringe notions -- labeled "conspiracy theories" by his own CNN colleagues that President Obama has failed to produce a valid birth certificate and that the U.S. government is conspiring to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union."
CNN had to express regret over Dobbs' program's use of a hate group's graphic to advance the idea that Mexican immigrants are plotting to retake the American Southwest. And Dobbs was criticized on CNN's Reliable Sources by both a liberal and a conservative guest for his refusal to correct his show's gross overstatement of the number of new leprosy cases in the U.S. (which he had attributed to undocumented immigration).
Obama's birth certificate
During the July 15 edition of his radio program, Dobbs devoted substantial airtime to the issue of Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that the president needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "that everyone is purporting to validate the president" has "some issues; I mean, it's peculiar," and stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal."
Dobbs also mentioned the issue of Obama's birth certificate on the July 15 edition of his CNN show. Referring to the document that FactCheck.org posted, Dobbs said, "It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession."
Dobbs continued to repeat the "birther" claims on both CNN and his radio show, stating on the July 20 edition of his CNN program that the birth certificate questions offered by "passionate supporters" "won't go away because they haven't been dealt with, it seems possible to, straightforwardly and quickly," and saying on the July 21 edition of his CNN show, "We had people, including reporters from the LA Times, calling up because I referred to this.; Instead of calling the White House to ask why they didn't do it, they're calling me to ask why I said I don't know what the reality is. No one does."
Additionally, on the July 21 edition of his radio show, Dobbs criticized "certain quarters of the national liberal media that are just absolutely trying to knock down the issue of President Obama's birth certificate," stating that they are "focused on being subservient and servile to this presidency rather than being inquisitive and doing their jobs with, you know, the White House." On July 22, Dobbs again asserted on his radio show that Obama could "make the whole controversy disappear; by simply releasing his original birth certificate."
By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project" that is "more conspiratorial than factual," and have characterized those who make these claims as "nut jobs" and "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hats."
In a July 22 column published on CNN.com, CNN contributor Roland S. Martin stated, "The nut jobs that continue to promote this story are wacky, right-wing radio and TV talk shows hosts and no-credibility bloggers. They have latched onto this story like bloodsucking leeches, and actually want us to believe this story has legs."
"North American Union"
Dobbs' has also promoted conspiracy theories regarding purported government plans for a "North American Union," while other CNN reporters appear to dismiss these theories out of hand.
For example, on the August 21, 2007, edition of The Situation Room, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux aired a video clip of then; President Bush's response to a question about the North American Union.
In that response, Bush said, "It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
Malveaux said Bush's denial followed "a lot of talk in the blogosphere and conspiracy theorists." According to a search of the Nexis database conducted at the time, the North American Union had been mentioned on 53 Lou Dobbs Tonight broadcasts prior to Malveaux's statement. Indeed, during a Malveaux report just the day before; on the August 20, 2007, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight; on-screen text read: "Critics say SPP {Security & Prosperity Partnership} an Attempt to Create a N. Amer. Union."
Indeed, Dobbs has a long history of promoting this conspiracy theory. For instance, during the June 21, 2006, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked:
"Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com."
Similarly, on the November 29, 2006, edition of his show, Dobbs asserted that "the Bush administration is determined to create a North American union without consultation or approval of the people of this country or our Congress." Following a report in which CNN correspondent Christine Romans stated, "Critics say foreign policy elites are promoting a European-style union, erasing borders between the three countries and eventually moving to a single North American currency called the Amero" and cited a denial from the Commerce Department, Dobbs stated, "What they're doing is creating a brave new world, an Orwellian world, in which the will of the people is absolutely irrelevant."
"La Reconquista"
Dobbs has also repeatedly linked immigration to fears that some Mexicans plan to take over the American Southwest for Mexico. On the March 31, 2006, edition of his show, Dobbs introduced a report by Romans by stating,
"There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover."
Romans stated, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say, "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism."
On the May 23, 2006, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "you could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," an apparent, baseless reference to those who purportedly espouse the concept of "reconquista," a term associated with El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, a document drafted in the early formation of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztalan, or MEChA), which critics claim outlines a plan for recapturing the southwestern United States for Mexico.
During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" says: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
On May 25, 2006, in response to the criticism of CNN over the appearance of the CCC graphic during the May 23, 2006, show, a CNN spokeswoman said that a "freelance field producer" had "grabbed the Council of Conservative Citizens map without knowing the nature of the organization" and that its inclusion in the segment "regrettably, was missed in the vetting process."
Leprosy and Immigration
Dobbs also came under intense fire following his program's gross overstatement of the number of new leprosy cases in the U.S. and for implying that immigrants were responsible for the purported spike in the disease's incidence. On the April 14, 2005, edition of his show, Dobbs said, "The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans."
He then introduced a report in which Romans stated that "the woman in our piece {lawyer Madeline Cosman} told us that there were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years. Leprosy in this country." "Incredible," Dobbs replied.
However, as Media Matters and others; including CBS's 60 Minutes and The New York Times, noted, the claim was wildly inflated. According to the National Hansen's Disease Program (NHDP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there were 398 U.S. cases of Hansen's disease, or leprosy, reported between 2002 and 2004 "the past three years" at the time Romans made her statement. Cosman's claims were originally published in the journal of an organization that has, among other things, promoted conspiracy theories about the death of Vince Foster.
Despite the fact that Romans' original 2005 reporting on leprosy has been proven false, Dobbs has never admitted to the error on his show and indeed defended Romans' reporting on numerous occasions. For example, on the May 6, 2007, edition of 60 Minutes, Dobbs said of the leprosy claim, "If we reported it, it's a fact." On the June 18, 2007, edition of his show, Dobbs tried to downplay his program's airing and affirming of the falsehood, saying the comment was "eight seconds long and as I said, took place two and a half years ago."
On the June 3, 2007, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, both Rachel Sklar of the progressive Huffington Post and Mary Katherine Ham of the conservative Townhall.com criticized Dobbs' refusal to correct the falsehood.
In my opinion, Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his CNN show and his radio show to spread discredited theories and wild claims; his attention to which jeopardizes CNN's credibility.
Friday, 24 July, 2009
OPEC Braces for Decline in Crude Prices
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is bracing for a sharp drop in crude prices in coming weeks, as huge reserves of oil-based fuels continue to pile up and the space to store them runs out.
Stockpiles of fuels such as diesel and heating oil are at a 24-year high in the U.S. because of tepid demand from industries and consumers hammered by the global economic downturn. Conditions in the futures market have also made it very profitable for traders to store these fuels, known as distillates.
So far OPEC has been able to head off a sustained collapse in oil prices through big production cuts, and U.S. oil prices have shrugged off the excess supply, taking their cue from rising stock markets and investors' expectations of an economic recovery.
But if the anticipated economic turnaround doesn't materialize to soak up the growing distillate glut, as some OPEC officials fear, supplies will grow even larger, dragging down oil prices despite the cartel's efforts.
Crude rose 89 cents on Friday to $68.05 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
When people realize there are no green shoots of recovery yet, "this distillate overhang will be a main factor pushing prices down," a senior OPEC delegate said.
This concern is prompting some at OPEC, whose 12 members pump about four of every 10 barrels of oil consumed around the world every day, to consider further output reductions. The OPEC official wouldn't rule out an agreement to cut production at the group's next policy meeting Sept. 9.
But any further announced cuts may not have much market credibility. Some OPEC members, including Angola, Iran and Venezuela, are already selling more barrels than they agreed to in order to capture more revenue. Some members, like Saudi Arabia, may have no appetite for more reductions when other OPEC nations are shirking their commitments.
Oil refiners may decide to process less crude to reduce inventories and increase their profit margins.
There are already signs that U.S. refiners are throttling back production. For the week ended July 17, the nation's refineries ran at 85.8% of their capacity, down from 87.9% the previous week, according to government data.
Although refiners have been running their plants well below last year's levels for some time, the cuts haven't been enough to offset dismal demand for diesel and other fuels. Last week, distillate demand dropped 15% from the same period in 2008.
Futures prices have also contributed to the build-up in U.S. fuel supplies. Prices for heating-oil deliveries farther out into the future have been sharply higher than prices for near-term contracts. The wide difference in prices, plus low interest rates, has encouraged traders to buy distillates, store them and enter into contracts to sell them in the future for a higher price.
"They've got huge forward premiums," said Jim Ritterbusch, who runs an oil-trading advisory firm in Galena, Ill.
As a result, distillate stocks surged to 160.5 million barrels last week, 25% higher than during the same period last year and the highest level since 1985.
The enormous supplies are pushing available storage capacity to its limit, with some traders reportedly resorting to barges and tankers at sea.
"Inventories are at just ridiculously high levels," said Kevin Rooney, chief executive of the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island, a trade group for heating-oil wholesalers.
"I would imagine that just about every available barrel of storage is full."
Stockpiles of fuels such as diesel and heating oil are at a 24-year high in the U.S. because of tepid demand from industries and consumers hammered by the global economic downturn. Conditions in the futures market have also made it very profitable for traders to store these fuels, known as distillates.
So far OPEC has been able to head off a sustained collapse in oil prices through big production cuts, and U.S. oil prices have shrugged off the excess supply, taking their cue from rising stock markets and investors' expectations of an economic recovery.
But if the anticipated economic turnaround doesn't materialize to soak up the growing distillate glut, as some OPEC officials fear, supplies will grow even larger, dragging down oil prices despite the cartel's efforts.
Crude rose 89 cents on Friday to $68.05 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
When people realize there are no green shoots of recovery yet, "this distillate overhang will be a main factor pushing prices down," a senior OPEC delegate said.
This concern is prompting some at OPEC, whose 12 members pump about four of every 10 barrels of oil consumed around the world every day, to consider further output reductions. The OPEC official wouldn't rule out an agreement to cut production at the group's next policy meeting Sept. 9.
But any further announced cuts may not have much market credibility. Some OPEC members, including Angola, Iran and Venezuela, are already selling more barrels than they agreed to in order to capture more revenue. Some members, like Saudi Arabia, may have no appetite for more reductions when other OPEC nations are shirking their commitments.
Oil refiners may decide to process less crude to reduce inventories and increase their profit margins.
There are already signs that U.S. refiners are throttling back production. For the week ended July 17, the nation's refineries ran at 85.8% of their capacity, down from 87.9% the previous week, according to government data.
Although refiners have been running their plants well below last year's levels for some time, the cuts haven't been enough to offset dismal demand for diesel and other fuels. Last week, distillate demand dropped 15% from the same period in 2008.
Futures prices have also contributed to the build-up in U.S. fuel supplies. Prices for heating-oil deliveries farther out into the future have been sharply higher than prices for near-term contracts. The wide difference in prices, plus low interest rates, has encouraged traders to buy distillates, store them and enter into contracts to sell them in the future for a higher price.
"They've got huge forward premiums," said Jim Ritterbusch, who runs an oil-trading advisory firm in Galena, Ill.
As a result, distillate stocks surged to 160.5 million barrels last week, 25% higher than during the same period last year and the highest level since 1985.
The enormous supplies are pushing available storage capacity to its limit, with some traders reportedly resorting to barges and tankers at sea.
"Inventories are at just ridiculously high levels," said Kevin Rooney, chief executive of the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island, a trade group for heating-oil wholesalers.
"I would imagine that just about every available barrel of storage is full."
Why lawyers are offering free advice
To many people outside the legal profession the idea of doing what you're good at for free could be seen as alien.
But a decision this week by Dubai International Financial Centre Courts to launch a pro bono programme has met with support from the emirate's law firms.
Confident that the move will not affect their bottom line, companies will queue to register their lawyers for the work, partners told Emirates Business. Pro bono is from the Latin pro bono publico, meaning 'for the pubic good'.
Jonathan Davidson, Managing Partner at MAC Davidson & Associates, said the pro bono programme had been championed by Mark Beer, registrar at DIFC Courts.
"From a commercial law firm perspective, pro bono is a necessary component because law firms can give back to the community in a way that they couldn't alternately do," said Davidson.
"It will not affect our business. I'm very happy for one or two members of my staff to dedicate time to pro bono work.
"In large respects we already undertake pro bono work because we give advice and charge only if they want to take on the case.
"Pro bono gives people accessibility to justice, which is a fantastic step. In other jurisdictions it has been in existence for a long time and it's here now."
The pro bono programme is expected to go live a few weeks after a August 21 deadline the court has given legal firms for consultation and comment on its guidelines.
The DIFC Courts' aim is to give legal representation to litigants that are in need of it, but cannot afford it.
The pro bono programme is a first for the region and its services will range from basic advice to full case management and representation in proceedings. People will, however, have to meet eligibility criteria set by DIFC Courts.
At Afridi & Angell, Partner Stuart Walker said, "We are active users of the DIFC Courts and welcome this development [of pro bono work].
"The firm has provided pro bono assistance to individuals in the UAE for many years and we look forward to being a part of this initiative.
"This is an opportunity for participating law firms in Dubai to perhaps generate some additional goodwill. It is unlikely to have any material impact of the business of the law firms in Dubai. The pro bono programme is designed for individuals who could not otherwise afford a lawyer, so the programme is not expect to erode the existing client base of law firms in Dubai."
DIFC Courts' guidelines state that a pro bono litigant must certify that he cannot afford a lawyer and he will notify the volunteer practitioner and the 'programme leader' if at any time during the representation his financial position changes such that he would be able to retain a lawyer.
Once eligible, individuals will be assigned a legal representative, selected from a register of volunteer lawyers, and offered free legal assistance for the duration of their case.
Guidelines released by the court suggested the creation of a register to track the number and types of pro bono litigant referrals and to monitor case progress with registered practitioners.
A programme leader chosen by the Chief Justice of DIFC Courts will be expected to review the list of volunteer practitioners to determine availability and interest prior to referring a litigant to a practitioner.
When a volunteer practitioner takes on a pro bono engagement, both the practitioner and the pro bono litigant will sign a Letter of Engagement, which outlines the scope of the pro bono engagement.
Each engagement will be clearly defined in terms of type of service and time commitment and only encompasses the Court of First Instance proceedings. If the pro bono litigant and the volunteer practitioner agree to continue the representation in an appeal or additional claim, a new Letter of Engagement will have to be submitted to the programme leader.
A pro bono litigant will also be allowed to apply to have court fees waived but if he is successful in his action and is awarded costs in his favour the fees become payable to the DIFC Courts by the unsuccessful Defendant.
Though unavailable for comment, Amna Al Owais, Deputy Registrar of the DIFC Courts, said in a statement, "The DIFC Courts' pro bono programme and the supporting guidelines published for consultation are integral to our mission of providing timely, fair, clear and accessible justice. This new initiative will ensure that all parties are on equal footing in proceedings before the court."
About DIFC Courts
The DIFC Courts is an independent court system set up to uphold the provisions of DIFC laws and regulations. They provide the protection of an English language common law court system with an internationally renowned bench of judges versed in commercial disputes, to ensure transparent and efficient justice in civil and commercial matters in or relating to the Centre. Designed to deal specifically with the sophisticated transactions conducted within the DIFC, the DIFC Courts provide legal redress in civil and commercial matters.
Along with offering the highest standards in legal dispute resolution and a judicial system based on international best practices, DIFC Courts provide a small claims tribunal. In January 2008, DIFC Courts appointed the first female judge in the UAE and announced that two Emirati judges had become common law International Judges. The DIFC Courts were established under laws enacted by the late His Highness Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, in September 2004.
The courts are an independent judicial system with jurisdiction over matters arising from and within the DIFC. Dubai Law No 12 of 2004 established the Judicial Authority at the DIFC and sets out the jurisdiction of the court and allows for the independent administration of justice in the DIFC.
Source: DIFC
But a decision this week by Dubai International Financial Centre Courts to launch a pro bono programme has met with support from the emirate's law firms.
Confident that the move will not affect their bottom line, companies will queue to register their lawyers for the work, partners told Emirates Business. Pro bono is from the Latin pro bono publico, meaning 'for the pubic good'.
Jonathan Davidson, Managing Partner at MAC Davidson & Associates, said the pro bono programme had been championed by Mark Beer, registrar at DIFC Courts.
"From a commercial law firm perspective, pro bono is a necessary component because law firms can give back to the community in a way that they couldn't alternately do," said Davidson.
"It will not affect our business. I'm very happy for one or two members of my staff to dedicate time to pro bono work.
"In large respects we already undertake pro bono work because we give advice and charge only if they want to take on the case.
"Pro bono gives people accessibility to justice, which is a fantastic step. In other jurisdictions it has been in existence for a long time and it's here now."
The pro bono programme is expected to go live a few weeks after a August 21 deadline the court has given legal firms for consultation and comment on its guidelines.
The DIFC Courts' aim is to give legal representation to litigants that are in need of it, but cannot afford it.
The pro bono programme is a first for the region and its services will range from basic advice to full case management and representation in proceedings. People will, however, have to meet eligibility criteria set by DIFC Courts.
At Afridi & Angell, Partner Stuart Walker said, "We are active users of the DIFC Courts and welcome this development [of pro bono work].
"The firm has provided pro bono assistance to individuals in the UAE for many years and we look forward to being a part of this initiative.
"This is an opportunity for participating law firms in Dubai to perhaps generate some additional goodwill. It is unlikely to have any material impact of the business of the law firms in Dubai. The pro bono programme is designed for individuals who could not otherwise afford a lawyer, so the programme is not expect to erode the existing client base of law firms in Dubai."
DIFC Courts' guidelines state that a pro bono litigant must certify that he cannot afford a lawyer and he will notify the volunteer practitioner and the 'programme leader' if at any time during the representation his financial position changes such that he would be able to retain a lawyer.
Once eligible, individuals will be assigned a legal representative, selected from a register of volunteer lawyers, and offered free legal assistance for the duration of their case.
Guidelines released by the court suggested the creation of a register to track the number and types of pro bono litigant referrals and to monitor case progress with registered practitioners.
A programme leader chosen by the Chief Justice of DIFC Courts will be expected to review the list of volunteer practitioners to determine availability and interest prior to referring a litigant to a practitioner.
When a volunteer practitioner takes on a pro bono engagement, both the practitioner and the pro bono litigant will sign a Letter of Engagement, which outlines the scope of the pro bono engagement.
Each engagement will be clearly defined in terms of type of service and time commitment and only encompasses the Court of First Instance proceedings. If the pro bono litigant and the volunteer practitioner agree to continue the representation in an appeal or additional claim, a new Letter of Engagement will have to be submitted to the programme leader.
A pro bono litigant will also be allowed to apply to have court fees waived but if he is successful in his action and is awarded costs in his favour the fees become payable to the DIFC Courts by the unsuccessful Defendant.
Though unavailable for comment, Amna Al Owais, Deputy Registrar of the DIFC Courts, said in a statement, "The DIFC Courts' pro bono programme and the supporting guidelines published for consultation are integral to our mission of providing timely, fair, clear and accessible justice. This new initiative will ensure that all parties are on equal footing in proceedings before the court."
About DIFC Courts
The DIFC Courts is an independent court system set up to uphold the provisions of DIFC laws and regulations. They provide the protection of an English language common law court system with an internationally renowned bench of judges versed in commercial disputes, to ensure transparent and efficient justice in civil and commercial matters in or relating to the Centre. Designed to deal specifically with the sophisticated transactions conducted within the DIFC, the DIFC Courts provide legal redress in civil and commercial matters.
Along with offering the highest standards in legal dispute resolution and a judicial system based on international best practices, DIFC Courts provide a small claims tribunal. In January 2008, DIFC Courts appointed the first female judge in the UAE and announced that two Emirati judges had become common law International Judges. The DIFC Courts were established under laws enacted by the late His Highness Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, in September 2004.
The courts are an independent judicial system with jurisdiction over matters arising from and within the DIFC. Dubai Law No 12 of 2004 established the Judicial Authority at the DIFC and sets out the jurisdiction of the court and allows for the independent administration of justice in the DIFC.
Source: DIFC
Thursday, 23 July, 2009
Frugal McDougall, A Rhyme For Our Economic Times
Frugal McDougall worked very hard,
Bought things with cash and not credit cards,
And when it came to the things that he bought,
Things that he needed were all that he sought.
Once he was sure that his bills were all paid,
The money left over was carefully saved.
You see in the future he hoped to retire
And knew very well what that would require.
His neighbors were foolish and laden with greed.
They focused on wants instead of on needs.
They went out to dinner about every night.
When you’re middle class that’s one of your rights.
When they got their paychecks they spent every dime.
Having money left over would have been a crime.
Their credit was pushed to its uppermost limit,
When it came to debt they were very deep in it.
When Frugal McDougall would try to explain
The value of saving they all called him names,
So he wouldn’t bother most of the time.
He said it was something like ‘pearls before swine’
Meanwhile the neighbors got credit card offers,
Promising money to fill up their coffers.
Consumed by their greed they filled out every one,
With barely a thought as to what they had done.
And when the cards came they all ran about
Foolishly spending till they were maxed out.
A pool for the yard, perhaps some new skis.
They spent money like it was growing on trees.
Some even went on a cruise to the Med,
Where they all laid around looking tanned and well fed.
No thought was given to how they would pay,
For surely a bill would be coming their way.
In complete disbelief McDougall looked on.
He knew very well that they had it all wrong.
And the foolish idea that was shared by them all
Was that happiness was now on sale at the mall.
He’d been chastened so often he now bit his lip,
For fear if he didn’t he’d let something slip.
His neighbors would learn of his total disdain
For the way that their money was thrown down the drain.
Instead he would focus on his quiet life,
With his quiet children and his quiet wife.
In their simple way their needs were all met,
And their simple life was quite free of debt.
Then one day his neighbor came home joyously
In a gigantic brand new s. u. v.
Frugal McDougall just stood there and gawked,
Confused and bewildered and totally shocked.
He knew that his neighbor made twelve bucks and hour
And shouldn’t have this kind of purchasing power.
And when asked how he paid for this monstrosity
The neighbor replied, “with my home equity.”
The debt didn’t matter, the man was a dunce,
Whose only concern had been "how much a month."
The neighborhood pondered what he had just said
And one by one light bulbs came on in their heads.
Then sure enough the very next day,
New cars appeared in every driveway.
McDougall now cautioned that they should take heed,
All this debt served no legitimate need,
Instead they were putting their futures at risk.
The response they delivered was angry and brisk.
Frugal McDougall was called a big fool,
And other mean names that were equally cruel.
"We are all rich," they boldly declared
As Frugal McDougall stood there and stared.
"Our homes are all worth more than twice what we paid!
The good life is ours and should not be delayed!"
But Frugal McDougall refused to be goaded
And as he expected the debt bomb exploded.
The neighborhood values were starting to fall,
Faster and faster effecting them all.
Then as his neighbor stood looking distressed,
The new s. u. v. was being repossessed.
Soon all around, the neighborhood toys,
The ones that had recently brought so much joy,
Were all repossessed or put up for sale.
The pleasures they brought had grown a bit stale.
Purse strings were tightened as jobs were now lost.
It seems the free money came at a steep cost.
Banks were collapsing as everyone bailed
From upside down houses and lifestyles that failed.
All of the debt that could not be repaid,
Was now wreaking havoc that would not be stayed.
Government bailouts now came on the scene
As political leaders were all very keen
To keep credit flowing and money being spent,
So trillions of dollars were foolishly lent,
In a desperate attempt to keep prices high,
A fact that they won’t even try to deny.
These actions were more than a little perverse,
For adding more debt only made the mess worse.
This of course left them with one thing to do.
They needed more sources of tax revenue,
So small businesses that were already hurting
Were saddled with costly additional burdens.
Many scaled back hoping they could prevail
But quite a few more of them now simply failed.
So many neighbors were now out of work,
They turned on McDougall and called him a jerk!
The papers had all said that he was to blame,
Though none had specifically called him by name.
In a foolish attempt to curry some favor
It seems that they now blamed the problem on savers.
They said "greedy savers are hording their cash
And collectively made the economy crash."
His penchant for saving was very well known.
Poor McDougall’s cover was thoroughly blown.
“Tax him,” folks cried as they all shook their fists
“And tax him some more if he tries to resist!
He has more money than he’ll ever need,”
They cried in a horrid expression of greed.
Poor Frugal McDougall was truly confused,
Saddened, frustrated and now feeling used.
He’d tried to warn people of what lay ahead,
But they didn’t listen and blamed him instead.
The country can never be restored to health,
As long as we’re exporting all of our wealth.
Closing our factories, exporting our jobs
Turning the people into angry mobs
And all of this spending with no end in sight
Is the most direct cause of our national plight!
How did this happen, where did it begin?
This foolish game’s left us no way to win.
Now the brave politicians all deny fault
As the nations economy grinds to a halt
Is this the end of the U.S. of A?
Will McDougall’s country now fade away?
He doesn’t know and he really can’t tell,
But from where he’s standing it doesn’t look well
Bought things with cash and not credit cards,
And when it came to the things that he bought,
Things that he needed were all that he sought.
Once he was sure that his bills were all paid,
The money left over was carefully saved.
You see in the future he hoped to retire
And knew very well what that would require.
His neighbors were foolish and laden with greed.
They focused on wants instead of on needs.
They went out to dinner about every night.
When you’re middle class that’s one of your rights.
When they got their paychecks they spent every dime.
Having money left over would have been a crime.
Their credit was pushed to its uppermost limit,
When it came to debt they were very deep in it.
When Frugal McDougall would try to explain
The value of saving they all called him names,
So he wouldn’t bother most of the time.
He said it was something like ‘pearls before swine’
Meanwhile the neighbors got credit card offers,
Promising money to fill up their coffers.
Consumed by their greed they filled out every one,
With barely a thought as to what they had done.
And when the cards came they all ran about
Foolishly spending till they were maxed out.
A pool for the yard, perhaps some new skis.
They spent money like it was growing on trees.
Some even went on a cruise to the Med,
Where they all laid around looking tanned and well fed.
No thought was given to how they would pay,
For surely a bill would be coming their way.
In complete disbelief McDougall looked on.
He knew very well that they had it all wrong.
And the foolish idea that was shared by them all
Was that happiness was now on sale at the mall.
He’d been chastened so often he now bit his lip,
For fear if he didn’t he’d let something slip.
His neighbors would learn of his total disdain
For the way that their money was thrown down the drain.
Instead he would focus on his quiet life,
With his quiet children and his quiet wife.
In their simple way their needs were all met,
And their simple life was quite free of debt.
Then one day his neighbor came home joyously
In a gigantic brand new s. u. v.
Frugal McDougall just stood there and gawked,
Confused and bewildered and totally shocked.
He knew that his neighbor made twelve bucks and hour
And shouldn’t have this kind of purchasing power.
And when asked how he paid for this monstrosity
The neighbor replied, “with my home equity.”
The debt didn’t matter, the man was a dunce,
Whose only concern had been "how much a month."
The neighborhood pondered what he had just said
And one by one light bulbs came on in their heads.
Then sure enough the very next day,
New cars appeared in every driveway.
McDougall now cautioned that they should take heed,
All this debt served no legitimate need,
Instead they were putting their futures at risk.
The response they delivered was angry and brisk.
Frugal McDougall was called a big fool,
And other mean names that were equally cruel.
"We are all rich," they boldly declared
As Frugal McDougall stood there and stared.
"Our homes are all worth more than twice what we paid!
The good life is ours and should not be delayed!"
But Frugal McDougall refused to be goaded
And as he expected the debt bomb exploded.
The neighborhood values were starting to fall,
Faster and faster effecting them all.
Then as his neighbor stood looking distressed,
The new s. u. v. was being repossessed.
Soon all around, the neighborhood toys,
The ones that had recently brought so much joy,
Were all repossessed or put up for sale.
The pleasures they brought had grown a bit stale.
Purse strings were tightened as jobs were now lost.
It seems the free money came at a steep cost.
Banks were collapsing as everyone bailed
From upside down houses and lifestyles that failed.
All of the debt that could not be repaid,
Was now wreaking havoc that would not be stayed.
Government bailouts now came on the scene
As political leaders were all very keen
To keep credit flowing and money being spent,
So trillions of dollars were foolishly lent,
In a desperate attempt to keep prices high,
A fact that they won’t even try to deny.
These actions were more than a little perverse,
For adding more debt only made the mess worse.
This of course left them with one thing to do.
They needed more sources of tax revenue,
So small businesses that were already hurting
Were saddled with costly additional burdens.
Many scaled back hoping they could prevail
But quite a few more of them now simply failed.
So many neighbors were now out of work,
They turned on McDougall and called him a jerk!
The papers had all said that he was to blame,
Though none had specifically called him by name.
In a foolish attempt to curry some favor
It seems that they now blamed the problem on savers.
They said "greedy savers are hording their cash
And collectively made the economy crash."
His penchant for saving was very well known.
Poor McDougall’s cover was thoroughly blown.
“Tax him,” folks cried as they all shook their fists
“And tax him some more if he tries to resist!
He has more money than he’ll ever need,”
They cried in a horrid expression of greed.
Poor Frugal McDougall was truly confused,
Saddened, frustrated and now feeling used.
He’d tried to warn people of what lay ahead,
But they didn’t listen and blamed him instead.
The country can never be restored to health,
As long as we’re exporting all of our wealth.
Closing our factories, exporting our jobs
Turning the people into angry mobs
And all of this spending with no end in sight
Is the most direct cause of our national plight!
How did this happen, where did it begin?
This foolish game’s left us no way to win.
Now the brave politicians all deny fault
As the nations economy grinds to a halt
Is this the end of the U.S. of A?
Will McDougall’s country now fade away?
He doesn’t know and he really can’t tell,
But from where he’s standing it doesn’t look well
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Word of the Day
Word of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
Quote of the Day
Quote of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
Article of the Day
Article of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
This Day in History
This Day in History
provided by The Free Dictionary
Today's Birthday
Today's Birthday
provided by The Free Dictionary
In the News
In the News
provided by The Free Dictionary
About Me
Archives
-
►
2010
(146)
-
►
November 2010
(12)
- The Axis of Greed
- Radical Difference Between Monetization 1 and QE2
- Fed’s “QE 2″ Actions Will Likely Go Down As Financ...
- Why the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing Stra...
- Hunger in America
- The Mythical United States of America
- The Fed and the Debased “Imperial Dollar”
- Death Of Bond Bull
- Dismantling the Iraqi State, Destroying an Entire ...
- The 21st Century World: Time for a New Theory of M...
- Time for a New Theory of Money
- The scary actual U.S. government debt
-
►
June 2010
(9)
- Controlled-Burn Inflation
- The Third Depression
- Risks to Canada's Financial Stability in an Uncert...
- Following the Worst Crisis Since the Great Depress...
- U. S. Financial Reform
- Twenty-Two Reasons Why American Working People Hat...
- The Collapsing Western Way of Life
- Some Big Lies of Science
- The Psychopathic Criminal Enterprise Called Americ...
- ► April 2010 (4)
-
►
March 2010
(23)
- China to Exceed Predictions by 50 Percent
- Inbred Fear
- Greenspan Signals warnings for Bubble-maniacs
- Krugman’s Chinese renminbi fallacy
- The pen is censored and its might extinguished
- Mass Unemployment and the Current Economic Crisis
- Pressure Increasing on China to Revalue Yuan
- "The Second Coming"
- Beyond Orwell: The Electronic Police State, 2010
- The Ultimate Bubble and the Mother of All Carry Tr...
- Six Theories On Why the Stock Market Has Rallied
- ► February 2010 (22)
- ► January 2010 (68)
-
►
November 2010
(12)
Categories
- 2002 Speeches (1)
- 2009 (2)
- Adam Hamilton (1)
- Adrian Ash (1)
- AIFA (1)
- Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia (1)
- Albert Einstein (1)
- Ampontan on Sunday (1)
- Andrew Ross Sorkin (1)
- Appenzell Daily Bell (2)
- Armageddon (1)
- Augustin de Romanet is CEO of the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations. (1)
- author of Gods of Money (1)
- Bangkok Post (1)
- Bill Bonner (29)
- Bill Bonner London (2)
- Bill Walker (1)
- Bob Hoye Institutional Advisors (1)
- Brian Milner and Tavia Grant Globe and Mail Update (1)
- By (1)
- By Bill Bonner (1)
- by Eric Michael Johnson (1)
- By Frank Holmes CEO and Chief Investment OfficerU.S. Global Investors (1)
- by Kieran Manjarrez (1)
- by Matthias Chang (1)
- By Michael Parenti (1)
- By Patrick J. Buchanan (1)
- by Roy W. Spencer (1)
- by Stephen Lendman (1)
- by: Ellen Hodgson Brown J.D. (1)
- By: Gary_Dorsch (1)
- CFA (1)
- Christopher Hitchens (1)
- Christopher Swann (1)
- CIGA Richard B. (2)
- Clif Droke (3)
- CPA (1)
- Craig Roberts (1)
- Daily Bell Newswire (1)
- Daily Bell Newswire staff (1)
- Daily Bells by Staff Report (1)
- Dan Denning (1)
- Dana Gabriel (1)
- Daniel Fisher Forbes Magazine (1)
- Daniel Gross (1)
- Daniel M. Harrison (1)
- Daniel R. Amerman (1)
- Darryl Robert Schoon (1)
- dave.aspoatgmail.com (1)
- David DeGraw (1)
- David Edwards (1)
- David Pett (2)
- DAVID PITT ASSOCIATED PRESS (1)
- David Roman contributed to this article. (1)
- David Swanson (1)
- December 1 (1)
- DeepCaster LLC (1)
- DeepCaster_LLC (1)
- Denis Halliday-Public Lecture (1)
- Dian L. Chu (1)
- Diane Francis (1)
- Dirk Adriaensens (1)
- Disclosure: (Long SPY) (1)
- Doug Ward (1)
- Dr David Evans and Joanne Nova (1)
- Dr. Denis G. Rancourt (1)
- Dr. Jeff Lewis (1)
- Dr. Richard Ebeling (1)
- Dr. Ron Paul (2)
- Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal. (1)
- Economist.com/blogs/buttonwood (1)
- Ed Steer (1)
- Editor's Picks Theodore "Ty" Andros (1)
- Ellen Brown (2)
- England (1)
- Eric Sprott and David Franklin Financial Post (1)
- Euro Pacific Capital. (2)
- F. William Engdahl (1)
- Financial Post (5)
- Finian Cunningham (1)
- FT (1)
- Gary Dorsch (1)
- Global Money Trends (1)
- Global Research (1)
- Global Research Article (1)
- Greg Hunter (1)
- Hera Research (2)
- History of the United States (1)
- Ian McGugan (1)
- Imagine paying as little as $1.25 a gallon to run your car. (1)
- IMFSurvey Magazine (1)
- Inc (1)
- India (1)
- Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins (1)
- James Anderson (1)
- James Quinn (2)
- James Turk (2)
- Jason Simpkins (1)
- JD (1)
- Jean-Pierre Lehmann (1)
- Jim Willie (1)
- Joachim Fels Manoj Pradhan | London (1)
- John Browne - Senior Market Strategist (2)
- John Greenwood (1)
- John Kozy (3)
- John Lounsbury (1)
- John Winston (1)
- Jon D. Markman (1)
- Joseph Quinlan (1)
- Julian_DW_Phillips (1)
- Julie Tate (1)
- Kozy (1)
- Lawrence Tout (1)
- Len Hart (1)
- Liz Ann Sonders (1)
- Liz Capo McCormick and Daniel Kruger (Bloomberg) (1)
- LLC (2)
- LLC Ron Hera (1)
- LLC. (1)
- MALCOLM RITTER (1)
- Mark Anderson and Dee Phat (1)
- Mark J. Lundeen (1)
- Mark Milke (1)
- Market Ticker - Karl Denninger (1)
- Market Ticker - Karl Denninger · (1)
- Martin D Weiss (1)
- Martin Duvander - Seeking Alpha (1)
- Martin Hutchinson (1)
- Maurice R. Greenberg (1)
- Megan Mcardle (1)
- Michel Chossudovsky (1)
- Mike "Mish" Shedlock (1)
- Mike "Mish" Shedlock global economic analysis (1)
- Mike Whitney (2)
- Mohamed A. El-Erian Pimco’s chief executive officer (1)
- Montreal (1)
- Mumbai (1)
- Myra P. Saefong (1)
- Nouriel Roubini (2)
- Nouriel Roubini Professor at New York University’ (1)
- November 29 (1)
- NYT (1)
- Oliver Weeks | London (1)
- Olivier Garret (1)
- Pamela Heaven (1)
- Patrick Holden- Michael Wale Toby Glanville (1)
- Patrick J. Buchanan (1)
- Patrick Martin (1)
- Paul Craig Roberts (1)
- Paul Krugman (1)
- Paul Vieira National post (1)
- Peggy Noonan (1)
- Peking University and ANU (1)
- Peter Coy (1)
- Peter Schiff talking to Vanessa Drucker. (1)
- Ph. D (1)
- Phil Levy Economics | Finance (1)
- Phil Levy Economics | Finance (2)
- Prof Rodrigue Tremblay (1)
- Prof. Michael Hudson (1)
- Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (1)
- Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay (1)
- Published on zero hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com (1)
- Puru Saxena (1)
- Qing Wang | Hong Kong (1)
- REBECCA CHRISTIAN (1)
- retired professor of philosophy and logic (1)
- ReverseEngineer (1)
- RGE Monitor (1)
- Ricardo Lago (1)
- Rich Miller Bloomberg (1)
- Richard Benson (1)
- Richard Berner David Greenlaw New York (1)
- Richard C. Cook (1)
- Rick Bookstaber (1)
- Rick Rozoff (2)
- Robert Fisk (1)
- Robert J. Samuelson (1)
- Robert Parry (1)
- Rodrigue Tremblay (1)
- Ron Garan NASA Astronaut (1)
- Ron Hera - the founder of Hera Research (1)
- Scott Lanman and Craig Torres (1)
- Scott Wright (1)
- SFGroup (1)
- Shah Gilani (1)
- Shaily (1)
- Shamus Cooke (2)
- Shanghai Securities News (1)
- Sharon Lam Korea (1)
- Sid Riggs (1)
- Spyros Andreopoulos (1)
- Stephan R. Ernharth (1)
- Steve Andrews (1)
- Susan Lund and Charles Roxburgh (1)
- t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed (1)
- Tavia Grant and Boyd Erman (1)
- Texas Straight Talk (1)
- the Daily Bell (1)
- The Daily Bell Newswire (2)
- The Daily Reckoning (2)
- The Futurist (1)
- The Globe and Mail (1)
- The Hera Research Monthly newsletter (1)
- Theory (1)
- This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers (1)
- THOMAS I. PALLEY (1)
- Tom Burghardt (1)
- Tom Burghardt contributor to Global Research (1)
- Tom Eley (1)
- Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University. (1)
- Washington's Blog (1)
- Washingtonpost.Newsweek (1)
- Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (2)
- Water Exports and the Water War Crimes (1)
- William H. Gross - Founder of PIMCO (1)
- Yiping Huang (1)
- Zeal (1)
- —Brien Lundin (1)