The Money Masters

The Money Masters is a documentary produced by produced by Patrick S. J. Carmack. This film discusses in detail the history of central banking, monetary policy and fractional reserve banking and even proposes a monetary reform act.

The entire film is 3.5 hours long and is divided into the following segments:

1. The Problem
2. The Money Changers
3. Roman Empire
4. The Goldsmiths of Medieval England
5. Tally Sticks
6. The Bank of England
7. The Rise of the Rothschilds
8. The American Revolution
9. The Bank of North America
10. The Constitutional Convention
11. First Bank of the U.S.
12. Napoleon's Rise to Power
13. Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of 1812
14. Waterloo; Second Bank of the U.S.; Andrew Jackson
15. Abe Lincoln and the Civil War
16. The Return of the Gold Standard
17. Free Silver; J.P. Morgan / 1907 Crash
18. Jekyll Island; Fed Act of 1913
19. J.P. Morgan / WWI
20. Roaring 20s / Great Depression
21. FDR /WWII / Fort Knox
22. World Central Bank
23. Conclusions.

The film is also available on google video in 2 parts totaling 3.5 hours.
Part 1
Part Deux

The official website is at Money Masters

Fourth Horseman strikes again

The Fourth Horseman is back and his penchant (more like deranged obsession) for genocide and economic repression has not dulled a bit. Thomas Friedman is acting up again and joyfully recommending that America kill more Iraqis (lets kill those barbarians! We'll shove progressive democracy down their throats, let them choke to death)

His latest NYT column 'Ten Months or Ten Years' spouts the following absurdities (
NYT makes you pay (yes, pay!) for this genocidal column, but you can read it here)
1) "proper" occupation (kill more)
2) not be so soft (650,000 not enough .. more should die)
3) use an "iron fist" (kill more)
4) re-invade/reoccupy (kill more efficiently ..but start from scratch).

Perilous Power

This is a follow-up to my earlier posting on the new book 'Perilous Power' ( Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar) where I briefly described the chapter on 9-11 and conspiracy theories. For the diligent reader, you can find a lot more detail on Perilous Power at Atlantic Free Press (Atlantic Free Press is a great site, you'll find some very interesting contributions from various writers)

Iraq Withdrawal ? Keep dreaming!

If you naively assumed that an Iraq withdrawal is now the cards because of the so-called "Democrat" majority, think again. Here is a list of possible reasons why any withdrawal is extremely unlikely.

1. The decision to invade Iraq was pushed by Republicans but with full collusion of the Democrats. This immediately puts a hole in the argument that the Democrats now have a majority and will do something different. Why would they ? Their election platform was NEVER about withdrawal. It was about letting the Republicans fuck up and let the people vote for the "lesser evil". The people will never realize that Democrats have the same position on Iraq as the Republicans barring some "tactical" differences (i.e. Democrats would not want to be so brazen about torture and genocide)

2. What are US objectives in Iraq ? Some of the main objectives are (This geopolitical strategy is common to both Republicans and Democrats i.e United States foreign policy as a whole)

• Control of a vital region in the Middle East via setting up of a friendly regime and military bases. The US can then use Iraq as leverage to put the "Old Europe" and other strong economic blocs (China, Japan etc.) at bay.
• Control implies geopolitical dominance in that region as well as control over scarce resources (oil)
• Have complete control of all decision making in the "Democratic" process in Iraq by virtue of a "constitutional fiction"
  

3. It is quite obvious to any one who seriously thinks about these issues that neither WMD or "democracy" were the reason for invading Iraq. The actual reasons are quite obvious (See Point 2).

4. What would withdrawal from Iraq mean ? From the American perspective, it would mean loss of control over one of the most important regions in the world. This would almost certainly relegate the United States to a second-rate superpower given its already titanic-like economy. Withdrawal would almost certainly mean the end of the US as an economic and political superpower. The only dimension in which the US currently dominates is military power. The logical consequence of this is that America will try its level best to use it 's military might to control the world. It no longer has economic or political leverage. America has no "alternative" but to use its "iron fist" to tame the "savages" in the rest of the world. On the domestic front, a rapidly deflating housing market, falling dollar if coupled with an Iraq withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a deep recession.

5. Always remember that in an American "democracy", what people want DOES NOT matter. It is quite obvious that Americans want the US out of Iraq. But foreign policy decisions are not ever made by the people. It is driven entirely by the elite establishment that is far removed from any semblance of democracy.

6. We already see the start of a media blitz against Iraq withdrawal.

Fewer troops, or more? (NYT)
US plans "last" big push in Iraq (Guardian)

7. Clearly, the American objectives (outlined in Point 2) have not yet been met in Iraq and will not be met anytime soon. Hence a withdrawal would be extremely unlikely (and by withdrawal I don't mean moving troops across the border). If indeed by some miracle, the US withdraws from Iraq before they setup a friendly slave-regime , it'll be the beginning of the end of American hegemony (see Point 4).

In the unlikely event of unprecedented public protests (more likely in the event of a prolonged deep recession), the powers already have everything covered via the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and so on. Any signs of local dissent will be crushed immediately and completely (what do you think hi-tech crowd control devices are for ?). Its no accident that we've seen the passage of so many draconian laws (What was that ? You say these laws are to fight terrorism ? Ha!). The main purpose is to crush even a sliver of public opposition to the arbitrary policies of the corporate state.

Notes:

1) For a detailed well-researched look at the extreme horrors that Iraq has been subjected to by various imperialist powers (as well as by home-grown dictators propped up by the imperial powers) since the fall of the Turkish Ottoman empire right up to the present, take the time to read this well written essay, Behind the War on Iraq by the Research Unit for Political Economy (I had to read it in parts because its too disturbing to read in one stretch). The Research Unit for Political Economy is based in Mumbai, India. It publishes the journal Aspects of India's Economy and a range of research publications in English and Hindi.

2) "Constitutional Fiction" comes from the words of Lord Curzon, the foreign secretary of Britain (from 1919-1924) who wanted in the Arab territories an “Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff....There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on.”

Lord of War Movie Review

Lord of War is an uneasy mix of documentary, entertainment and satire describing a violent world gone horribly wrong. This docu-drama takes us on a suffocating journey with arms dealer Yuri Orlov (Nicholas Cage) to various exotic locales throughout the globe. Only, they aren't so exotic anymore. Every place we encounter (other than the United States) is ravaged by war, death and destruction. Our not-so-nice-arms-dealer protagonist Yuro Orlov is a globe-trotting arms dealer with no conscience who explains glibly to us that he participates in this ghastly profession because 'he's good at it".

At several points in the movie, one actually gets the sense that the what's happening isn't too far from the truth (the cynical circumvention of the law, brutal dictators in Africa, world chaos in general, gigantic warehouses of AK-47s, military helicopters being converted to "rescue" helicopters, complicated laws to determine what's legal and what's not, the hidden hand of the Pentagon and much more). But interspersed with the documentary-like parts is another thread on the personal like of Yuri which ends up being not so interesting because we don't really have the energy to care about Yuri. We're too horrified by the consequence of his arms trade.

--start spoilers--

Yuri is pursued on and off by Interpol Agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) and there is a verbal confrontation between the two at the end which reveals the hidden hand on the Pentagon and the State behind arms trafficking. It directly implicates the Pentagon and the administration. Some of the key dialogue is reproduced here -- Yuri speaks to Valentine (video here)

Yuri to Valentine:

"Soon there is gonna be a knock on that door and you will be called outside. In the hall, there will be a man who outranks you. First, he will complement you on the fine job you have done and you are making the world safer place that you are to receive commendation and a promotion and then, he is going to tell you that I am to be released. You're gonna protest. You'll probably threaten to resign But in the end, I will be released. The reason I will be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders some of the most vile sadistic man, calling themselves leaders today But some of those men, are the enemies of your enemies. While the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, The President of United States which ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year. Sometimes it is embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So? You call me evil, but unfortunately for you I am a necessary evil"

--end spoilers--


I think this may be misconstrued as letting the shady arms dealer off lightly (something like a light rap on the knuckles). However, I don't believe this is the intention here. Given Yuri's vile deeds I don't think it is possible to have any sympathy for him ("oh, he's just doing his job").Yuri also defends himself throughout the movie making ludicrous statements like "It's their conflict", "I'd like it if they use my arms but I prefer if they miss". The viewer can't possibly have any sympathy for Yuri.

In the end, all I felt was an intense sense of hopelessness at the proliferation of dangerous arms all over the globe and the resulting genocides. The biggest (tax-payer funded) export of the United States is deadly weapons (its called Military-Industrial complex for a good reason). And by essentially treating weapons (guns all the way to nuclear weapons) as just as any other product (i.e trying to maximize profits and creating "marketing" strategies), what we have currently is a hugely volatile, insecure and cruel world littered with the inevitable end result -- Death. While the movie doesn't necessarily directly deal with the Military Industrial complex, it does deal with its extrajudicial arm (illegal arms trade). But their role as "Merchants of Death" has truly horrifying consequences. We're never secure as long as anyone is insecure.

National Space Policy & Arsenal of Hypocrisy Video

The first full revision of the National Space Policy (aka Star Wars, aka America's war on the Universe) was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day (2006), with no public announcement.
Some of the key points:

• Deployment of offensive weapons systems in space
• Reject future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space
• Preemptive attacks and unilateral actions around the world to protect corporate interests like oil and other diminishing resources

See the full text of this Policy here
See the Washington Post coverage
CBC article

The Space Policy revision is yet another (major) step in a long series of actions that started during the 2nd World War. A very good discussion of the topic can be seen in the 'Arsenal of Hypocrisy' video. So I implore you, drop whatever you're doing, grab your favorite beverage, lean back (or forward in this case) and be prepared to spend the next hour watching this excellent and startling video by Randy Atkins where Bruce K. Gagnon (who is Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space) and a few others talk about the extreme dangers of the Space Program and the Military Industrial Complex
The entire hour long video can be viewed here

Illusion of Democracy

By now, you're probably rejoicing over the fact that the Democrats are doing better than usual and those Republicans are getting what they deserve. And your natural instinct would be to expect things to change for the better. So lets look at the following example issues and contemplate the possibility of any substantial change actually being made by the Democrats.

• Oil
• Iraq/Afghanistan
• Defense spending (apparently someone thinks defense spending is going to slow down. US defense stocks take a hit
• Anyone with less than a billion dollars in their bank having a fair shot at being a senator/congressman
• Health Care
• Military Commissions Act (OK, torture, martial law, whats not to like ?)
• National Space Policy 2006 (aka renewed Star Wars, aka America's war on the Universe)
• Patriot Act(s)
• Prison Population (closely related to War on Drugs)
• Income inequality 
• Organized labor (I mean lack of)
• Gun Control
• GWBs signing statements
• "Tax Breaks"
• Global treaties on Global Warming, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and international law in general
• Apocalypse Soon
• Corrupt Lobbyists
• Corporate financed electoral candidates
• Elections being essentially an exercise in Public Relations (did you think democracy ?)
• Media Concentration

What are the chances that any of these (vital) issues are going to be tackled seriously (other than lip service) ? If you believe things are going to change significantly within the existing power system, keep dreaming. You think your vote counts ? Democracy as it exists currently is just an illusion. An election that fields candidates hand-picked by corporations isn't my idea of a democracy.

Lesser Evilism

The Lesser Evil argument is incredibly lame. Voting Democrat will do virtually nothing to improve the situation (and the situation is indeed very bad). We'll have the same policies under under a different label. Consider this: Do the Democrats have a coherent strategy on Iraq ? (supposedly the most important issue in this election). The strategy of the Democrats appears to be as follows: Do absolutely nothing and let people vote for us because they're probably sick of that other party and its not like there is anyone else they can vote for. People are going to vote for us no matter what policy we follow because they are suckered into the Lesser Evil argument. So why should we change ? We'll continue to be war-mongers and people would still vote for us because they believe in the twisted lesser-evil bullshit.

The Democratic party will not change any major policies even if they gain a majority. If the Republicans are incredibly genocidal (also insane), then the Democrats are only very slightly less genocidal (and only very slightly less insane). The Democrats will follow the Republican policies every step of the way with some very minor variations (the minor variations and tactical differences lead to the so-called range of debate between the 2 parties -- very convenient).

There is no compelling need for Democrats to change because the anti-war faction of the Democratic party is in the minority. It's not like the overall Hawkish Democrats are suddenly going to start giving credence to its anti-war minority. The bottom line is: Voting for Democrats will change very little as far as key policy decisions go. Both parties are subject to the same absolute power -- the power of the corporations.

Do you understand the Democrats position on foreign policy, health care, social programs etc. ? It is never presented in a way that people can understand. So what exactly is it that people are voting on ? When people vote Democrat, they're assuming that Democrats share the same views as they do. The sad reality is that Democrats will almost certainly have positions that are radically different from the people who vote for them (as a simple example ... people are anti-war, dems are pro-war). So why do people continue to vote for them ? Because they have no fucking clue what the Democrat position is. The Democrats intend to keep the policy positions that way. Completely fucking incomprehensible to the general public.

So what is the option ? Possibly for all the anti-war groups (or groups with some semblance of sanity that are not hell bent on destroying the human race) to unite outside of the equally hawkish Democrats and Republicans. And my vote would go to such a third party that is actually in sync with the populace.