Note: This is the entire text of my first book. If you are more comfortable reading on your Kindle, the book is also available at Amazon. When I first published this book in 2013, there was very little discussion of oligarchy in the USA. Now, everybody is talking about it. The forces that I document here are what drove the Brexit vote in the UK, and enabled Donald Trump to crush Jeb Bush like a bug. Now, even the oligarchs themselves are talking about how they may have “flooded the system” with too much cheap labor. Really? You think? We went over 40 million people on food stamps back in March of 2010 and you are just figuring it out now?
The American middle class is being devoured before our very eyes. On purpose. And for profit. But most of all, for principle. The principle of oligarchy. The principle that only the elect deserve wealth and power.
When Walmart commands an American supplier to move their factory to China, it does so because the switch to barbaric sweatshop production will increase Walmart’s profits. However, Walmart also feels justified in redistributing the income of the laid-off American workers to itself because they believe themselves to be superior managers of capital; because those extra profits will enable them to do that much more of "god’s work."
This is actually an announced policy of the Oligarchy. For example, unofficial spokesman Edward Conard, formerly of Bain Capital wrote:
"Unequal distribution of income has critical motivational effects that are especially important for growth via risky innovation." 
Translated from MBA gobbledygook: since the "small people" are too conservative to invest their money in risky start-up companies, they should be paid less money so that oligarchs like Conard can be paid more. The oligarchs will then bravely, and nobly, make the investments that will lead to better jobs for the small people. So, the reason why income-inequality has worsened in the USA is because it is our policy.
Critics like to say that the USA doesn’t have a national economic-development policy, but we most certainly do. It’s called favelization: the conversion of a once prosperous middle class into dwellers of Brazilian-style favela slums. And it is imposed on America by multinational corporations like Walmart, Bain Capital, GE, etc. Favelization was put into motion decades ago by David Rockefeller. In his 2002 book Memoirs, Rockefeller hands down a stone tablet:
"Global interdependence is not a poetic fantasy but a concrete reality that this century’s revolutions in technology, communications, and geopolitics have made irreversible. The free flow of investment capital, goods, and people across borders will remain the fundamental factor in world economic growth and in the strengthening of democratic institutions everywhere." 
That is a declaration of victory. Especially notice the "free flow of people and goods" part. That means cheap sweatshop goods, and low-wage immigrant workers – the two primary forces destroying the middle class. Those things are near and dear to Rockefeller’s heart. After all, he learned about crushing workers from his daddy, who ordered the machine-gunning of striking Colorado miners in the Ludlow Massacre of 1914.
What does Rockefeller mean by an irreversible, geopolitical, revolution? Quite simply, he means conquest. He is telling us that the USA is no longer a sovereign nation in control of its borders. That the vast tide of cheap, imported goods and low-wage workers will not stop. And he wasn’t lying. A few years after he wrote his book, during the high unemployment of the Great Recession, no mercy was shown. The mass offshoring of jobs, and the mass immigration of low-paid workers went ahead full speed, greatly extending the suffering of the people. History will record that policy as a brutal economic crackdown on the middle class.
There may not be a political "New World Order" but there most certainly is an economic one, and it is designed solely for the enrichment of Rockefeller’s modern American Oligarchy.
Of course, it doesn’t have to be like this. During the Great Depression, the American people rose up and threw off oligarchic rule. They laid down the foundation from which the middle class sprung. The Oligarchy planned a counterattack: they were preparing to overthrow newly-elected president Franklin D. Roosevelt, but General Smedley Butler blew the whistle on the Business Plot of 1933.
The Oligarchy, being worried about a communist revolution like Russia’s, didn’t press the issue and gave up their fascist dream. They grudgingly permitted the "small people" to have their pet "socialist" president, but then dogged his every move. Eventually, the people had to take matters into their own hands with the wildcat, sit-down strikes of 1936-1937. They won, and forced Congress to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. They also pressured the federal government to restrict immigration, which did far more to raise wages than the new minimum-wage law. After that foundation was completed, a mighty middle class rose from the ashes of the Oligarchy’s sweatshops.
After World War II, the Oligarchy made lemonade from their lemons. They touted America’s prosperous middle class during the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union, and it proved to be the ultimate secret weapon. The downtrodden masses of communist nations around the world were dazzled by the comparative opulence of the USA’s middle class, and faith in communism was fatally undermined.
With the demise of the Soviets, the military wing of the Oligarchy no longer had to win the hearts and minds of Americans to support the war effort. And so the time was ripe for David Rockefeller to restore the Financial Oligarchy to absolute power. The middle class could now be dispatched; the mere Potemkin Village used to fool the Soviets was no longer needed. Imagine! Common assembly-line workers being paid $100,000 salaries! Preposterous! It was time to strike the set, to decommission the middle class like an old battleship.
Indeed, no time was wasted after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Only three years later, The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was signed into law, and so began the mass conversion of well-paid, middle-class jobs into badly-paid Third-World sweatshop jobs.
For jobs that could not be offshored, a massive wave of immigrants was brought in to outsource them. In that same year of 1989, legal immigration soared above one million for the first time since 1914. And it has remained at that rate ever since. The purpose of which is to construct what Karl Marx called the Reserve Army of Labor: a vast over-supply of people whose existence is used to terrify workers into accepting rock-bottom wages.
What we are witnessing is nothing short of absolute victory for the Oligarchy.
What was the "Great Architect" above the entrance of the GE Building in Rockefeller Center designing with his Masonic compass? Brutal sweatshops, squalid worker barracks, "flipperized" factory jobs, de-industrialization, labor strip-mining, "fast track" trade authority, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, USTR, the dollar/yuan currency peg, giant trade deficits, mass immigration, media concentration, laissez-faire propaganda, right-to-work laws, body shops, criminal foreclosures, tax havens, perpetual warfare, and urban intifada.
To make room for all of that, the Great Architect had to erase a few things first: American sovereignty, the Glass-Steagall Act, the New Deal, labor unions, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.
And he’s not quite done. The holy grail will be to have full-blown sweatshops on American soil (not just Saipan, see below), no taxes on job-creators (oligarchs), no pesky rule of law, complete surveillance of the small people, and devouring (a.k.a. "privatizing") the remaining middle-class institutions such as Social Security and the Post Office.
Could the Great Architect pass a PCL-R psychopath test? Not a chance.
This is David Rockefeller’s world, and you are just living in it. And Rockefeller has designed this New World Order in his image. Rockefeller was a banker, so that is why we have a "financialized" economy rather than a militarized economy. While the conspiracy community was looking for black helicopters, and the blue helmets of United Nations troops, Rockefeller was constructing an economic dictatorship.
The Dark Arts of the American Oligarchy are the devious methods used to undermine the American laws that constructed the middle class. Now in their fourth decade of successful operation, the middle class has not yet caught onto the Dark Arts. Stupefied by the propaganda of the Oligarch Media, what is left of the once mighty American middle class is being slowly boiled like the proverbial frog.
In 1971, 61% of American households were middle class. By 2011, that percentage had been reduced to 51% (link). How did that happen? On the chart below we see the work of the Dark Arts. The red line is corporate profits (CPROFIT), which are at historic highs. The blue line is the "labor share" (wages, salaries, and benefits) of total income (PRS85006173), which is at an historic low.
As shocking as this chart is, the average worker is getting an even smaller slice of the pie because the labor-share includes the huge salaries of top athletes, entertainers, and overpaid CEOs.
The hard truth is that today’s record corporate profits have come, not from management "genius", but directly out of the hides of former middle-class workers. This is the chart that every oligarch has tucked under his pillow at night. When he has a bad dream, he pulls out the chart, gives it a kiss, and clutches it to his chest. Then he falls back asleep – to sweet dreams of a nation covered from sea to shining sea with shantytowns and sweatshops stuffed with the "small people" toiling away on his behalf.
The Age of Globalist Carpetbaggers
After the Civil War, Northerners moved to southern states to take advantage of the reconstruction process. For example, they bought-up the land of former slave plantations very cheaply. The defeated Southerners derisively called the invaders from the north "carpetbaggers" because they often arrived with luggage made from old carpeting.
We are seeing the same phenomena today. Our "genius" corporate CEOs like Mitt Romney, Jeff Immelt, and the Walton Family make their fortunes by quite literally feeding off the corpse of a defeated USA.
The euphemism "globalization" is used to describe this flat-out looting of the middle class. Multinational CEOs act like they are geniuses, but how smart would they look if you took away their cheap labor, brutal workplaces, and lax environmental and safety laws? Could somebody like Mitt Romney start a company from scratch in Ohio, paying middle-class wages to every member of his staff, and be a success? Probably not. The truth is that modern CEOs are expert carpetbaggers. They are adept at taking perfectly good American companies, firing the well-paid workers, moving the facilities to someplace like China, and then operating them like slave plantations.
This is the age in which we live. We are a defeated people. The Rockefeller War against America achieved decisive victory on December 11, 2001 when the globalists brought China into the World Trade Organization. So, the blood has been in the water for over a decade, and the feeding frenzy of oligarch sharks has reached a fevered pitch. So much so that a globalist carpetbagger, Mitt Romney, was almost elected president.
Civil War carpetbaggers were not all greedy opportunists. For example, many went to the South to establish schools for former slave children since there were no public schools. Today, many globalists see themselves in the same light, as bringing progress to a backward, provincial America. But they are clearly delusional. The mass poverty that has exploded across the USA during this era of globalist carpetbagging is irrefutable proof of that delusion.
This book is not an anti-capitalist diatribe. However, many multinationals have gone beyond the commercial arena and have usurped the sovereign power of the American people. The American people did not want to send 50,000+ factories out of the country, but Walmart ordered it done. The American people did not want mass immigration, but IBM replaces its American staff with cheaper Asian immigrants. This is not acceptable corporate behavior.
Will the Middle Class Go Quietly?
So far, that is exactly what is has done. For example, there has been no resistance at all as well-paid IT workers are replaced with badly-paid Indian immigrants – even as the process has intensified in recent years. Severance pay is used to encourage citizens to go quietly and even train their foreign replacements. Trade unions have offered what amounts to token resistance.
If the middle class ever does decide to fight back, there is a vast security apparatus ready to make sure that they keep on marching out to pasture. Just like the security guards that escort you from the office when you are fired, the Oligarchy’s security state stands ready to escort the middle class from its traditional place in the American economy. If you pack your stuff in a box and go quietly, there won’t be any trouble, and your severance check will arrive on time. If you want to make a fuss, well then, you will get pepper-sprayed and no payoff.
Is there any hope? Sure. As a matter of fact, we already have a blueprint for what needs to be done: re-implement the policies that we adopted during the Great Depression. In other words, nothing radical is needed – only a traditional response to contain the excesses of an out-of-control Oligarchy. After all, caging the Oligarchy is what made the USA a superpower in the first place.
"The incorporation of substantial elements of the population into the middle classes has escalated their expectations and aspirations…"
-Trilateral Commission 
The Oligarchy began to lose its patience with the middle class in the early 1970s. They were particularly incensed by the new mass-media of television where their dirty deeds were exposed by crusading journalists. And so began the historic drive to concentrate media ownership into the hands of a few large corporations. It worked. The Dark Arts below are dark because the Oligarch Media keeps the spotlight off of them. They haven’t been able to keep the American people totally in the dark, but they have done a surprisingly thorough job.
"I’m in favor of free trade – it breaks up the old nationalities."
-Karl Marx, 1848
Globalization is a Dark Art because it is portrayed in the media as the world becoming one big, happy family. In reality, globalization is primarily the mechanism by which the Oligarchy has resurrected the sweatshops that were banned from the USA seventy years ago.
Even worse, globalization is designed to weaken American sovereignty to the point where the people will not have the power to reign-in the Oligarchy as they did during the Great Depression. We got a little taste of that after the 2011 Japanese earthquake/tsunami when many American auto plants had to shut down for lack of parts from Japan. That type of industrial dependency is an announced policy of the Oligarchy. They are doing their best to make globalization technically irreversible.
The laws creating globalization were constructed in secret, rammed through Congress with an unconstitutional "fast track" process, and are administered by the World Trade Organization where the American people have no elected representatives. The Oligarchy enacts its laws within the bodies of so-called "trade treaties." Those massive documents are then dropped on Congress where your representatives rubber-stamp them without even reading them because everybody just knows that "trade is good." And yes, that’s a fascist process.
At its Heart, Globalization is a Criminal Operation
What laws is globalization breaking? For starters, The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which, among other things, established the minimum wage. That law cut into corporate profits. And since overturning the law is not politically feasible, it has been necessary for the Oligarchy to sneak around it. While this sneaking may not have been technically illegal, its intent was clearly criminal. Today, a large percentage of the products that you buy are made by Third-World workers who are paid far less than American minimum wage.
This dramatic evasion of the law is made possible by globalization. For example, if a corporation wants to slash its payroll to make huge profits by moving a plant from the USA to Mexico, it requires that there be no barriers to trade, money, or the movement of personnel. Any pesky sovereign powers asserted by the American, or Mexican people must be simply swept away.
Multinational employees must be free to travel back-and-forth to Mexico. The products made in the new plant must be free to enter the USA with little or no tariff assessed. Profits generated by the new plant must be free to cross the border back to the USA so that they can be paid out in dividends to oligarchs. And of course, the oligarchs must then be free to send their money to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland since tax evasion is their favorite pastime.
In short, Mexico could not be used as a lever to eradicate the American middle class until the border was globalized. Once NAFTA completed the globalization, the Oligarchy moved over a million factory jobs out of the USA. As a side benefit, "runaway shops" also dramatically weakened the Oligarchy’s arch enemy: labor unions. After all, if there are no shops to unionize, then union political power disappears. If there are no assembly lines to sit on, then there can be no sit-down strikes.
The more low-down a nation is, the more the oligarchy wants to "globalize" our relations. For example, moving plants to China is very profitable because labor unions are illegal there, and the totalitarian government in Beijing will keep it that way for as long as possible. So, an oligarch can rest easy that his Chinese sweatshops will generate large profits for as long as Beijing has tanks to run over striking workers.
The World Trade Organization is presented as a place where nations negotiate rules to facilitate trade and economic development that all members will follow. However, notice that only certain laws are harmonized. After running roughshod over scores of American laws, such as our dolphin-safe tuna labels, globalists go berserk when it is suggested that, for example, the Mexican minimum wage be harmonized with the U.S. minimum wage. The globalists shriek: "You can’t do that! Mexico is a sovereign nation! We don’t dare interfere in their internal affairs. What are you, some kind of imperialist?"
And that puts the lie to globalization. In fact, globalization should be renamed "oligarchization" because the global system has been re-engineered as a playground for a new breed of robber baron. And since the American people will not willingly give up their robber-baron restrictions, the USA has been stripped of much of its sovereignty over economic issues. And so has Mexico as we will discuss later.
Having one "globalized" country is not enough for the oligarchs. Imagine how profits would be slashed if the workers of China rose up and actually made some progress for themselves. The oligarchs want nothing to do with that, and so they always keep other tyrannical nations in reserve. In the above scenario, they would move their Chinese sweatshops down to Vietnam or Bangladesh. If Mexican workers were finally able to get paid more than $2 per hour, the maquiladoras would be moved down to Colombia where union organizers are practically hunted for sport.
This game of "musical countries"  is insidious because the nefarious nations of the world know exactly what is expected of them: brutal repression of their workers. So, while China is doing everything it can to repress its workers, so is Vietnam because they want to be ready to eat China’s lunch if China eventually drops the ball. The euphemism "race to the bottom" is really a race to tyranny. By ceding control of trade policy to the Oligarchy, we have permitted them to spread tyranny worldwide.
Labor Strip Mining
As the oligarchs survey the world, they are looking for large deposits of juicy cheap labor, combined with a toxic core of tyranny. If they can strike a deal with the local tyrants, they put in the infrastructure (sweatshops, ports, etc.) necessary to mine the labor. Operations continue as long as the "labor resources" remain content with their semi-slavery. If they rise up, and force their tyrants to concede higher wages, they are stripped of their jobs when the Oligarchy pulls up stakes and heads to the next deposit.
This is almost exactly the same process as mining minerals or drilling oil. The populations in places like Nigeria and Indonesia must be pacified before oil & gas production can proceed. In labor strip mining, sweatshops are installed instead of drilling rigs.
White-collar jobs are also offshored, of course. So much so that IBM, a leader in the "destroying America" field has elevated it to a science, and filed for a patent on a system to asses global labor "resource pools:"
"An important challenge in shifting to globally integrated enterprises is planning the location and capacity of the global workforce. There is a need to provide a robust and reusable sourcing template to identify new/expand existing global resource pools, analyze trade-off between qualitative and quantitative aspects across multiple global locations and model the global nature of resource sourcing."
Polluting for Profit
While labor is usually the single largest business expense, it is not the only significant expense. Adhering to environmental laws also costs money for industrial companies.
Suppose a company wants to increase profits by violating the Clean Water Act of 1972 by dumping industrial waste into a river. There would be penalties for that if they got caught, but if they move the plant to the Mexican city of Mexicali, they can dump in the New River, which flows into California. Through the magic of globalization, they are getting away with polluting the USA again!
American factories are clean, safe, efficient, high-tech, and world-class. And that’s another driving force of globalization. You see, the multinationals would have never constructed those factories if they were not forced to do so by U.S. law because all of that good stuff costs money, and state-of-the-art factories are far less profitable than sweatshops.
In countries like China, Mexico, and India, an oligarch can get away with all kinds of low-down behavior that is no longer permitted in the USA while simultaneously retaining the privilege of selling his products to the American middle class.
How Does it Feel to be Globalized?
Globalization erases national borders, however, erasing the USA’s borders takes top priority because we have the largest consumer market to feed with cheap imports, and a highly-paid middle class to monetize with low-wage immigrant workers and offshoring. The USA is the juiciest target on the planet. That’s why we are taking all the arrows.
In 1853, Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo harbor with a squadron of U.S. Navy ships equipped with the first naval guns able to fire explosive shells instead of just cannonballs. Staring down the barrel of those guns, the Japanese agreed to open their country to trade with the USA.
Now it is our turn to be globalized. The process is more sneaky than what we did to the Japanese, but is not fundamentally different. The entity globalizing us is not another nation, but rather an Oligarchy loyal to no nation.
Globalization as Fascism
Our current state of globalization has progressed to the point where multinationals are able to extract bribes in the form of tax concessions from American state and local governments to keep plants from leaving. When GE threatens to move an appliance plant to Mexico, it is a much more credible threat than it was in the past because the border with Mexico has been globalized. So, companies have increased negotiating (or if you prefer, blackmailing) power with local governments.
In many cases, state governments allow corporations to keep the state income taxes withheld from employee paychecks. See this Huffington Post story, and the "Paying Taxes to the Boss" study from the Good Jobs First think tank. While these arrangements are not real fascism, you could call them "symbolic fascism." The optics couldn’t be worse, right? The multinationals have become so powerful that they don’t have to worry so much about public relations anymore. Who will say "boo" to them in a globalized economy with infinite cheap labor?
And so we see another aspect of globalization: In addition to economic power, globalization shifts negotiating power to multinationals, and drains that power from governments. In his book about the 2008 financial crisis Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, Neil Barofsky describes government officials as being "deferential" to the financial corporations that they were rescuing.
And what comes after deference? Obedience – and then we have arrived at fascism.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini.
Though we are actually going beyond Mussolini’s formulation. Multinationals are absorbing government powers rather than merely merging with government.
Marx & Engels supported free trade because they were globalists. Their idea was that once the nation-states were out of the way, and only one global government remained, their work of taking over the world would be much easier: only one government to overthrow instead of scores.
Today, the Oligarchy pursues the same Marxian goal of weakening nation-states with free trade. And for the same reason: maintaining global power.
We can see this policy in action today in the fracking debate. Should we export the excess natural gas produced by the fracking breakthrough? Since the USA is not energy independent, one would think that exporting this bounty would be a bad idea. However, the Oligarchy’s propagandists are pounding the table for exportation on the principle that we must sacrifice our interests on the alter of the global economy; that there should be no restrictions on corporate activity. And that the American people should just mind their own beeswax because the management of the economy is none of their business. Of course, an energy-independent America would be better able to shake off the globalist jackals tying it down, so naturally the Oligarchy seeks to suppress such a development.
The Apex of Globalization
The transfer of economic power from free-trading America to mercantilist China is the top historical development of our age. The apex of American power will be measured from 2001, the year we brought China into the World Trade Organization.
And Marx & Engels will drink a toast in Hell. A toast to the multinationals and oligarchs who have done more to break up the "old nationalities" than the communists ever dreamed of. Today, the USA’s borders have been erased, for all practical intents and purposes, when it comes to trade and immigration.
Once the political process of globalization was completed, the oligarchs were able to turn up to full blast the process of global labor arbitrage.
"In this new era of globalization, the interests of companies and countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for America’s global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the American people."
–Ralph E. Gomory
Former IBM Vice President
Global labor arbitrage is a technique used to cut your paycheck. It is made possible by borders wide open to trade and immigration. So, your boss might come to you and say: "There’s a guy in China who will work for a tenth of what you do. We can bring him here to replace you, or fire you and send your job over there. So, you need to take a pay cut to dissuade me from doing that."
In the past, you were protected from this arbitrage by tariffs, restricted immigration, and unions. Not anymore. Those protections have been swept away for the express purpose of siphoning money out of your paycheck and into corporate profits. And, of course, a raise for your "genius" boss who increased the "efficiency" of his department.
$1.75 Trillion Siphoned from Middle Class
Global labor arbitrage is incredibly profitable. In the October 9, 2011 episode of "60 Minutes" Lesley Stahl reported:
"Over the last decade, big American firms have cut around 3 million jobs in the U.S. while adding almost as many overseas."
So, let’s run through some numbers. If we convert $30 per hour American workers into $2 per hour Mexican, Chinese, and Indian workers, corporate profits rise by $28 per worker per hour. And over the course of ten years, that amounts to $1.7 trillion transferred from the middle class to the oligarchs. Here is the spreadsheet (click to enlarge):
Obviously, Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians don’t pay taxes to Washington D.C. So we can also assume that a huge chunk of tax revenue was lost to the U.S. Treasury – $349 billion. And another large amount was drained from the treasury to support the workers that the multinationals kicked to the curb in the form of unemployment compensation, food stamps, retraining funds, etc.
There were more corporate profits to tax – theoretically – but corporations like to squirrel-away their profits in foreign tax havens. So, any way you slice it, global labor arbitrage damages the fiscal stability of the entire nation. And don’t think the multinationals lose sleep over that. In fact, the weaker the federal government is, the more money they can make with free reign to implement further downgrades to working conditions in the USA. The Oligarchy only believes in a strong government when it is bailout time.
Your Tax Dollars Destroying Your Work
Even more outrageous is that your tax dollars go into training foreigners to take your job! In 2010, the US embassy in Sri Lanka announced: 
"Courses in Business Process Outsourcing, Enterprise Java, and English Language Skills will be offered at no charge to over 3,000 under- and unemployed students who will then participate in on-the-job training schemes with private firms."
(Note: Java is a computer-programming language.)
That story caused an uproar and the USAID program was cancelled. But two years later, another such program was announced; this time in the Philippines, teaching college students English so that they could take call-center jobs from Americans.
You might call this a globalized version of the situation where an American worker is required to train his immigrant replacement before he is fired. Instead of training the immigrant at the office, the American’s tax dollars are sent to Asia to train somebody over there who will telecommute.
This makes you wonder: How much more of this kind of economic treason has been going on in secret? How much "foreign aid" money has been diverted to Third World training- and infrastructure projects with the express purpose of facilitating the offshoring of U.S. jobs on behalf of multinational corporations? How many railroad spurs in Mexico were built with foreign-aid money to help sweatshops export products to the USA? How many ports in China? How many call-centers in India? This is a subject that is
rarely discussed. However, in his 1981 book "Critical Path" R.Buckminster Fuller wrote (page 105):
"Foreign aid paid for all the new factories and machinery of all the American corporations moving out of America."
Unfortunately, Fuller didn’t present any evidence to support his claim, but considering the two recent USAID stories, there is little doubt that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Foreign aid programs are suspect because the profits from global labor arbitrage are largest when your job is sent to the poorest of nations.
Choreographing the Exodus
First there were state laws establishing the "Right to Work" which effectively banned unions in the south, and the industrial north’s factories moved to the sun-belt states. Then there was NAFTA, and the factories moved further south – clear out of the country – to Mexico. Then there was the "Uruguay Round" of GATT and a thousand Asian sweatshops bloomed. And finally, we brought China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and the USA’s economic back was broken in a massive tsunami of offshoring. 
It is critical to understand that none of this was an accident or happenstance. It was all very carefully orchestrated, and legislated with the goal of maximizing corporate profits. Notice that the flow of jobs was directed to places with a lower standard of living than the USA’s industrial north because…
Poverty is a Gold Mine
Global labor arbitrage is a weak force among nations with similar standards of living and labor rules. For example, suppose that you own a widget factory in Kansas and you pay your workers $30 per hour. If you could move your factory to Canada, and replace your American workers with $25 per-hour Canadians, you could save a little money. Canadian workers are not downtrodden; they have mortgages to pay just like Americans, and they have unions too.
However, it’s a whole different story in Mexico. Moving your factory there would bring astronomical profits compared to Canada. Mexicans will work for $2 per hour, and if they try to unionize, you just call the police who will come over and beat them senseless.
When it comes to labor arbitrage, the gold is in the poor countries that are open to labor strip-mining. Countries where labor organizers get a bullet in the head, where massive populations of poor people are grateful for any scraps thrown to them, and shantytowns blanket the land. So, the "giant sucking sound" came from the south, not the north. And later from China and India, not Japan and Germany.
There is a Lot of Ruin in a Nation
When NAFTA was implemented in January 1994, the U.S. economy was in an expansion phase having just emerged from a recession little more than a year prior. So, the economy was doing fine, and probably would have continued to grow around 5% no matter what happened with NAFTA. But that didn’t stop the globalists from attributing strong U.S. growth to NAFTA.
In reality, the USA had a gargantuan industrial economy compared to Mexico at the time. NAFTA did not just flip a switch and send all of our industrial production south of the border. Obviously, many years of infrastructure construction were required before a significant chunk of our industrial base could be exported. Electricity grids, water & sewer systems, telecommunications, sea ports, air ports, highways, railroads to ship the products back up to the USA, shantytowns for the sweatshop workers, and mass graves for labor leaders all had to be constructed.
"Young man, there’s a lot of ruin in a nation" is how Adam Smith replied to a student who told him that the surrender at Yorktown would be the ruin of England. And while Yorktown did prove to be the decisive victory of the Revolutionary War, Smith’s point was still valid. If the British really wanted to fight on, they could have easily done so.
In the mid 1990s, there was still a lot of ruin left in the USA. The modern era of free-trade with low-wage nations was just in its infancy.
Geopolitical Free Trade
Prior to NAFTA, the USA practiced what might be called "geopolitical free trade." During the Cold War, the USA sought to build up Germany and Japan after having smashed them in World War II. Both Germany and Japan were nose-to-nose with the Soviets, and it was thought that giving them access to the USA’s huge consumer market would be an effective way to strengthen them and contain the Soviets.
In fact, the USA went as far as transferring entire industries. For example, the American television-set manufacturing industry was essentially handed over to the Japanese for political reasons. From WSJ.com: 
"Few industries have fallen as hard as television manufacturing. In the 1950s, there were some 150 domestic producers and with employment peaking at about 100,000 people in the 1960s. Then came the imports, first from Japan and later from other parts of Asia. TV manufacturing in the U.S. went all but extinct in the last decade."
However, back then, we still had limits. President Reagan restricted Japanese auto imports when they started to wipe-out large numbers of middle-class jobs. We had not won the Cold War yet, and de-industrializing on a mass scale wasn’t exactly a bright idea – even if the Japanese were our allies.
An Unauthorized Trade Revolution
In its early history, the USA was a protectionist nation. After World War II, our first phase of free-trade began in order to build up the constituent countries of our military empire as a bulwark against the Soviets. And perhaps that was in our national interest.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, we entered the second, and current phase of our free-trade history. And while it may look like a continuation of the first-phase on the surface, it is, in fact, a completely different animal. In the first phase, free-trade laws were made to benefit the American empire, if not the homeland itself. In the current phase, free-trade laws are made strictly for the benefit of multinational corporations with an explicit intent to harm the homeland.
That was a radical change. That was a revolution. A revolution not authorized by the American people.
The American people were not eager to export their jobs to foreign lands, and they pressured their representatives in Congress to make sure that that didn’t happen. So, the Oligarchy came up with "fast track authority" where Congress agreed to special rules for trade laws.
Fast-track rules meant that Congress could no longer amend or filibuster the trade treaties sent to it by the White House. And that increased Congress’ ability to resist pressure from the people.
However, Congress is not allowed to decide what its powers are. That is determined by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Congress first illegally transferred this power to the executive branch to negotiate treaties. Then it shielded itself from public pressure with fast-track rules, and finally it transferred the governance of trade treaties to transnational bodies like the World Trade Organization. So, the entire scheme of globalization is unconstitutional and should be revoked immediately.
Our trade treaties have implemented a form of economics that has been rejected by the American people: laissez-faire.
"In the world of labor as in the world of business, the advent of the giant corporation and the very wealthy employer has meant that the absence of all governmental supervision implies the emergence of a very few exceptionally powerful men at the head, and the stamping out of all individual initiative and power lower down. Unrestricted individualism in violence during the Dark Ages merely produced a class of brutal and competent individual fighters at the top, resting on a broad foundation of abject serfs below. Unrestricted individualism in the modem industrial world produces results very little better…"
-President Theodore Roosevelt (1911)
Laissez-faire is French for "let do" or "let them do as they will." It is a popular concept in a nation like the USA that believes in free enterprise, but it is terribly simplistic. After all, should your utility company be allowed to "do as they will" and raise your electricity bill to the point where you can no longer afford food? Of course not, and so the American people rejected laissez-faire economics long ago – not counting the oligarchs, who treasure it. They would be happy to starve you.
The USA has not had totally free capitalism for a long time; going back at least as far as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Back then, it was obvious that huge combines of corporations had amassed too much power.
Anti-Trust Law Saved Steve Jobs, Apple Computer, and the Macintosh
And we are not just talking ancient history here. In 1997, Microsoft was worried about anti-trust law when their last competitor, Apple Computer, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Bill Gates made a $150 million investment in Apple and saved Steve Jobs. In a pure laissez-faire system, Gates would have snuffed out Apple, and Steve Jobs would be remembered as a guy who made cartoons for Disney. (Read more in this Seattle
Times story from August 6, 1997, and this 2009 story in Wired magazine.)
Instead, the fear of government anti-trust action stayed Gates’s hand, and few people would argue against how things turned out. Not even the most rabid of libertarians.
A Virtuous Circle of Evil
It is obvious from the case studies in our history that successful companies should not be allowed to create unregulated monopolies for themselves. However, we also have considerable evidence that anti-trust law is needed to remedy a flaw in human behavior itself.
Sixteen years after the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto proved that concentration of wealth is the normal outcome of a laissez-faire system. The rich do indeed get richer. It is literally a law of nature. (See Part 4 for more discussion of Pareto.)
To see how money begets money, and power begets power, imagine that you have a small business that is doing well. You have an idea for a new law that would help you take over your competitors. Do you have enough money to hire a lawyer to write the legislation for you? If so, can you afford a lobbyist to take it to the legislature in your state capitol, or Washington D.C.? Maybe so, but can you then purchase enough politicians to vote for your law?
Maybe not. Maybe you have to work harder and save more, or look for a loan. But what happens when you finally pull it off? You wipe out your competitors, capture all the profits that they were making, and then raise prices for your newly-birthed monopoly.
And what happens after that? Now you have enough money to deploy a small army of lawyers, lobbyists, congressmen, senators, and presidents. And you can conquer more markets. Eventually you buy newspapers, televisions stations, and movie studios who all sing your song. Maybe you even fund a think-tank and have scholars churning out papers "proving" that everything you do is "good for America" or "god’s work."
Ultimately, everybody realizes that they must kowtow to you because it’s the only way they can make a living and feed their children, and you wield power over a multitude.
Closing the School of Hard Knocks
Competing in a free market is hard work, and most people appreciate that fact. That’s why entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs receive so much adoration – because they got straight-A’s in the School of Hard Knocks. However, the aftertaste of the grueling curriculum stays with such people after graduation, and when they are in a position to make things easier for themselves, they readily do so.
The problem is that the more successful you are, the more competitors you attract. So, to get some relief from that never-ending pressure, your only choice is to undermine your competition via nefarious means – means that must necessarily undermine the free-market itself because that is where your competitors are birthed. (Economists call this "rent seeking.")
The Freedom to Thwart Freedom
And that’s why oligarchs love laissez-faire so much: it gives them ideological and moral cover to thwart free enterprise. The American ideal of free-enterprise is competition on a level playing field with the federal government ensuring that it stays level. Laissez-faire is the law of the jungle, with no referees, where might makes right. Barbarism, in short.
The admiration that our great business leaders receive is justified – until they begin to engage in anti-competitive activities. Then they must be disciplined.
“In Jamaica, the plantation owners felt it made the most sense to extract the maximum possible effort from their human property while the property was still young – to work their slaves until they were either useless or dead – and then simply buy another round at the market.”
-Malcolm Gladwell 
When laissez-faire economics is combined with restricted population growth, a middle class can be created. Workers are rare, so companies must pay them well. However, under overpopulated conditions, laissez-faire economics leads to dramatic income-inequality. Workers are a dime-a-dozen, so companies pay them subsistence wages, or worse, and people end up living in cages like in the world’s most libertarian city – Hong Kong. Here is a frame from the "Hong Kong Cage Dwellers" documentary  (click to enlarge):
Americans are suckers for the Dark Art of mass immigration because we are almost completely a nation of immigrants, and the descendants of immigrants. So we are sympathetic to the plight of the "wretched refuse" as it says on the Statue of Liberty.
Yet, surely there must be some sort of limit on the rate at which we can absorb new immigrants, no? Is it a coincidence that the Great Depression and the Great Recession both came after the two highest peaks of immigration in American history?
With 11.8 million people unemployed, and 47 million on food stamps, don’t we have some "wretched refuse" of our own to tend to?
How many of the men in this picture from the Great Depression were immigrants?:
Nobody knows, but chances are good that quite a few of them were foreigners because the Great Depression was preceded by a huge wave of immigration. The famous Dust Bowl farmers of the 1930s were largely immigrants. One could argue that the greatest man-made ecological disaster in American history would not have happened with a more judicious immigration policy.
Thanks to propaganda-by-omission from the Oligarch Media, not many Americans realize that during the Great Recession we brought in record numbers of legal immigrants. Take a look at this chart (click to enlarge):
That’s right. Even when the unemployment rate went over 11% in 2009, immigration kept on going full steam ahead.
These numbers are not insubstantial in relation to unemployment. We have 11.8 million people unemployed now (FRED LNU03000000). If we had merely been running immigration at our historical average of 400,000 per year over the last two or three decades, unemployment wouldn’t even be an issue today.
Now, look at the "1930" bar on the chart. It’s almost the smallest in history because during the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration shut down immigration. It was just common sense; we didn’t have jobs for new people. Or as they like to say in business, we didn’t need any more "bodies."
Why didn’t President Bush have that same common sense in 2008? And what’s President Obama’s excuse now?
Answer: during the 1930s, the USA was a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. And today we are a nation of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, and for the oligarchs.
Corporate profits benefit from mass immigration because the increased supply of labor drives down business “costs” – a.k.a. your paycheck.
Now, look at the decades when the mighty American middle class rose to power: the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s were periods of low immigration. That isn’t a coincidence. Whether or not this nation has a middle class is a policy choice. Back then, we deliberately created a middle class. Today, we are deliberately destroying it.
The vast wealth of the middle class is being converted into corporate profits via mass immigration, and wide-open free trade with low-wage nations which sucks entire industries out of the USA.
If the history books of the future are not written by corporate lobbyists (like our laws are today), the Great Recession will be recorded as the greatest betrayal of the American people in history.
Mass Immigration is Supported by All Three Major Political Parties
There is virtually no political opposition to legal mass immigration. It is a sacred cow of American politics, and the true scale of it is completely concealed by the mass media.
Libertarians have always had open borders as a pillar of their ideology. To them, only a police state would initiate force against an innocent person crossing a border. (And nerdy libertarian men need to import mail-order brides.)
Democrats have cheered on mass immigration as part of their campaign to dilute white, Republican voters. Bill Clinton gave the commencement address to the 1998 Portland State graduating class. Here are two quotes from the C-SPAN video:
At the 13:40 mark: "Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America."
At the 14:08 mark: "In a little more than fifty years, there will be no majority race in the United States."
Clinton had to wait for the applause to die down after the second quote. Diluting the hillbilly, redneck, bible-thumping, red-state Republicans is sacred to the Democrats. Of course today, those applauding students probably live with their parents, have maxed-out credit cards, mounds of student-loan debt, and work as servers in restaurants, or as unpaid interns.
But why would the Republicans go along with mass immigration when the consensus was that it would weaken their party’s ability to win elections? This is where we see the Dark Arts in action. It’s not about the Republican Party, it’s about the Oligarchy.
Mass immigration boosts the profits of big business, increases the power of the Oligarchy, and brings the return of sweatshops closer. So, the Republicans have been required to fall on their swords – and they have done so cheerfully. As a matter of fact, Republican Senator Marco Rubio went so far as to say that his party should start bragging about mass immigration. On August 29, 2012, Larry Kudlow interviewed Rubio who said (at the 3:24 mark of this video):
"We have to start by bragging about the fact that a million people a year immigrate to the United States legally. A million people. No other country comes close."
Meanwhile, Rubio’s home state, Florida, had at that time over 3 million people on food stamps, which was more than California – a state with double the population! For Rubio, it’s not about Florida; it’s about the Oligarchy. From the USDA (click to enlarge):
During the Great Recession, President Obama’s biggest problem was unemployment. And yet, he kept the flow of legal immigrants coming in at one million per year. That’s a policy that makes no sense for a president running for re-election – but only if you are unaware of the Dark Arts. Obama will probably get an award for his obedient service to the Oligarchy in an Eyes Wide Shut type of secret ceremony.
Apple founder Steve Wozniak attended California’s De Anza College, which is only a mile from Apple headquarters in Cupertino (click to enlarge):
However, as profits soared at Apple, and other Silicon Valley companies, courses were cut and tuition was raised at De Anza. Yes, multinationals are notorious tax dodgers, but you would think that they would want to have the California educational system continue to crank out well-prepared workers for them.
Well, they don’t. They will be just as happy getting their fresh bodies from India and China. Even happier, no doubt, since immigrants will work much cheaper than "uppity" Americans.
De Anza president, Brian Murphy told the New York Times:
"I just don’t understand it. I’ll bet every person at Apple has a connection to De Anza. Their kids swim in our pool. Their cousins take classes here. They drive past it every day, for Pete’s sake. But then they do everything they can to pay as few taxes as possible."
Oligarchs are not concerned with the tribulations of the small people scurrying about their feet. Do you worry about ants scurrying around your feet?
Mass-Immigration was the Engine of Slavery
Slave plantations weren’t enormously profitable just because they enslaved Africans. They were profitable because the cost of purchasing slaves was kept down by the mass immigration of slaves. It wasn’t voluntary immigration, of course, but the plantation system was nevertheless dependent upon a mass influx of fresh workers.
Think of a slave plantation, Foxconn gadget factory, or Walmart warehouse as an engine fueled with humans. If the supply of humans is too low, you have to run your engine at a slow speed. If you burn through the humans too fast, you won’t have enough to man all of the workstations and the engine will stop.
Now imagine a huge ship sailing up to a nearby port, and thousands of fresh bodies marching off. Now you are free to crack the whip, rev up the engine, and accelerate profits because you now have access to all the fuel your human-burning engine can handle.
And indeed, Foxconn factories and Walmart warehouses have notoriously high turn-over rates. They just don’t have an economic- or demographic incentive to care about the welfare of their employees.
Your Mother Was Wrong – You’re Not Special
Here is a chart from the Census Bureau showing population by age and gender in Washington D.C. (click to enlarge):
Notice that there are a lot more females than males in the 20-29 age group. That’s because the numerous office jobs in the federal bureaucracy are mainly staffed with women. The exact number of surplus women is 11,823:
Washington D.C. – Population – Ages 20-29
Single women in their twenties in Washington D.C. don’t feel very special because it’s a "buyer’s market" for men. The situation is a lot different in Anchorage, Alaska. Up there, it’s the men who have to beg and plead for dates:
Anchorage, Alaska – Population – Ages 20-29
If a woman wants to be a prima donna, taking a job in Washington is not a good strategy. Rather, she should try to land a job on an oil rig or Army base in Alaska, where she just might be the only women for miles around. Of course, such an environment will distort her mind, and if she ever moved back to a place with a more balanced population, she might be in for a rude awakening. And American workers are experiencing just such a rude awakening right now.
The moral of the story is that how you are treated by other people is often determined by a simple numbers game. Mass immigration makes you less special economically, and increases the likelihood that you will be treated badly on the job. This writer’s mother reports that employers were very good to her during World War II. With all the men at war, and immigration still tight, employers had no choice but to be pleasant to their employees, and even treasure them as valued partners in the operation of the capitalist system. Shockingly, the world did not end, and corporations remained profitable.
Prepare to be Marched Upon by The Reserve Army of Labor
If you listen to an Oligarch talk for long enough, eventually, he will pound the table and shout: "WE MUST HAVE MORE IMMIGRATION!!!" This is their favorite demand, and they have their captive media blast it at you around the clock. You will see it in both flavors of the Oligarch Media, from Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times, to Republican Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
"We have a Republican debate: who can put up the most electric fences. The message is go away."
Legal immigration to the USA in 2011 was 1,062,040 – far more than any other nation on Earth. Hardly a "Keep Out" sign. Two weeks after Freidman’s blatant lie, globalist Amy M. Wilkinson wrote this blatant lie on CNN.com:
"Ellis Island has put up a velvet rope line. To vital job generators, we are saying, "There’s no room for you."
Far from a velvet rope, there are red carpets extending to immigrants in all directions! The longest and widest red carpets in American history! While we may not have had a special visa for entrepreneur immigrants as Wilkinson proposed, surely there must have been a few such people sprinkled in among the 10.5 million legal immigrants of the prior decade. As a matter of fact, we probably brought in more entrepreneur immigrants than all other nations of the world combined.
And yet, poverty and unemployment still exploded during that period. Funny how that worked out…After all, if immigrants were the magical creatures that the Oligarch Media portrays them to be, then we should have jobs coming out of our ears by now.
"Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Even workplaces that have not been offshored, or staffed with foreigners, have been under pressure from the Dark Arts. After all, just because you can’t eliminate an American worker doesn’t mean that you can’t work her like an Alaskan sled dog.
Union-busting itself is not a Dark Art because it is a straight-forward punch in the face of workers, but it is nevertheless a pillar of the Oligarchy’s system. Eliminating unions is a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, leaving workers to fend for themselves in the laissez-faire jungle, hunted by the Oligarchy’s wolf-packs.
Suppose that you work in a warehouse as a "picker." Your job is to fetch books from the racks and hand them off to a "packer." The warehouse is large, so you have to do a lot of walking. How fast do you go?
Before you answer that question, you might want to ask: how many job applicants are there in the waiting room clutching their resumes? If there are a hundred people wanting your job, then you might feel the need to hustle. If the waiting room is empty, then maybe you don’t feel any urgency. When your supervisor rolls up behind you in his golf cart, and yells: "Mush! Mush!" you just ignore him. He can’t fire you because he cannot replace you. You still have to do the work, because if you don’t, then he won’t be any worse off by firing you – but he can’t make you sweat.
The key element in making a sweatshop run smoothly is to have a surplus of workers standing by because it instills fear. In general, the greater the surplus, the more fascist your boss can act due to your fear of being fired.
Foxconn’s Evil American Twin
Once the Reserve Army of Labor has been constructed with mass immigration, the process of monetizing surplus humans into fat profits for the Oligarchy can begin. For example, 65% of the cost of operating a warehouse is labor. So, large profits can indeed be made by sweating the workers. And the warehouse industry ("logistics") is bigger than ever. Since we have offshored so many factories, we now need much larger facilities for distributing the products that come over from Asia. In a just society, blue-collar workers laid off from well-paid factory jobs would land on their feet with well-paid logistics jobs. But that isn’t part of the plan. Instead, factory workers have gone from the frying pan and into the fire. American warehouse workers are being made to sweat today; just like workers in China and Mexico. Journalist Mac McClelland has a friend "Susie" who works as a warehouse manager (story here)
"Susie told me it’s pretty dispiriting to act as though her workers are as disposable as the products they’re shipping. But that’s just the way it is, she said. The logistics clients aren’t interested in spending money on a better or more sustainable work culture. Nor do they need to. There are 100 people employed in the warehouse I visited, and Susie could fire every one of them today without costing her bosses a dime of lost profits. She has applications from hundreds of people ready to take the job."
In 2011, McClelland took a job in a warehouse to observe working conditions firsthand. In "
"There’s a screaming pain running across the back of my shoulders. "You need to take 800 milligrams of Advil a day," a woman in her late 50s or early 60s advised me when we all congregated in the break room before work."
"I pick 300 items. The majority of them zap me painfully."
Instead of using an anti-static coating on the shelves, the warehouse just inflicts constant static-electricity shocks on workers.
And it is not just labor activists and journalists who are reporting abuses. In 2011, "The Morning Call" newspaper in Allentown reported:
"An emergency room doctor in June called federal regulators to report an "unsafe environment" after he treated several…warehouse workers for heat-related problems. The doctor’s report was echoed by warehouse workers who also complained to regulators, including a security guard who reported seeing pregnant employees suffering in the heat."
The workers got to the emergency room courtesy of ambulances that the warehouse had standing by. They knew workers would be dropping.
When pregnant women are worked like dogs until they need to be hauled to the emergency room, you know you are no longer living in a civilized society – you are living in an oligarchy.
Of course, these egregious warehouse conditions are premeditated. These facilities are designed from the ground up as sweatshops. It is a cold, calculated "chew them up and spit them out" system designed to burn through the Reserve Army of Labor as if workers were so many logs being fed through a sawmill.
A mirror image of the head-end of the system – the sweatshops in China.
And that is not a coincidence. The entire global system has been painstakingly architected by multinational corporations for the sole purpose of increasing profits. We will discuss this further in "The Restoration of Slavery" section below. Of course, American warehouse workers, and Asian sweatshop workers are not the only ones experiencing uncivilized working conditions.
"…used to have a food bank for other workers in the community who weren’t in the union. Today, the food bank is [only] for workers in the plant because the new [hourly wage] rate there is $11 an hour."
$11 per hour is $23,000 per year. A middle class income is between $39,000-$115,000. So, even unionized factory workers aren’t much better off than burger-flippers.
Not So Hospitable
Once upon a time, it used to be possible to enter the lower rung of the middle class via a hospitality job – as a housekeeper or a bellman, for example. Not anymore.
From Dave Jamieson’s "As Hotels Outsource Jobs, Workers Lose Hold On Living Wage" in the Huffington Post:
"Hotel workers in [Indianapolis] say their workloads have increased in recent years while their wages have remained flat or even fallen. In some cases, the housekeepers are expected to clean roughly twice as many rooms as they were just a few years ago, often working off the clock to meet their quota and avoid being disciplined. As the cost of living has climbed, they find themselves worse off than they were a decade ago."
In 2009, Hyatt fired 100 of its housekeepers in Boston, and replaced them with temps.
"The wages for housekeepers dropped from about $15 per hour with benefits to around $8 without benefits…"
Temp agencies are widely used in the warehouse industry, and elsewhere, to beat down wages. The Hyatt story caused a good deal of outrage leading the nearby city of Cambridge to outlaw such outsourcing.
While warehouses are notorious for tracking workers electronically, Disney-hotel laundry workers have named a similar such system the "electronic whip." Again, pregnant women are not given special consideration. From the Los Angeles Times:
"…the whip has led to a sort of competition among workers, some of whom have tried to race to the head of the pack. But that has led to dissension and made other employees worry that a reasonable pace won’t be enough to keep the boss happy."
Does a corporation with billions of dollars in profits really need to set its laundry workers at each others throats like this?
Don’t be silly! Of course they do! That’s where the extra billions come from! If they didn’t, how would this be possible?:
"…when Walt Disney ran the company in 1966, he made 108 times as much as one of his hotel housekeepers. Bob Iger, the current chief executive, makes 781 times as much as a housekeeper."
There are numerous other examples that could be listed here. If you follow the links above, you will find more links, and can read stories for hours and hours – maybe even days and days. It’s a horror scene out there – a seething caldron of oligarchy.
Degrading working conditions is a Dark Art, not only because it is a direct frontal assault on the middle class, but because it is hard for citizens to detect. After all, we don’t see chain gangs marched through town. If you drive by a warehouse, factory, or hotel, how can you know how hard the workers inside are being pushed, or how much they are being paid? And how do the working conditions compare to those of, say, 1975? Since this information will never be accurately portrayed in the Oligarch Media, citizens must seek out the writings of journalists, labor activists, and historians. Consequently, when a multinational reports billions in profits, the majority of Americans have no idea how it was done. The gloating CEO’s flying around in their shiny new jets neglect to tell us how many more workers are sporting the corporate jackboot on their necks.
All of the preceding Dark Arts discussed are amplified and prolonged by what future historians will surely brand as the worst economic policy in American history: The dollar/yuan currency peg.
If you took a survey asking Americans: “what is the top factor keeping our economy weak,” you would find few-to-none of them citing the dollar/yuan currency peg. Yet, this arcane topic is the linchpin that keeps the tidal wave of factories and jobs flowing from the USA to China. (Note: the Chinese currency is also called the “renminbi.”)
Suppose that you own a factory and you are thinking about moving it to China. You look at the cost of shipping your machine tools over there, the amount of bribes you will have to pay to Chinese officials, the intellectual property that you will have to surrender, wages for Chinese workers, how much it will cost to ship your widgets back to the USA, etc.
While those are all important factors, you must also consider the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Chinese yuan. Think of it like this, when you sell your widgets to your American customers, you receive dollars. Then you must reorder stock from the factory in China, but before you do that you must convert your dollars into yuan. You have to pay your workers there, pay shipping costs, buy more materials, etc. – and you need local currency to do that.
So, the exchange rate becomes vital to your profitability. For example, if the dollar weakens against the yuan, then from your perspective, the price of everything in China just went up. And what if the yuan strengthened to the point that your factory was no longer profitable? You would have to start thinking about moving it back to the USA.
With that perspective, it is easy to see that in order for the Chinese to keep the flow of factories and jobs coming their way, they need to keep their currency weak versus the dollar. And that is exactly what they have done. Now, think about all the multinationals that have moved factories to China. The last thing that GE wants to do is move lightbulb plants from China back to Ohio – that would be expensive.
So, both the communist regime in Beijing and the multinationals have the same incentive: to keep the dollar strong against the yuan. And so far, they have been able to purchase enough congressmen, senators, treasury secretaries, and presidents to do just that.
As you can see, the dynamic is to keep the “terms of trade” tilted in favor of China. Once this type of flow begins, it is almost impossible to stop because the beneficiaries reap huge profits. Sweatshops are very profitable compared to American factories, and China has accrued trillions of dollars in their bank account. So have the multinationals.
And that’s how the USA lost its sovereignty: vast amounts of wealth were transferred from middle-class households to Beijing and the multinationals, which use that wealth to purchase more-and-more favorable legislation.
While many multinational corporations grew up in the USA, it is wrong to think of them as American companies now. The fact is that they impose legislation on Washington that favors themselves and the Chinese.
The Chinese have been weakening their currency versus the U.S. dollar for over 30 years (click to enlarge):
One of the sharp moves down was in January 1, 1994 (blue arrow on the chart). That’s when NAFTA went into effect, and the Chinese were trying to compete with a new large-scale competitor for multinational sweatshops: Mexico. On that day, Beijing cut the price of the yuan from 17.2¢ to 11.5¢ – a massive 33%.
At that time, suppose that you had a factory in China employing 100 workers per shift, and you were paying them 10 yuan per hour, which was a very generous $1.72. In the spreadsheet below, you can see that you would have been paying $1,376 per eight-hour shift before the devaluation. And afterward, only $920.
Now, suppose that you were running three shifts per day, six days per week. Beijing would have put an extra $426,816 in your pocket in 1994! All through the “magic” of currency devaluation. So, it’s easy to see why the multinationals don’t permit Washington to do anything about the peg – it’s a gold mine for them.
Back on the chart, notice the unnaturally flat periods: that’s the currency peg in action. By blatantly manipulating their currency, Beijing not only keeps the factories coming, but it also sends a message to the multinationals: “we are committed to keeping your operations profitable.”
Without the peg, moving a factory to China would be much more risky. Factory owners would be more hesitant, and the playing field would be more level. With the peg, the risk is removed, and the playing field is tilted downward toward China.
The yuan currency peg is the linchpin of the whole globalization criminal cartel.
How do the Chinese keep the exchange rate steady? If their currency strengthens against the dollar, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) just prints up more yuan, goes into the currency market, and starts buying dollars. That increased demand pushes the dollar back up versus the yuan. When it gets back up to the peg, the PBOC stops buying.
Maintaining the peg is mechanically easy, though it is not without consequences: printing a lot of fresh currency can create inflation. And that’s why the Chinese went ballistic in 2010 when the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank began their second “quantitative easing” (QE2) stimulus program. The Chinese knew that if the USA tried to stimulate its economy with fresh dollars, they would have to print more yuan to buy those dollars in order to continue imposing their currency peg on the USA.
And that’s exactly what they did. The PBOC printed up mountains of fresh yuan and bought up the fresh dollars. They withdrew the stimulus that the Fed injected, the US economy barely improved, and inflation took off in China causing a good deal of strife as food prices shot up.
In a lecture to a class at George Washington University in March 2012, Chairman Bernanke said as much. As reported by the New York Times:
“…Mr. Bernanke said that history was clearly on the side of flexible policy. In particular, he described the standard view among economic historians that the rigidity of the gold standard amplified the Great Depression. He noted that the policies of modern nations tying the value of their currencies to those of other nations have the same downside. He cited the example of China, which maintains the value of its currency in relation to the dollar. ‘Fixed exchange rates between countries tend to transmit both good and bad policies between countries and take away the independence those countries have to manage their economic policy,’ Mr. Bernanke said.”
The Chinese have indeed taken away our independence. Through their mostly-Republican lackeys, Beijing and the multinationals put a huge amount of pressure on the Fed to cancel their plans for QE2. However, the Fed is one of the few remaining sovereign institutions in Washington, and defied the pressure. That was a heartening development for patriotic Americans, but ultimately the Chinese were able to rob the USA of the growth that QE2 would have stimulated. So, while the Fed still wields sovereign powers, Beijing is now powerful enough to neutralize those powers.
As catastrophic as the Dark Arts are, they are virtually unknown to the American public thanks to the Dark Art of Secrecy, Deception, and Media Control.
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.”
Many people scoff at the Oligarchy’s main-stream media (MSM). However, its effectiveness as a propaganda machine is incredible. It is so effective that it is able to brainwash members of the Oligarchy itself! In 2010, President Obama announced a plan to boost the economy by increasing exports. On September 16, 2010, CNBC anchor and Council on Foreign Relations member Erin Burnett asked a guest:
"Could you give a few tangible exports, of the things, whether it be iPads, or whatever it is, that we’re going to be exporting so much more of?"
Burnett had no clue that the manufacturing of our computers and electronics had been moved offshore years prior. And she goes to the secret meetings!
What is truly amazing is that the MSM is able to accomplish such feats of mind-control in the face of the internet. Few things remain hidden these days, but they do indeed remain obscure, and therefore hidden from the masses for all practical intents and purposes.
If you could tell the proverbial frog in the pot just one thing to keep it from jumping out before it is boiled, you might say: "Don’t worry; no action needs to be taken. There is an invisible hand that guides the economy such that progress is automatic. So, just remain calm and everything will be fine. These uncomfortable conditions will soon pass." This is essentially what the MSM does. Sure, they might discuss the increasing heat in the pot, but they rarely discuss the fire, or what fuels it.
The Chinese sweatshop-cat is out of the bag now, but Erin Burnett was clueless in 2010 because she was a victim of propaganda by omission.
Propaganda by Omission
Another example: everybody knows that U.S. Navy Seal Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden. However, many people are unaware that the Taliban got revenge. On August 6, 2011, a little more than a month after the Bin Laden raid, 22 members of Seal Team Six were killed in a Taliban ambush.
And yet, the worst defeat in the 24-year history of the U.S. Special Operations Command is rarely, if ever, mentioned – even when the Bin Laden raid is discussed. The media reported the story when it happened, but then “forgot” about it.
This is an excellent example of the Dark Art of “Propaganda by Omission.” The fact that the Taliban exacted a measure of revenge tarnishes the Bin Laden victory. President Obama did a lot of bragging during the 2012 presidential campaign, and his strategy would have had less impact if the media continued mentioning the Taliban’s revenge.
However, the Republicans also stopped mentioning the ambush. They could have used the story to try to deflate Obama’s bragging, but they did not. The military-industrial complex makes a lot of money on war and “nation building.” So by scrubbing the story from both the right- and left wings of the media, they are continuing to deliver a propaganda message: “Everything is just fine. There is no need to pull out like we did in Vietnam. In fact, things are going so well that we might just invade Iran.”
And so disappeared one of the biggest stories of the war. In this case, both political factions of the Oligarchy had a motive to bury the story. And since repetition is necessary for learning, it was easy to do. You will see this often: the media will report a story distasteful to the Oligarchy to maintain credibility with the masses. But then they never mention it again – effectively erasing it from the memories of their audience.
By observing what the Oligarchy suppresses, we can discover the planks of their secret party platform. Huge stories lacking commensurate coverage are blatant smoking guns:
Smoking Gun of Secrecy #1: Invisible Immigration
During the Great Recession, the fact that legal immigration was continued at a record pace was rarely, if ever, discussed in the media. That’s a mind-numbing smoking gun.
The media did a seemingly infinite number of stories about unemployment, poverty, and illegal immigration, but somehow the fact that one million legal immigrants per year were pouring into the USA was kept quiet. That is a level of “Big Lie” propaganda that would win the approval of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
Smoking Gun of Secrecy #2: Sweatshop Conditions
Americans knew that their jobs were going to China, but the media kept quiet about the brutal working conditions in Asian sweatshops for quite a while. The masses had a vague memory of the Cathy Lee Gifford incident, but it took the suicides of Foxconn workers on the Apple assembly lines for the story to come out – a full decade after China was admitted into the World Trade Organization.
Smoking Gun of Secrecy #3: IBM’s Project Lean
If you Google IBM’s Project Lean, you won’t find any stories from the Oligarch Media. IBM is one of the nation’s largest employers, and the fact that it is replacing thousands of middle-class American workers with impoverished Indians is simply not discussed. At all.
Smoking Gun of Secrecy #4: Invisible Factories
Many American multinationals don’t list global plant locations on their websites. They don’t want you to know where a car, refrigerator, or toaster was built. They don’t want you to know how much offshoring they have done. However, the people have fought back, and a good deal of this information can now be found on websites like Wikipedia.
Smoking Gun of Secrecy #5: Suppression of NAFTA Criticism
Ross Perot said that during his campaign against NAFTA in the early 1990s, the big TV networks would not run his ads. He had to buy time on many small, local stations (see Part 3 below).
Those are just a few examples, an entire book could be written just on this one aspect of The Oligarchy’s operations. Like Morpheus said in The Matrix: "The matrix is a computer-generated dream-world built to keep us under control…"  And indeed, Americans are being kept in a feel-good dream world as the Oligarchy brazenly advances its campaign of eradicating the middle class. But it wasn’t always like that. In fact, the news media used to be a huge thorn-in-the-side for the Oligarchy.
How the Oligarchy Concentrated the Media
Republican politicians love to rail against the "liberal" Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), but few people realize that PBS was founded to promote the Vietnam War.  In the 1960s, television rose to power, and its news journalists were very critical of the war. So, President Lyndon Johnson set up PBS and made Frank Pace, Jr. chairman. Pace was a former Secretary of the Army, and a former CEO of General Dynamics Corporation, a huge defense contractor. And so PBS was born as an appendage of the military-industrial complex. But that wasn’t good enough.
Resistance to the Vietnam War continued. David Rockefeller himself triggered protests when he went to Saigon in 1966 to open a new branch of his Chase-Manhattan Bank. Eventually, the people and their crusading television journalists, forced the Oligarchy to end the war. And the Oligarchy was not pleased. In fact, they were incensed. In the very same year that Saigon fell to the NVA, 1975, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission vowed revenge.
The Trilateral Rattled
In 1975, the Trilateral Commission published the report/book, “The Crisis of Democracy – On the Governability of Democracies” which can be downloaded from Trilateral.org here. The report is a long and whiny diatribe about the loss of “social control.” They were especially apoplectic over intellectual journalists criticizing Establishment policies in front of large television audiences. So, the people can indeed make the Oligarchy sweat.
The gloves come off on page 181 in the section titled “Restoring a Balance between Government and Media” where the report demanded that journalists pipe down, or face government regulation of their content. The report also advocated repealing the 1966 Freedom of Information Act, and making reporters subject to prosecution for libel when they criticized government officials. However, the Oligarchy’s resolve ran deeper, and darker.
One of the most famous corporate takeovers in history occurred in 1985, when a little fish called Capital Cities Communications swallowed a whale – the American Broadcasting Company. Fishy, no? At the time, ABC was more profitable than its rival networks CBS and NBC, so it wasn’t like poor management invited the takeover. And ABC’s CEO Leonard H. Goldenson was, according to Fortune, “beset by suitors for decades” and “ruled with ferocious independence for over 30 years.” So, if ABC was a fiercely independent, profitable whale, how did a little minnow like Capital Cities take it over? Answer: the fix was in.
Capital Cities was founded in 1954 by several men with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) connections. The company’s lawyer was William J. Casey who went on to become Ronald Reagan’s CIA director for six years. Casey is reputed to have invented the tax shelter for Capital Cities. The company also used its government connections to learn the direction of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy, which enabled them to buy and sell the right media properties – kind of like buying-up land before a new highway is built.
Those corrupt connections and tax evading, combined with a brutal union-busting attitude, won a reputation of managerial “genius” for Capital Cities CEO Thomas S. Murphy. Of course, Wall Street loved the company. And why wouldn’t they? With connections like that, the company couldn’t fail to make huge profits. Capital Cities could have been the “poster boy” for the Oligarchy, and the Oligarchy wanted to muzzle televisions journalists.
On November 21, 1984, CIA Director Casey asked the FCC to revoke ABC’s television- and radio-station broadcast licenses because of a story that ABC did that was critical of the CIA. While FCC Director, James Quello, a former Capital Cities station manager, considered the request, ABC cracked under the pressure and agreed to be taken over by Capital Cities. 
At the time, Casey owned 34,000 shares of Capital Cities stock. He should have put the stock into his blind trust along with his other stocks since he was a public official, but he did not. If he had done so, the manager of the trust could have sold the Capital Cities shares at any time without Casey knowing. So obviously, Casey wanted to make sure that he kept the shares because he knew that "good things" were coming for the stock, and he eventually made several million dollars on his investment.
So, the "big bang" of media concentration exploded out of a swamp of shady characters. Is it any surprise that today’s news media is widely regarded as a whitewashing machine for multinational corporations?
Buffett Wets His Beak
Being a much smaller company than ABC, Capital Cities needed to borrow money to execute the takeover. So, Murphy brought in his old friend, Warren Buffett who invested $518 million in exchange for 18% of the new, combined company. Buffett’s name rarely comes up in conspiracy circles, so his role is very interesting. During an interview at the Harvard Business School, Murphy said that he had invited Buffett to join the board of directors of Capital Cities fifteen years prior, and Buffett had refused. Was Buffett resisting being recruited into the cabal?
Buffett is also famous for being a follower of the conservative investor Benjamin Gramm and said about the deal: "I doubt if Ben’s up there applauding me on this one."  Buffett invested an incredible 25% of his company’s liquid assets in the deal. Of course, Casey’s threats against ABC were public knowledge, and Buffett was pals with Murphy, so Buffett almost certainly knew that the fix was in, and the deal did turn out to be hugely profitable for him.
Buffett might have been persuaded by Murphy’s track record of brutal labor crackdowns. The deal was expensive by Buffett’s usual standards, but there was no doubt that Murphy would be lopping off heads at ABC after the takeover. So, there was a "sure thing" type of strategy that may have sweetened the deal for Buffett. This is reminiscent of Buffett’s $10.7 billion investment in IBM in 2012. Perhaps union-busting, and labor arbitrage are causes for which Buffett is willing to make exceptions to his strict investing philosophy. Read more about Buffett’s IBM investment below.
Disney Buys Capital Cities/ABC
In 1994, The Walt Disney Company bought Capital Cites/ABC. Today, Disney is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and with $42.3 billion in revenue, it is the largest media company in the world. It was a good fit; Disney has played ball with the Oligarchy going all the way back to the days when Walt Disney was an FBI informant feeding information to J. Edgar Hoover.
ABC became the most right-wing of the television networks, and hosted Rush Limbaugh in their radio studios. Limbaugh argued for the concept that since the Constitution designated the President as Commander in Chief that he could command the armed forces to do whatever he wanted; that he was, in fact, a military dictator. And it wasn’t long before the Oligarchy got their perpetual war machine going again. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of Constitutional law. Republicans should support the Constitution’s requirement that wars be declared by Congress.
In 2011, Occupy Wall Street protestors rushed into the streets, but famously couldn’t think of any demands. After all, they had grown up with the Oligarch Media, and consequently, their brains were empty of any actual knowledge. Just as the Oligarchy intended.
In 2012, Disney released the film “The Avengers” which is based on the comic book series of the same name. In the film, the superheroes work with the SHIELD agency, which is a global intelligence organization. At the 35:24 mark, as they are trying to catch the bad guys, SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson says:
“We’re sweeping every wirelessly accessible camera on the planet. Cell phones, laptops. If it’s connected to a satellite, it’s eyes and ears for us.”
So, there’s Disney doing a bit of brainwashing on us; trying to make it look like total surveillance through consumer electronics is a good thing.
In 1975, we had dozens of media corporations. Today, in the wake of the Oligarchy’s media-concentration project, most media are owned by a handful of mega-corporations like Disney (ABC), AOL-Time Warner, Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), News Corporation (Fox), Sony, etc.
For a detailed history of the Capital Cities story, see Networks of Power by Dennis Mazzocco.
The Crisis of Democracy is also the book that contains the infamous “excess democracy” quote on page 113:
“Some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy…”
So, a democratic system is okay until it gets too democratic. Then it will fly out of control unless rescued by “some outside agency” – meaning a swell group of guys like Rockefeller and his Trilateralist pals. The “agency” quote (from page 8) is fascinating because that’s exactly how they resolved the “problem” – with the Central Intelligence Agency kicking things off by helping Capital Cities take over ABC.
Corporate Public Relations
Multinational corporations are exactly like the "Mom" character in the Futurama animated television series. In public, Mom is the benevolent, elderly CEO of MomCorp. Sort of the female version of Warren Buffett. As the Futurama website says:
"Mom owns one of the biggest corporations in the universe. To most she seems to be a sweet old lady, but those close to her know she’s evil."
In public, Mom wears a fat suit and acts like a saintly grandmother:
But when she leaves the public eye, Mom takes off her matronly costume and parades around in a super-villain style cat-suit, like Catwoman, but with wrinkles:
In real life, companies like Disney project a wholesome image, while behind the scenes, downtrodden sweatshop workers in Third-World countries like Haiti and Bangladesh churn out Disney merchandise for minuscule wages under horrific working conditions. And laundry workers in Disney hotels are driven like so many sled dogs. How many stories about that do you think you will see on the ABC network, which is owned by Disney?
Today every multinational has a "public relations" department staffed with attractive, bubbly women whose job it is to convince you that the company is a model corporate citizen. But did you know that "public relations" was once called "propaganda"?
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations" coined the term for peace-time use in the USA after the Germans started using "propaganda" and gave it a bad name. The Nazi campaign against their Jewish citizens employed carefully-planned propaganda. Being associated with that was, ironically, bad propaganda for American companies, and so they switched to the "public relations" moniker.
In the early days of corporate propaganda, there were rather blatant publicity stunts, celebrities hired to shill products, fake stories planted in the news, etc. Then a more sophisticated approach was developed that we might designate as “meme seeding.” Memes are ideas that take on a life of their own, spreading from brain-to-brain like a virus. They are sort of like the “trial balloons” that politicians use to test support for their ideas, however meme seeding is designed to shape minds, not poll them.
To use a meme to win people over to your plan, you must first craft an appealing idea. Then you must inject it into other human brains, ideally through the mass media, and you might do that by sponsoring news stories, television shows, music, etc. You don’t pitch a product directly, but your meme lays the groundwork for a future sales pitch.
So, if the Oligarchy were, for example, planning to conquer Venezuela, they might release a “meme swarm” by tasking their media corporations to produce anti-Venezuelan content years in advance. Perhaps you would see a heart-rending documentary about poor Venezuelan children. Or a story about deforestation, or a shocking tell-all book by one of President Hugo Chavez’s relatives. By time the war drums started to beat, you might have already passively absorbed a negative view of the target.
One of the effects of “synergy” between different media outlets owned by the same corporation is that it extends the reach of their meme swarms. If you don’t watch their television stations, you might be infected by one of their radio stations, magazines, books, websites, or celebrities on Twitter.
Even seemingly benign campaigns are suspect. For example, in the 1960s, the American people were treated to a blitz of Latin American culture. Latin artists, writers, and musicians were brought to the USA by a charitable organization. That was a good thing in itself. However, the organization was David Rockefeller’s “Center for Inter-American Relations” (CIAR). From his Memoirs (Kindle 8603):
“From the beginning the council’s membership included many of the country’s largest and most important corporations, representing about 90 percent of U.S. investment in Latin America.”
The American people never wanted to send their jobs south of the border, so the CIAR’s cultural blitz was a propaganda weapon used to soften-up their attitudes long before NAFTA came up for a vote in Congress.
You are Getting Sleepy…Very Sleepy…
You, as an American, swim like a fish in a sea of corporate propaganda. With most of the media owned by a handful of corporations, it is nearly impossible to escape. Maybe you will remember some of the things in this book ten years from now, but it’s more likely that you will forget all of it, and be re-brainwashed. It’s human nature to take as fact things that you hear other people repeating over and over.
Deception and secrecy are critical because if the true nature of the Oligarchy were known to the public, there would be a revolution. To get a better feel for what we are dealing with, imagine that you are an up-and-coming psychopath CEO with a heart of stone:
Think Like a Greedy, Globalist Psychopath
Not all capitalists are oligarchs. How can you tell the difference? It’s actually very easy. An honest capitalist operates his business in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. In contrast, an oligarch believes that he is above the law. An oligarch believes that might makes right and that he is justified in eradicating large chunks of American sovereignty by lobbying and bribing Congress.
A sovereign nation is a nation that is able to control its borders; to keep out unwanted goods, people, and armies. A nation that does not control its borders is like a “gated” community that leaves its gates open, and employs no security guards. The whole point of being a sovereign nation is to protect your people from harm in a dangerous world. But an oligarch doesn’t think that way. He thinks of himself as a god floating above nation-states, and will cheerfully do harm to his neighbors when there is money or power to be gained.
An oligarch sneers at sovereignty. An oligarch will fight hard to get NAFTA passed so that he can fire all of his U.S. workers and move his factory down to Mexico. An oligarch will fight to get work visas to bring in large numbers of workers so that he can replace his “uppity” American citizen workers. Oligarchs act like psychopaths with no regard whatsoever for he well-being of their homeland.
Experts estimate that psychopaths comprise 1% of the population, so the USA likely has about 3 million psychopaths. Experts also say that psychopaths are adept at climbing the corporate ladder. How many oligarchs are also psychopaths? Nobody knows, but when you see clean, safe, efficient, well-paying American factories being converted into brutal Asian sweatshops, you must assume that the psychopaths are in charge and are re-arranging the world to their liking. What goes through their minds as they are doing so?
Imagine that you are a psychopath and run a business in a small rural town. You have 10 employees whom you pay $50,000 per year each. Like most businesses, these labor costs are your largest expense. What if you could lower that $500,000 per-year payroll expense by a factor of ten, to only $5,000 per head? Then you could pocket another $450,000 per year, and add another yacht to your flotilla.
But how do you pull it off? How do you convince your workers to work for $2 per hour instead of $25? Well, whatever you do, you have to do it quietly, because if your workers knew what you were up to, they would either do you bodily harm, or walk out causing your business to collapse.
So, you adopt a policy of secrecy and deception. But what about those pesky business reporters? What if they catch on to your machinations and write an exposè? Obviously, you and your buddies should first buy up the local newspaper, radio station, and TV station. If there are laws against such control of the media, you would, of course, need to bribe the requisite politicians to abolish those “excess government regulations.”
Once that is done, you are poised for a sneak attack, but which tactics do you use? First, the minimum wage is much higher than $2 per hour, so you hire a lobbyist to start campaigning for the repeal of state and federal minimum-wage laws. That won’t be easy, so you also set up a think-tank, staff it with scribblers, and set them to work producing libertarian propaganda. You flood the town with content singing the praises of laissez-faire capitalism, and how the unemployment problem could be solved by letting wages fall to their “equilibrium” level, etc.
Converting your workers and the townspeople into libertarians may take a long time, so you need another pincer in your attack. What if you could bring in some impoverished workers from the Third World who are so desperate that they will work for less than minimum wage and not rat you out to the authorities? Sounds like a dream, right? So, you send a memo to your think-tank to write some essays on the glories of unrestricted immigration, and publish them in your captive media.
Then, to fireproof yourself against lawsuits, you look for a temp agency who will officially employ the immigrants. You will be hiring the agency, and not have any “official” knowledge of their status or how much they are paid. So, the temp agency will be your “fall guy” in any future dust-up between your criminal operation and the authorities, who don’t always stay bribed.
The townspeople, like most Americans, are against mass immigration, so you need to attack on even more fronts in case your temp agency can’t round up enough bodies. What if you could move your widget factory to Mexico where paying workers $2 per hour is perfectly legal? That would be a cinch, but there are tariffs that would eat into your profits. So, you direct your minions to embark upon a “free trade” campaign. Battle lines are opened up along the usual fronts: in the legislature, in the media, and in academia. Suddenly, “intellectuals” are haranguing the town with tales about how tariffs caused the Great Depression, etc.
Your employees live in a nice, middle-class neighborhood, pay property taxes, spend money patronizing other local business, take vacations, and put their children through college. All of which infuriates you. Who do these uppity Americans think they are? Don’t they know that they are just a commodity and could be replaced like that by any of a billion Chinese or Indians? Why do you have to pay them inflated salaries to support public services that you don’t need? You don’t send your children to their pedestrian public schools. You don’t need their Keystone Cop police force to protect you when you have your own security force of ex-Marines. And what do their children need education for anyway? Don’t they know that they will be shortly working in sweatshops like the rest of the globe’s superfluous masses?
You have survived the Darwinian process of the free-market, and by definition, you are “the fittest.” The fittest to decide, to manage, to rule. These uppity, overpaid, middle-class workers should worship a “job creator” such as yourself as you go about doing “god’s work,” which can only benefit the “small people.” How dare they presume to regulate your behavior?
And if they won’t worship you, they can be made to beg, grovel, and cringe for jobs. When there are thousands of applicants for every position you have, you will be in your glory; dictating terms to the pathetic plebs crying for inclusion in your gloriously satanic mills.
Or so you dream. In reality, you will have to patiently construct a vast matrix to lull the people into complacency, rewrite laws, bribe politicians, etc. Militants, such as labor unions, will have to be flat-out paid-off to go quietly, or preferably, shot in the head. But ultimately, your plan is feasible because Americans believe in “freedom” and can be tricked into accepting your version of it.
Secrecy and deception are critical to your cause because you are a truly evil psychopath who will cheerfully enslave children in brutal sweatshops and slave plantations. And that, obviously, needs to be sugar-coated while the people are still in a position to fight back.
"Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
The American military empire is no exception to Stalin’s principle. However, we do have a different imperialistic style. We are less ham-fisted than the antecedent British Empire, or the defeated Soviet Empire. And that’s because the Pentagon’s mission is to make the world safe for globalization.
Imagine if you moved your factory to China, produced a batch of widgets, loaded them onto a container ship, and sent them off to the Port of Los Angeles. And then a few days later, your ship was seized by the Philippine Navy in reparation for the money embezzled by the hated dictator, and American puppet, Ferdinand Marcos.
How would you like that? And if you knew that was a possibility, would you have ever moved your factory to China in the first place? Probably not, right?
But you don’t have to worry, because the U.S. Navy keeps the sea lanes safe for globalization. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, not to mention air bases all over the globe. Nobody would dare seize your ship (not counting Somali pirates). And there is no charge to you. This first-class security service is provided by the same worker/taxpayers who you fired when you moved your plant to China!
From this perspective, we can see that much of our military expenditures are a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the Oligarchy.
Libertarians like to argue that insurance could replace the security provided by the U.S. Navy. So, if the Filipinos seized your ship, you would collect your insurance claim, order another batch of widgets, and be on your merry way. Of course, your customers might get out of the habit of shopping in your widget store because the last time they came in, your shelves were bare. And insurance isn’t free; the cost might itself defeat the whole idea of offshoring.
While it may not seem like pirates could do much damage to mighty export nations like China and Germany, the fact is that the world’s seas contain many choke-points. From geopolitical expert George Friedman:
“The world is filled with choke-points, where the ocean narrows and constricts the flow of ships into corridors within range of land-based anti-ship systems. Some choke-points, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Gibraltar, are natural, while others, such as the Panama and Suez canals, are man-made, and they are vulnerable to weapons far less sophisticated than anti-ship missiles. These choke-points, as well as other critical coastal waters, represent the vulnerabilities of the global economic system to state and non-state actors. Occupying them is the logical next step up from piracy.”
Even with the U.S. Navy in the vicinity, the puny pirates of Somalia do nearly $7 billion per year in damage to global shipping, not to mention kidnapping and killing people too.
The fact is that a large percentage of the profits made from globalization by export nations like China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. are made possible by U.S. taxpayers.
You might think that it would be easy to just arm cargo ships and tankers so that they could fight off pirates. However, that is another expense in arms, crew training, and insurance. It is also something that most ports do not permit. The Port of Miami is only one mile away from downtown Miami:
(Maps made with Google Maps.)
A ship armed with even modest weapons could do quite a lot of damage to civilians. Even a sniper with just his rifle could hit the oligarchs themselves in their condos on Fisher Island as the ship sails by within shouting distance:
Arming merchant ships is not impossible, but it is not simple either.
The fact that our military’s primary function is to make the world safe for globalization is not just this writer’s opinion; there is clear-cut evidence. For example, if we conquered Iraq to fight terrorism, eradicate weapons of mass destruction, or to free the Iraqi people from a despot, then why did we impose our body of law governing agriculture on Iraqi farmers? What, may I ask, do seeds have to do with Al Qaeda? And who gave L. Paul Bremer, the guy we put in charge of Iraq, the idea for his Order 81 which changed Iraqi law? Could it have been Monsanto lobbyists?
“In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of Monsanto and other genetically-modified seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer’s last acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order stipulating that “farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties.” Monsanto has said that it has no interest in doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the American-style law is in place.”
Since the Vanity Fair article, there hasn’t been a lot of coverage of this topic. However, a February 2012 article titled "Control by Seed" in The Express Tribune newspaper of Karachi, Pakistan said this:
"With a single stroke of the pen, Iraq’s agriculture was axed, while Order 81 facilitated the introduction and domination of imported, high-priced corporate seeds, mainly from the U.S. – which neither reproduce, nor give yields without their prescribed chemical fertilizer and pesticide inputs. It meant that the majority of farmers who had never spent money on seed and inputs that came free from nature, would henceforth have to heavily invest in corporate inputs and equipment – or go into debt to obtain them, or accept lowered profits, or give up farming altogether. The U.S. has now completely revamped Iraq’s agriculture…"
The Pakistanis are sensitive to what we do in Iraq because we have pretty much occupied their country as part of the Afghanistan war.
ExxonMobil’s Enforcement Arm
"If a man is not an oligarch, something is not right with him. Everyone had the same starting conditions, everyone could have done it."
The USA doesn’t really need oil from the Middle East; we import most of our oil from countries like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. However, multinationals like ExxonMobil have a big problem: the nations with the most oil have decided to manage things themselves – with their own state-owned oil companies.
So, the conquest of Iraq was indeed about oil, but more accurately, about making oil reserves available for purchase and/or pumping by multinational corporations. If you won’t sell your nation’s reserves to Big Oil, the U.S. Marines may pay you a visit.
In early 2012, ExxonMobil confirmed that they had signed an exploration and production deal with Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government. The Kurds are in defiance of Baghdad, and the deal has infuriated the Iraqi government. ExxonMobil has sided with the Kurds because they are easier to do business with, and if Baghdad doesn’t change its tune they just might get invaded again!
This multinational thirst for oil reserves also explains the USA’s aggressive attitude toward Russia. If you drive into a Lukoil gas station in New York or New Jersey, for example, they will be happy to sell you Russian gasoline. So, it’s not like Americans are cut off from Russian oil. But that is of no consequence to companies like ExxonMobil – they want to be selling you that Russian oil – and chillingly, they seem bent on getting it notwithstanding Russia’s nuclear arsenal. To Big Oil, Russia is just a larger-scale Iraq.
In 2003, ExxonMobil tried to buy a controlling interest in the Russian oil company, Yukos, from Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. When discussing the deal, Vladimir Putin had this exchange with ExxonMobil CEO, Lee Raymond :
Putin: “If you have fifty-one percent, that means that if I want to have Yukos do something, I’m going to have to come and talk to you?”
Raymond: “Yeah, that’s not so awful. That’s true in a lot of places in the world.”
A short time later, Putin threw Khodorkovsky in jail, and carved up Yukos with the pieces going to Russian government-owned oil companies.
What we learn from this episode is that the CEOs of multinationals are used to lording it over numerous heads of state. And that Russia is a good example of a defiant oil state.
Russia further demonstrated its resolve with its 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet Republic in the Caucasus Mountains of Central Asia. Georgia is strategic because it is the only practical route for Western countries to drain oil & gas from former Soviet turf in Central Asia.
On the map below, you can easily see how Georgia is a bottleneck. Russia is to the north, Iran is to the south, and the pipelines go through USA-friendly Azerbaijan and Georgia. Armenia and Azerbaijan are at each others throats, so Georgia is the only USA-friendly option to get oil & gas to NATO-member Turkey, or to the Black Sea and then to the Mediterranean Sea (click maps to enlarge):
(Map made with Google Maps.)
Vladimir Putin was angered over the attempt to bring Georgia into NATO at the 2008 Bucharest Summit. But guess what? The oligarchs are still trying to get Georgia in! Three years after the Russian invasion, Georgia had faded from the memories of the American public. But then, in December 2011, the newly-minted senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, called for a vote, without debate, on a resolution that directed President Obama to accept Georgia’s petition to join NATO.
That’s an awfully obscure, sneaky, sophisticated stunt for a freshmen Senator to pull. The truly scary part is that the oligarchs are willing to risk war with a large, angry, nuclear-armed nation just to make a few bucks. And if you look at the companies that own the BTC and BTE pipelines, you will see that BP is the senior partner. Perhaps we should call Rubio the "Senator from Britain."
After World War II, we made friends with Japan and Germany. After the Cold War, many thought that we could make friends with Russia, but it didn’t quite work out. Neither Japan nor Germany had oil for our rapacious oligarchs to covet.
Putin Ends the New World Order
Shortly after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, George H.W. Bush famously declared “A New World Order.” Essentially, what this meant was that instead of uncooperative Third World nations being invaded by CIA “secret armies” they would now be invaded by the U.S. Marines in broad daylight. It was no longer necessary to have “deniability” now that there was no risk of a conflict escalating to World War III with the Soviets.
Bush’s New World Order era ended only nine years later on August 8, 2008. Ironically, the news was delivered to Bush’s son, George W. Bush by Vladimir Putin. Bush and Putin were sitting next to each other at the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Putin leaned over and whispered to Bush: “War has begun.” Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd was sitting two rows back and witnessed the “animated” discussion that ensued.
Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA abandoned its Georgian ally. U.S. personnel evacuated, leaving behind military equipment, including four Humvees belonging to the U.S. Marines, which were seized by the Russians. The USA demanded the return of the gear, but the Russians refused. Russian general, Anatoliy Nogovitsyn said the Humvees were war trophies, and he intended to keep them. And it appears that he has done so. There has been no media coverage of this story since then. The media’s job is to portray the U.S. military as invincible, to help minimize opposition to the Oligarchy’s next war. Make it look easy; like a walk in the park. But the loss of those Humvees was a military humiliation.
Of course, using military power to advance commercial interests is nothing new; we have been doing it since 1840 when we first constructed a sizeable navy to protect our merchant ships from the depredations of the much larger British navy. However, what is different today is that our oligarchs and multinationals are no longer loyal to the people that field the military forces they rely upon. Just look at the results: we conquered three OPEC countries: Kuwait, Iraq, and Libya – and gasoline is still $4 a gallon.
The Stealth Empire
Our military empire is a Dark Art because of the way the Oligarchy presents it in their captive media. In 1900, William McKinley was elected president, and one of his top campaign issues was imperialism. The USA was a plain-speaking nation back then. Today, you will never hear American imperialism even mentioned in the main-stream media. Very few civilians have even a foggy idea of what our military does outside of the major wars.
General Smedley Butler’s tales of imperial exploits were published in Readers Digest in the 1930s. Today, you will never hear his name mentioned in the Oligarch Media, nor anyone like him. (See Appendix #6 for more on General Butler.)
How many films convey the vast, global scope of our military operations? Or depict how our military supercharges globalization? How many Americans are aware of our military forces stationed in obscure locals like Bulgaria and Romania? How many Americans even know that Joint Task Force East even exists? Remember the discussion of Georgia above? The JTFE is the beginning of moving our forces in Germany closer to Russia’s Central Asian oil turf. Romania and Bulgaria are on the other side of the Black Sea, opposite Georgia:
(Map made with Google Maps.)
While we are the only nation in the history of the world to control all of the world’s oceans, very few Americans are even aware of that fact. You would think the Navy would boast of such a feat, but all of the propaganda is oriented around just the opposite: denying that we are an empire.
You see, an empire where all the spoils go to the Oligarchy would not be received favorably by the American people. So, mum’s the word.
We Don’t Need No Stinking Factories
In his book, Unintended Consequences, Edward Conard wrote (Kindle 901):
“Just as lower food costs powered the growth of manufacturing after World War II, today the growing availability of low-cost offshore goods power the growth of investment and domestic services.”
To hear The Oligarchy’s “Ambassador” Conard say that offshoring manufacturing is a stroke of genius is jarring considering that we deploy the military to smash open new markets for the Oligarchy. Where does Conard think the tanks come from? The Tank Fairy?
During the conquest of Iraq, many American troops were killed and maimed because we didn’t have the manufacturing capacity to make the special, super-strong steel needed to harden Humvees against IEDs, (improvised explosive devices). There were only two armor-quality steel mills left in the USA – and both were owned by foreign companies! One of them by a Russian company!
Oregon Steel had been recently bought by Evraz Group S.A. of Russia, and International Steel Group was bought by Arcelor Mittal, a Dutch company. (See this story for further details.)
During the 2011 conquest of Libya, our French and British allies couldn’t maintain the tempo because they also lacked sufficient manufacturing capacity – they couldn’t even make bombs. (See this story for more.)
Just like the Financial Crisis of 2008 and the Latin Debt Crisis of the 1980s, the oligarchs are doing something inane: trying to operate a global military empire while simultaneously destroying the industrial base of the USA!
Or perhaps the Oligarchy is following the Soviet model. We Americans are used to believing that a vibrant free-market economy is necessary to generate military power. But that isn’t the case.
The Soviets proved that a powerful military could be created without a particularly strong economy, or even capitalism itself. How did they do it? With tyranny; by turning the peasants upside down and shaking them until enough money fell from their pockets to finance the Red Army. And the Oligarchy may be planning a similar system for the USA.
Perpetual high unemployment, the Reserve Army of Labor, is not only necessary to keep downward pressure on wages. It is also needed to keep a steady stream of young people flowing into the volunteer military. During the protests against the Vietnam War, the American middle class demonstrated that it would no longer tolerate the continuing slaughter of its sons. Denied conscription, the Oligarchy has been forced to recruit volunteers for its wars of conquest. And that is much easier to do under overpopulated, de-industrialized conditions where decent jobs are scarce-to-nonexistent. Soldiering is a type of labor after all.
Pentagon Threatens Congress
Our military empire is a problem because it’s a corporate welfare program for multinationals, which aren’t even patriotic corporate citizens. American taxpayers foot the bill while multinationals use the pacified oceans to transfer the jobs of those same taxpayers overseas. We run up huge debts to smash open new markets, and then the multinationals evade the taxes that would pay off those debts.
A large portion of our budget deficit, and national debt, is due to security & war subsidies to the multinationals. And in the process of building this empire, our defense elite has grown accustomed to its status as Lords of Earth. When it came time to discuss budget cuts to reduce our massive budget deficit, the Pentagon responded with a nearly direct threat to Congress. On March 30, 2012 Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said about Congress:
“What they essentially did is put a gun to their heads and the heads of the country.”
What Panetta “essentially” did was label Congress a threat to national security. Even worse, he made that accusation in a speech to sailors and marines aboard the USS Peleliu. And that makes us wonder: are our soldiers being mentally prepared to stage a coup? Are they being indoctrinated to believe that Congress is contemplating treason by depriving funds to the Pentagon?
Funny thing is, Congress was only suggesting a $50 billion per year cut in the nearly $1 trillion military budget. (The Pentagon’s “base budget” is $530 billion, but if you add in numerous other programs, and Iraq & Afghanistan war budgets, you can get very close to $1 trillion. See this page for details.)
President Obama should have fired Panetta for threatening U.S. sovereignty. The president, of course, has the power to do so – on paper. Behind the scenes, perhaps not. In any case, this was a deeply disturbing incident, and hopefully not a harbinger of things to come. However, the status of our Republic does indeed seem tenuous.
"There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T
and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."
-Arthur Jensen 
Economically, the USA is the largest tentacle of the Oligarchy. The only real threat to the Oligarchy is if the USA attempted to regain its sovereignty. It is critical that the USA’s consumer market remains open to the output of Oligarchy sweatshops around the world. For example, if the USA decided to give the one million Maquiladora jobs in Mexico back to their rightful working-class American owners, that would cause a terrible slashing of multinational profits. So obviously, that must be prevented at all costs. And the Oligarchy will do whatever it takes.
If you dissect a globalist, you won’t find a single particle of national pride or patriotism any where in his body. He thinks those things are parochial, fit only for rednecks and rubes. If it would make him a nickel, a globalist would cut his nation’s throat without a moment’s hesitation.
Disney’s 1998 film Armageddon planted not-so-subliminal anti-American images into the minds of viewers:
At the 00:03:24 mark, a meteor pierces the American-flag shoulder patch of an astronaut:
At the 01:36:13 mark, an astronaut machine-guns, and crashes through the American flag:
Destroying the flag was necessary for the astronauts to get through the wall to save the day. And that is exactly how globalists think: that the old USA must be destroyed in order to bring forth a glorious, global utopia, with splendid sweatshops spanning the globe, producing trillions in profits for a handful of chortling oligarchs.
Armageddon was released at the height of the flag-burning controversy that culminated with the Supreme Court striking down flag-burning laws in the 1989 Texas vs. Johnson decision. The "Johnson" party of the case was Gregory Lee Johnson, a communist who burned a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. So that’s the kind of company Disney was keeping.
A resurgent America would be a problem for Disney specifically since it makes its products in foreign sweatshops. A reassertion of sovereignty to change the terms-of-trade in favor of American workers would cut deeply into Disney profits. Watch how these Haitian sweatshop workers react when they are told how much the Disney clothes they make sell for in the USA at the 00:04:00 mark of this video, Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti. The Haitians are astonished at their first glimpse of the matrix:
The same is true for virtually every American-based multinational. A re-assertion of American sovereignty is their nightmare scenario. So, to protect their profits, they use all of their powers to make sure that the USA’s borders, and the very idea of the USA itself, remains as dissolved as possible. If the flag has to be machine-gunned, then so be it.
In the 2012 film, The Avengers, Disney characterizes American patriotism as "old fashioned." At the 00:28:53 mark, we have this dialog:
Captain America: "Aren’t the Stars & Stripes a little old fashioned?"
SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson: "With everything that’s happening, the things that are about to come to light, people might just need a little ‘old fashioned’."
And so Disney explains to us the role of patriotism under oligarchic rule: when your job is sent to China, you keep your mouth shut. When you are ordered to train your immigrant replacement, you keep your mouth shut. But when it is time for war on behalf of the Oligarchy, then you may wave your flag. Don’t forget, SHIELD is an international intelligence/police organization, and Captain America is an employee.
In the film, the war was against alien space invaders. In real life, the Oligarchy pushes the "patriotism button" when they want to conquer a country such as Iraq. And so we see the idea of patriotism being transitioned into a narrower scope; a single dimension: as the esprit de corps for the Oligarchy’s enforcement arm.
Assassinating American Democracy
Take a look at the cover of "The Crisis of Democracy" published by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission:
While the flag in the cross-hairs of the sniper rifle is generic, notice that the three colors used are red, white, and blue. The book ostensibly is a study of democracy in the wake of the turbulent 1960s and early 1970s. In reality, it was a manifesto for the counterattack on American democracy by the Oligarchy – a counterattack that proved successful.
Anti-Americanism in The Matrix
Neo’s speech at the end of the 1999 film The Matrix promises: "…a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries…" which is odd because in the film, the Earth doesn’t have political borders. There’s just the machine world, and a few rebel humans hiding underground. So, Neo’s vision is suspiciously compatible with the Oligarchy’s real-world matrix.
The Withering Away of the American State
"As the reality of the global market sinks in, policymakers from different nations will come to understand that even the strongest sovereign cannot entirely control its own destiny but will increasingly be forced to cooperate on economic issues it once regarded as almost exclusively national concerns."
-Walter Wriston 
Former CEO of Citicorp, Walter Wriston wrote about how technology was in the process of eroding sovereign power in his 1992 book The Twilight of Sovereignty. That title is something that a communist might write. After all "eroding sovereign governments" isn’t much different than the Marxist concept of the "withering away of the state."
As we will see later in this book, bankers were the chief architects of the globalized economy. It was in their financial interest to weaken the USA’s borders as much as possible. And while Wriston goes on and on about technology versus horse-and-buggy government, what he perpetrated on the USA wasn’t the least bit high-tech. In fact, many high-tech U.S. factories were shut down in favor of low-tech, brutal, Third World sweatshops where workers were paid so badly that the sweatshops could undercut roboticized American factories on price. Robots were very expensive back then.
For our purposes here, in Walter Wriston, we have a superb specimen of a genuine oligarch clearly stating his desire to witness the demise of "even the strongest of sovereign" – meaning, of course, the USA. Wriston died in 2005, so he wasn’t around to eat his words when the U.S. government bailed out his dumb bank in 2008.
Sweatshops Only Whet the Appetite
Once NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO eliminated the USA’s trade borders, sweatshop products flooded into the country crushing the middle class and sending corporate profits into orbit. But as fabulously profitable as they are, sweatshops can be troublesome. After all, workers are free to come and go as they please. They even go on strike and riot when the beatings from overseers get too viscous.
Sure, outlawing unions helps, and assassinating union organizers is a splendid diversion, but that doesn’t change the fact that huge populations of desperate workers are required to feed the horrendous turn-over in sweatshops. Too many workers burn-out and quit. Isn’t there a way to prevent that? To keep them there working?
Why yes. Yes indeed there is. It’s called slavery.
"Yes, the McKinley era, absent the protectionism. You’re looking at the history of the country for the first 120 years, up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that."
The quote above is how Republican king-maker, Grover Norquist, replied when journalist William Greider asked him if he wanted to roll the clock back to 1900. Norquist is eager to return to the days of Robber Barons and sweatshops. The Fair Labor Standards Act wasn’t passed until 1938, so in 1900 there was no minimum wage, no 40-hour workweek, no overtime pay, no health-care plans, no safety or environmental regulations, etc.
Here in the USA, we have expectations of progress; that our lives will improve, technology will advance, and in the future, we will be healthier, happier, and busy doing all kinds of futuristic things. But that isn’t the plan.
The Norquist Plan is the blueprint currently being implemented by the Oligarchy. They are deeply enamored and envious of their partner, the Communist Party in Beijing. They dream of the day when they too can have a billion-man strong army of peasants toiling away for subsistence wages in pollution-spewing sweatshops, as goon squads keep watch with batons at the ready. Right here in the USA.
During the Republican presidential primary debates of early 2012, the USA had 46 million people on food stamps, and an unemployment rate over 8%. What did the Republicans propose?
Pundit Ann Coulter, and candidates Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul proposed cutting pay for the lowest workers on the totem pole by eliminating the minimum wage. Candidate Newt Gingrich suggested eliminating child-labor laws, and candidate Herman Cain wanted to eliminate building codes.
The Oligarchy cunningly distributed their trial balloons to several mouthpieces, but if you add up the proposals, you get children living in shantytowns, and working in sweatshops for whatever wages their oligarch bosses feel like paying them. Most observers thought that Cain’s elimination of building codes was merely odd, but that is what will be required for the envisioned ram-shackle sweatshops and shantytowns – “opportunity zones” – to be established in the USA. Current building codes don’t permit barbarity.
1900 was also the record-setting period for immigration up until the 1990s – almost as high as it has been during the last two decades. So, that’s another parallel to Norquist’s fantasy era: a Reserve Army of Labor to keep wages at, or even below, subsistence levels.
The main aspect of slavery is that people can be owned like any other type of property – chattels – like so many head of cattle or sheep. However, the Reserve Army of Labor can be seen as an effective substitute for chattel slavery – perhaps even an improvement. Consider the psychology: a slave thinks: “I am held in slavery. I may be poor, but it is clearly not my fault. I am a victim.” An unemployed worker thinks: “I am free, but still poor. Maybe I’m just a loser, or maybe times are tough and will get better soon.” A slave doesn’t carry such guilt, and is more likely to focus his negative feelings toward his masters rather than inward toward himself.
So, perhaps the Oligarchy is constructing a system that is more effective than chattel slavery – a futuristic type of slavery where the slaves are hoodwinked by a superficial liberty. Live in any shantytown you like! Work in your favorite sweatshop! Starve in the gutter of your choosing! You’re free!
Perhaps you can’t believe that the Oligarchy would deliberately roll the clock back to a more barbaric time, or emulate the regime in Beijing. However, to a psychopath, it makes perfect sense. Historically, slavery has only been banished for a relatively brief moment in human history. And to the Oligarchy, ending slavery was a policy error that is long overdue for rectification.
The Oligarchy is driven by pure greed; recognizing no legal, ethical, or moral restrictions – and slavery was enormously profitable. Huge fortunes were made by the owners of New World plantations. Scholars (such as Robert A. Divine, Ph.D.) estimate that American slave plantations made a solid 8-10% return on capital invested, and we have seen how profitable today’s sweatshops are. So, make no mistake, there are plenty of people who will cheerfully profit from rolling back the clock of civilization. In 2010, the New York Times reported that Apple CEO Steve Jobs said:
“I mean, you go to this place, and, it’s a factory, but, my gosh, I mean, they’ve got restaurants and movie theaters and hospitals and swimming pools, and I mean, for a factory, it’s a pretty nice factory.”
A short time later, the Chinese workers in question were threatening mass-suicide, and riots shut down iPhone production. A Chinese journalist went undercover and reported filthy, roach-infested barracks, and harrowing working conditions at a Foxconn factory building the iPhone 5. This is a superb example of how a psychopath can honestly think that even horrific working conditions can be “pretty nice.”
Imagine a slave owner who buys a slave from a master who was lashing the slave daily. The new master only lashes the slave once a week, and goes around town bragging about what a great man he is and how much better off the slave is. See how that works? A psychopath can justify anything as long as there are worse possibilities. Even egregious psychopaths can truly believe that they are doing “god’s work.” The moral of the story is: don’t underestimate evil.
The Department of Slavery
In addition to the Reserve Army of Labor, the Oligarchy has other programs operating with slave-like working conditions on a pretty large scale. Dr. Norm Matloff writes about the "handcuffed" tech workers brought into the USA on H1-B work visas:
"Another major attraction for employers, especially in Silicon Valley, is the "handcuffed" status of H-1Bs. In practical terms, foreign tech workers have mobility issues. In particular, if the worker is being sponsored by the employer for a green card, the worker dare not switch jobs, as that would entail starting the multiyear green card process all over again. Employers value this immobility very highly, since the exit of an engineer in the midst of an urgent project is very harmful. Thus employers tend to give preference to the foreign workers when hiring."
And that begs the question: Has the U.S. government designed these visas with "handcuffs" in mind to facilitate the servitude of these workers on behalf of employers? In September 2012, Microsoft proposed that employers pay $10,000 per head to the government for H1-B workers. What they are really suggesting is that the Department of Labor become the Department of Slavery; pimping out desperate Third World programmers to Silicon Valley coding plantations.
In June 2011, Dan Rather reported that the Department of Labor doesn’t even keep track of the number of H1-B workers in the country. Estimates are between 600,000 and 1,000,000. (Read Robert X. Cringely for more details.)
Even worse is the L-1 visa, which is for foreign companies that transfer employees to the USA. Since the employee is still working for the same company, the visa allows the company to continue paying him the same as they were in the home country. For example, an Indian body shop transfers a programmer from India to their U.S. subsidiary where they put him to work on a software project for an American company. He makes the same annual salary as he did in India – $8,000 – less than half of American minimum wage.
The logic of the L-1 visa would work fine with our advanced trading partners like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, etc. However, by having it apply to low-wage nations also allows multinationals to pay criminally low wages.
Yet another category of visa is the H-2B, which originally was to help small businesses find non-agricultural "seasonal" workers. For example, a landscaper in Ohio could request a crew of guest workers because landscaping is not year-round up north. Or a hotel could request workers for the holiday season. However, the program has gone out of control with large companies bringing in all kinds of workers regardless of season. About 100,000 per year.
In June 2012, the New York Times reported on the treatment of Mexican H-2B workers at a Walmart supplier, C.J.’s Seafood in Louisiana:
"Guest workers said they sometimes labored more than 80 hours a week, had been threatened with beatings to press them to work faster and had been warned that their families in Mexico would be hurt if they complained to government agencies."
Whenever an employer finds hiring American citizens distasteful, the Department of Slavery stands ready to assist with a visa program:
H1-B – for replacing mainly white, "overpaid" middle-class IT workers.
H2-B – for replacing mainly black unskilled laborers with more pliable Mexicans.
J-1 – for replacing bratty American teenagers in summer jobs. As discussed below:
Shanghaiing Foreign Students into Pennsylvania Sweatshops
While the USA officially ended slavery in 1865, slave-like conditions continued on merchant ships. Men were kidnapped or tricked – "Shanghaied" – into doing hard work aboard labor-intensive sailing ships. Why did it take Congress another 50 years to pass The Seamen’s Act of 1915 and end that form of slavery? Because that’s how long it took for the Clipper ships to be replaced by less labor-intensive steamships. No doubt, there were lobbyists representing shippers greasing palms in Washington D.C. for those 50 years. And when the payoffs stopped, Congress did something "grand" because there was no longer a moneyed opposition. We will see this same pattern later with the sweatshops of Saipan.
In August 2011, the New York Times published "America’s Sweatshop Diplomacy" – a story about how imported sweatshop workers (J-1 visas) went on strike at a Hershey’s facility in Pennsylvania:
"They received $8 an hour, but after fees and deductions, including overpriced rent for crowded housing, they netted between $1 and $3.50 an hour. Hershey’s once had its own unionized workers packing its candy bars, starting at $18 to $30 an hour. Now the company outsources distribution to a non-union company that hires most of its workers from the J-1 program."
"Visa holders can be deported if they so much as complain, and cannot easily switch employers."
So, here we have the government using mass immigration to help a corporation convert middle-class union jobs into barely-paid involuntary-servitude jobs. In this case, the workers are foreign students who thought that they were entering some kind of student foreign-exchange program. And they are held in servitude because they were forced to deposit a few thousand dollars up front for the "opportunity" of gaining corporate experience.
No legitimate business in the USA requires workers to purchase a job like this, but apparently U.S. authorities have no problem with foreign recruiters collecting such payments. This has apparently been going on for years. These kids (who can bee seen in this video) were funneled through a United Kingdom body shop posing as a do-good-er NGO – a non-government organization such as Doctors Without Borders.
Again, we will see this pattern in the Saipan example below. The large payments required of workers are necessary because they think they are going to a legitimate job in the Land of Opportunity. Without the threat of losing their deposits, the workers would flee immediately upon realizing that they have been tricked into a sweatshop job. They have no choice but to work like dogs long enough for their deposits to be returned, or wind up being deported and gouged.
The New York Times reported (in the story linked above) that in 2010, there were 350,000 J-1 workers brought into the USA.
Foreign workers – especially ones with children – are prized by the multinationals over American citizens because fear of deportation deters foreigners from blowing the whistle. After one lash, a citizen will report you to OSHA. But a guest worker? He might endure five lashes before fighting back – especially if he has a family back home to which he needs to send money.
And no, we don’t need these workers. With millions of Americans unemployed, the visa programs should be shut down indefinitely. The stories you see in the Oligarch Media about labor shortages are just propaganda. Dr. Matloff writes about H1-B visas:
"There is no tech labor shortage. No study, other than those sponsored by the industry, has ever shown a shortage."
So why all the visas? It’s just the Department of Slavery helping the Oligarchy make larger profits – a healthy portion of which are likely kicked-back to Washington via lobbyists. Just like Saipan did:
The Sweatshops of Saipan, USA
"There were always lots of rats running back and forth in the barracks. Sometimes you would be asleep, and a rat would come right up to your face. It was scary. I couldn’t sleep with the sound of the running rats, or the fear that they would crawl all over me."
-Chun Yu Wang, Saipan, USA
Did you know that right up until January 15, 2009 there were Asian-style sweatshops on American soil? If not, don’t feel bad. The Oligarch Media kept it just as quiet as they did the fact that all your computers and electronic gadgets have been made in Chinese sweatshops for years.
But it did indeed happen, and one of the workers even wrote a book about it. The quote above is from page 26 of Chicken Feathers and Garlic Skin by Chun Yu Wang. Here is another:
"Throughout the barracks, it seemed there was always someone fighting…girls were literally going crazy from all the pressure and stress…some would sleep with scissors under their pillows to feel safe."
-Chun (pages 27 & 40)
When a sweatshop girl feels the need for a shank, she uses a scissors because they are plentiful in garment sweatshops.
Saipan is a Pacific Ocean island near Guam. When it became an American commonwealth in 1975, it was made exempt from U.S. immigration law, the federal minimum-wage law, and it was allowed to export apparel to the USA tariff-free with "Made in USA" labels. It was deliberately constructed as a libertarian utopia within the relatively "over-regulated" USA.
Saipan was quickly blanketed with sweatshops producing apparel for major brands like The Gap, Ralph Lauren, Liz Claiborne, Ann Taylor, Levi Strauss, and Walmart. Asian women were brought in, housed in rat-and-roach infested barracks and forced to work under appalling conditions.
"With so many girls finishing work at the same time, sometimes you had to wait on line for one or two hours just to take a shower. Sometimes we would work until 2am. So…we couldn’t get to shower before bed. The conditions were disgusting."
-Chun (page 27)
After learning of the abuses in 1995, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill to put an end to the sweatshops. However, Saipan officials swung into action and hired infamous lobbyist, Jack Abramoff who purchased the requisite number of Congressmen to keep the sweatshops running. Abramoff was so successful that Congress never acted to re-establish civilization on Saipan.
Saipan’s government got a cut of the sweatshop profits. Around $30 million per year, depending on how good business was. So, that’s how they were able to purchase a sizeable chunk of Congress. One of the things Abramoff did was fly Congressmen out to Saipan to play golf on the gorgeous tropical island.
"On the golf course…you indulge the decision maker with all manner of luxury. Now you see why Congress loves golf."
-Jack Abramoff, Capitol Punishment (Kindle 86)
Imagine semi-imprisoned Asian immigrant girls toiling away under conditions more harsh than any American prison, while across the street, corrupt politicians play golf at a lavish country club. And that’s an accurate vision of the libertarian dystopia that the Oligarchy plans for America.
You see, Jack Abramoff wasn’t just any old mercenary lobbyist. He believed in what was going on in Saipan. Abramoff was a hard-core, right-wing Republican who fervently believed in laissez-faire economics. He would happily turn all of the USA into one giant Saipan if he could make a buck on the deal.
"Sometimes we would work so fast that the needles would sow into our fingers…Garment factory work is very hard work. Every second, of every minute, of every hour you have to work very fast, and very carefully."
-Chun (pages 62 & 167)
Many girls could not keep up with the demanding pace of sweatshop work, and since there were virtually no other jobs on Saipan, some became "forty-dollar girls" – prostitutes. So, one wonders if Abramoff’s "travelers" – as he called his pet Congressmen – were doing more than playing golf on Saipan.
This is another reason why the male citizens of Saipan supported the sweatshops, and defend them to this day. Not only did Saipan make millions of dollars, and give citizens cushy government jobs, but for every male citizen there were perhaps ten down-trodden and vulnerable young Asian women yearning to be rescued from a very real hell. It amounted to a bizarre form of polygamy, where the women toiled to support the men.
"Sometimes we couldn’t walk inside the bathroom because the sewer was backed up and there was urine and feces on the floor."
-Chun (page 121)
That was a frequent problem because the workers were forced to resort to using scraps of cloth for toilet paper.
Saipan is what one of Herman Cain’s "opportunity zones" would look like. Yet during the 2012 Republican primary debates, nobody in the media countered Cain by using Saipan as a cautionary tale. You could watch mainstream-media news for the rest of your life, and never hear the word "Saipan" – even on MSNBC. "Saipan" is a banned word in the Oligarch Media, which means they continue to yearn for such a system in the USA.
"By law, whenever the Department of Labor came to inspect the factory conditions, they were required to notify the boss first, so [the boss] always knew exactly when to clean the toilets to make a good impression.
-Chun (page 122)
Congress never acted to put an end to Saipan’s sweatshops. Neither did the Department of Labor. The end came when import quotas under the Multi Fiber Arrangement were ended in January 2005, and the textile trade was brought under control of the World Trade Organization. Without the quotas, Saipan’s sweatshops were no longer protected from even lower-paying sweatshops in places like China and Bangladesh. Saipan’s sweatshops started to close down; the last one closed four years later, in 2009.
Ultimately, Saipan was too small for the Oligarchy. It needed a larger population of downtrodden workers, and even lower wages. And so, thanks to the WTO, nearly all of the USA’s textiles are now made in barbaric Third-World sweatshops. American textile jobs:
The chart above only goes back to 1990. Undoubtedly, many more textile jobs have been lost to globalization. After all, a large swath of the New York City skyline was constructed by the rag trade.
While the sweatshops of Saipan are gone, the danger of Saipan is still with us. Saipan re-introduced the idea of sweatshops back into American culture after a 70-year absence. While there was some public outcry, it wasn’t enough to close down Saipan, and thus the idea of sweatshops on U.S. soil was proven to be politically feasible given a suitably corrupt Congress. If the American public is more desensitized to sweatshops now, the next attempt at sweatshops on American soil may find smoother sailing. This is why free-trade with sweatshop nations like China is harmful to the USA: it makes slave-like working conditions seem normal.
The Return of the Slave Ships
During the Great Recession, the oligarchs flooded the USA with millions of legal immigrants thereby dramatically worsening unemployment. As ruthless as that was, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Consider this quote from Edward Conard’s book "Unintended Consequences" (Kindle 3777):
"In the future, when we have learned to manage our economy more effectively, immigrants will begin life in America as temporary guest workers before we give them permanent residency. We’ll skim the cream from the rest of the world’s workforce and replace the less skilled and less reliable with an unlimited flow of temporary workers eager for their chance to make more money. We’ll save a lot of money managing our workforce that way, by avoiding retiree benefits, for example." (Emphasis added).
And how would that "unlimited flow" of labor actually get here? Imagine a huge fleet of passenger ships sailing a continuous circuit from Asia to the California, stuffed with Chinese, Malaysians, Vietnamese, etc. As the starving masses disembark, they see vast pens on the docks containing rejected workers waiting to board the ships to be sent home in disgrace. Imagine how fearful the new immigrants will be. They will get the message: "Work like dogs for peanuts, and do it with a smile on your face, or we will send you right back to the Third-World hellhole you came from."
Now imagine another fleet sailing between Texas and South America. And another one between New York and Africa. Because for all practical intents and purposes, the supply of downtrodden masses is infinite relative to the size of the U.S. economy. As of this writing, the USA had a total of 133.8 million non-farm jobs, and the population of the world was 7 billion.
If Edward Conard and his ilk get their way with our laws – immigration, minimum-wage, child-labor, and building-codes – replacing every middle-class job in the USA is entirely feasible. And we know the multinationals are not shy. Already, American IT workers are being replaced with Indians on a mass scale for poverty-level wages. Bill Gates himself has called for "infinite" immigration (see below). In fact, floating sweatshops might be invading U.S. territorial waters by time you read this.
Australian start-up company, Blueseed, is attempting to anchor a ship off the coast of Silicon Valley. The company says they will fill the ship with "entrepreneurs" who will invent the next Facebook, Google, or Apple. Blueseed says this is necessary because the USA does not have an entrepreneur’s visa.
However, the idea that entrepreneurs can’t get into the USA because we don’t have a special visa for them is absurd. We have millions and million of immigrants pouring into the USA. If Blueseed’s "entrepreneurs" are so fabulous, why can’t they figure out how to get here without an invitation being hand-delivered to them on a silver platter? And why can’t they just invent the "next Apple" in their own country?
Blueseed’s business plan is the codification of contempt for American sovereignty. Their plan is to flagrantly violate the spirit of American immigration law, if not the letter of the law. The company also claims that their service is aimed at high-flying entrepreneurs, but rent, including office space, on the ship will be only $1600 per month. That seems awfully cheap for the next Steve Jobs, and well within the range of a corporate outsourcing budget.
If Blueseed isn’t sunk by a torpedo from a patriotic U.S. Navy submarine commander, nobody should be surprised if the ship ends up filled with coders from India toiling away for American multinationals.
The Oligarchy wants to privatize schools. No doubt, they are eying-up all those “overpaid” union teachers, and calculating the profits that can be made from eliminating them. But how will poor people afford to send their children to private schools? Well, if the Republicans get their way, and the child labor laws are revoked, as Newt Gingrich proposes, maybe the poor children could earn their keep. Just like they do in China’s sweatshop schools.
Or perhaps, once government treasuries are completely looted by tax-dodging oligarchs, poor children will just go uneducated like slave children in the Old South. After all, if there is no profit in educating the poor, what CEO could justify such folly?
The Seductions of Slavery
“The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it [capitalism] batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.”
-Karl Marx, Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto
The American people are already being seduced into accepting the return of slavery. One of the tactics that The Oligarchy uses to argue that the factories cannot be brought back to the USA is that consumer prices would rise. The Oligarchy media blares: “Don’t you dare even think about tariffs, or you will pay more for your next toaster!”
Of course, if you are unemployed, you really do need cheap toasters from China at Walmart. But what if the toaster factory came back to the USA and you got a job on the assembly line? A well-paid union job? All of sudden you don’t need to worry too much about prices at Walmart anymore, right? You might even graduate to shopping at Sears.
But that’s an argument that you will never hear from the Oligarch Media for the simple reason that the Oligarchy makes far more money when the toaster factory is located in a cheap-labor country. And the cheaper the better. In fact, the appalling conditions at many sweatshops are only an eyelash away from flat-out slavery.
As shocking as it may be, slavery is the ultimate Dark Art of the American Oligarchy because it generates enormous profits. Profits that can be used to purchase more politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, broadcasters, troops, etc.
Now, consider the quote from Karl Marx above. The walls of American sovereignty have been battered down with cheap prices, as he says, but who is doing the battering? In Marx’s day, you might have the British battering down the walls of China, or the USA battering down the walls of Japan. But today, there is no one nation battering down our walls. Rather, it is the Oligarchy, which locates its sweatshops in whichever nation that currently has the most favorable conditions for labor strip-mining.
Also, in Marx’s day, such battering wasn’t all bad. For example, downed trade barriers allowed modern medicine to get into areas where lives would have otherwise been lost. But do we receive such a benefit today? Are Mexican cars better than the cars that used to be built in Detroit? Are Chinese toys safer? Are Vietnamese shoes, or Bangladeshi clothes better than what we used to make in New England?
Perhaps there is a beneficial import in there somewhere – one that we wouldn’t have been able to produce otherwise if the Oligarchy hadn’t battered down our walls. But for the most part, what we have is flat-out carpetbagging and looting. Something closer to the British Oligarchy pumping opium into China after battering down their barriers during the Opium Wars.
So, the “higher prices” argument is revealed as a propaganda weapon trained on America whenever it contemplates restoring its sovereignty. And yes, the Oligarchy does indeed consider the idea of sovereignty to be “barbaric” and in need of “battering down” just like Marx said.
Sweatshop System Analysis
The massive profits are not made by the sweatshops or the sweat-warehouses, but by the multinationals that dictate their working conditions. Apple tells Foxconn: “you are permitted x dollars of profit per unit on this contract,” where x is a very small number. Foxconn must then crack the whip on its workers if it wants to make even a thin profit. Ironically, Foxconn even resorts to Shanghaiing Chinese students to fill temporary worker shortages. (New York Times story here.)
When the products are ready for sale, Walmart tells its logistics company: “operate the warehouse for x cents per item shipped,” where x is an impossibly small amount of profit. Like Foxconn, the logistics company has no choice but to operate as a virtual slave plantation.
The important point is that the multinationals make record profits by commanding their contractors to implement egregious working conditions. It is not an accident that the sweatshops are located in China, the most-populous nation in the world. And the USA is the third-most populous (after #2 India) possessing a massive, and deliberately constructed, Reserve Army of Labor.
The work is farmed out to hatchet men (contractors) so that the multinationals don’t have to get their hands dirty; to keep their brands pristine; and to provide deniability. When appalling working conditions are exposed by crusading journalists, the multinational simply says: “It wasn’t us; it was a contractor. We have reprimanded them, and this will never happen again.”
Until it does.
It always does.
Because that is the system.
Step 1 – Establish deniability by outsourcing.
Step 2 – Dictate financial terms to ensure sweatshop working conditions.
Step 3 – Start up the conveyor belt. Chew up workers and spit them out.
Step 4 – Amass billions in profits.
Step 5 – Intimidate and/or co-opt the press to keep things quiet.
Step 6 – Have PR flacks standing by to implement “it’s not our fault” damage-control.
Step 7 – Employ an army of lawyers to harass whistle-blowers, and fight employee lawsuits.
Step 8 – Deploy profits to lobbyists to pay-off lawmakers to protect the system.
Step 9 – Deploy profits for advertising to convince the masses how wholesome you are.
Step 10 – Deploy profits to produce more globalist, libertarian propaganda.
For domestic production, the system design consists of two major components: sweatshops that are voluntary minimum-security prisons, and the Reserve Army of Labor. When a denizen of the favelas needs money for food, shelter, doctor bills, etc., she can check into one of the prisons, toil for as long as she is physically able, making designer clothing for the oligarchs, and then check out to regain her health, “slacking off” back in the favelas.
Looking at the organizational structure of a the Chinese sweatshop/American sweat-warehouse system, we can fantasize how agricultural slavery would be brought back to the USA. Imagine a plantation owner, the master, setting up production of fabulous new organic food products:
Step 1 – Setup Shell Companies – The master would set up a series of shell companies incorporated in the most barbarous nations available. China, Columbia, Mexico, Jordan – the usual human-rights suspects. The goal would be deniability, and partial legal cover for the planned atrocities.
Step 2 – Lease Land – The public-facing corporate entity would lease land from a landowner baffled by the master’s byzantine corporate structure. He wouldn’t know what he was getting into, and would remain the owner of the land – a potential fall guy if the planned atrocities are exposed.
Step 3 – Bribe Officials – The master purchases the requisite public officials, and instructs them to look the other way.
Step 4 – Construct Contractor Pyramid – The master hires a manager whose job it would be to hire a contractor. The contractor’s job would be to find two more contractors: an "agricultural logistics" expert (i.e. the overseer), and an "agricultural staffing" expert (i.e. the slave buyer). The master will be officially uninformed of the doings of these "rogue" employees.
Step 5 – Slave Acquisition – The staffing expert fills positions using the whole range of nefarious schemes we see in use today: tricking gullible foreigners, preying upon the chronically unemployed with children to feed, etc. Recruitment vans will prowl through local ghettos, and if volunteers can’t be found, goon squads will snatch people off the street and toss them into the vans.
Step 6 – Plantation Operations – The slaves will be housed in Foxconn-style barracks – only with iron bars over the windows instead of suicide-prevention nets. The barracks will be off-site, on a different patch of land owned by a different shell company. Each morning, the slaves will be bussed to the plantation, work all day, and then be hauled back at night. Depending upon supply, slaves may be worked to death, and buried in mass graves.
Step 7 – Social Acceptance – The plantation will grow fabulous organic foods. The company spokesman will appear on TV wearing fashionable black turtleneck sweaters, and give impressive presentations of the glorious new food products. People will stand in line overnight to buy these cutting-edge products, and they will tune-out stories of the slave labor that produced them. People will accept fascism as long as it is fashionable.
Step 8 – Profitability and Respectability – The plantation will make huge profits and its stock will soar. Other companies will rush to imitate their "logistics prowess" and a thousand plantations will bloom. Eventually, slavery will become a "best practice" and the law of the land will be rewritten to accommodate the new de facto "workplace" standards.
Is the U.S. Government Violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution?
The 13th Amendment not only outlawed slavery, but also involuntary servitude. It is a brief amendment; here is the complete text:
Section 1 – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2 – Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
While we don’t have chattel slavery, it can be argued that we have involuntary servitude. Modern practices differ from those of this nation’s early history, but their intent is clear: make people work against their will.
Tricking gullible foreigners into handing over thousands of dollars, and then holding that cash for ransom is clearly a technique designed to induce servitude. And using foreign recruiting firms is just a technique to evade American law. (See this website for further discussion.)
To land her Saipan job, Chun Yu Wang (page 16) had to pay a Chinese recruiter $3,500, which is an enormous sum for a Chinese peasant. She had to borrow the money from relatives who would be financially devastated if she were unable to pay them back. If she had been fired and deported from Saipan, her life back in China would have been grievously harmed.
The Hershey’s workers, and the Saipan workers were clearly financially bound to their masters and compelled to accept slave-like working- and living conditions for fear of the consequences of disobedience.
Tellingly, these violations of the spirit of the Constitution are not even a political issue in the USA. Most Americans have no idea that it is even happening. And that is how you can tell that it is official Oligarchy policy: their captive media and political parties keep it as quiet as possible.
"I’m not a U.S. company, and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S."
-Lee R. Raymond, when CEO of ExxonMobil.
The more you learn of the doings of the Oligarchy, the colder the chill down your spine becomes. Their intent is clear, and American citizens are squarely in their crosshairs. Perhaps one day they will abduct us, and hunt us for sport on some private island.
A huge smoking-gun that tells the tale of the Oligarchy’s character is that mass-immigration was not curtailed during the recent Great Recession as it was during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The Oligarchy continued on its drive to crush wages without even blinking an eye. (If you increase the supply of something – in this case, labor – its price goes down. And "price" means your paycheck, even if you keep your job).
Why are the multinationals so ruthless in the governance of the USA? Because like Lee Raymond said above, they are simply not American companies anymore. In the 1980s, U.S. manufacturing companies petitioned the Reagan Administration to protect them from the tidal wave of cheap Japanese imports – and President Reagan obliged.
Today, you don’t see many multinationals demanding protection from Chinese or Mexican imports, right? That’s because they have moved much of their production out of the USA. Now they have the exact opposite incentive: they now pressure the government to leave China alone and allow the cheap imports to continue flowing in.
Because they are making the cheap imports. In China, Mexico, Brazil, etc.
For example, in the 1980s, American automakers faced competition from Toyotas imported from Japan. Today, the USA imports a lot of cars from Mexico, but can you name a single Mexican brand? No, right? That’s because there aren’t any. Mexico makes American branded cars (and brands of other nations too) for export to the USA.
So, it makes no sense for General Motors to seek protection from cheap Mexican imports because they are making a good chunk of those cars in their own Mexican plants. The Ford Fiesta is made in Mexico with a Brazilian engine. Maybe the ash tray is made in the USA.
This is a sea-change in American history that few people realize. The very corporations that once made America strong have switched allegiance, and now train their economic guns on the USA’s economic sovereignty. They have erased our borders and have a strong incentive to keep them erased.
A couple of years before the Great Recession, one of the USA’s largest employers, IBM, began "Project Lean" – a program to increase profitability by firing American workers and replacing them with cheap workers overseas; primarily in India. All throughout the Great Recession, IBM brazenly stuck to their "No Americans" hiring policy. After the recession ended, they cranked up the offshoring even more.
In fact, the Great Recession was used as an excuse by multinationals like IBM to intensify offshoring: "Business is slow; we have to cut costs. We have to lay people off." Americans understand that companies have to cut payrolls during recessions. But in the old days, companies would hire workers back when things picked up. Not any more. Multinationals have no interest in creating jobs in the USA. They will only do so if they have no other options.
You would think that the Republican Party would be worried about being seen as close allies of the communist regime in Beijing, but they obviously are not. They put the interests of the Beijing/multinational axis above American interests. This treasonous behavior was dramatically showcased when the Federal Reserve Bank announced plans for "QE2" in 2010. Chinese officials criticized the plan, and the Republicans led by CNBC’s Larry Kudlow began a pressure campaign to seize control of Fed policy. It was quite the spectacle, and solid proof that the Oligarchy’s loyalties lie with China, not the USA.
In January 2011, President Obama appointed General Electric CEO, Jeff Immelt to be his "Jobs Czar" with the task of curing the unemployment caused by the Great Recession. This is a smoking gun because Immelt spent the Great Recession offshoring jobs. From the U.S. Department of Labor’s database, here is a list of plants that Immelt offshored in 2010 alone:
1) Mahoning Glass, Niles, OH – Replaced production with Chinese imports.
2) General Electric, Euclid, OH – Production moved to Hungary.
3) Dothan Motor Plant, Dothan, AL – Production moved to Mexico.
4) General Electric, Bloomington, IL – Production moved to Mexico.
5) Fabricated Parts Group, Morrison, IL – Production moved to Malaysia.
6) Motor Control Switch Group, Morrison, IL – Production moved to China.
7) GE Motors, Owensboro, KY – Production moved to Mexico.
When the fox is put in charge of the hen house, you know the fix is in. This appointment clearly documents Obama as a functionary of the Oligarchy. Furthermore, the full title of the position is: "Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness." Notice how it’s just "jobs," and not "creating jobs," or even better, "creating American jobs." It doesn’t specify the country, and that makes Immelt eminently qualified because he’s fantastic at creating jobs in low-wage countries!
Having the word "competitiveness" in the title is also a smoking gun because it is a code-word for "sweatshops." For example, you might hear oligarchs talking about European countries like this: "They aren’t competitive enough for the global economy because their unions are too entrenched."
So, "competitiveness" means that we have to beat our wages down to global rates before the oligarchs like Jeff Immelt will be willing to bring their sweatshops back to the USA. We have to "race to the bottom" by overturning all of our workplace achievements before the oligarchs will bless us with their precious sweatshop jobs.
When a president creates an office titled "Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness" and staffs it with a top (maybe the top) offshoring practitioner, he is blatantly giving a green light to the oligarchs to keep going full-steam ahead toward re-establishing sweatshops and favelas in the USA.
Further reading about Immelt in The Guardian: "CEOs Rewarded Most for Raising Unemployment."
The War on Terror
While our blue-collar men and women were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Oligarchy was moving their former factory jobs to China. The New York Times reported that soldier suicides exceeded battle deaths in the first-half of 2012. And the veteran unemployment rate stayed mostly in double-digits after the Great Recession ended:
However, this follows a long tradition of treating soldiers like cannon fodder.
The Revolutionary War
The Oligarchy’s ruthless treatment of soldiers goes back to the Revolutionary War. A farm laborer named Daniel Shays distinguished himself in battle against the British for five years – without pay. When he went home, he was hauled into court for non-payment of debt. So were lots of other soldiers, and Shay’s Rebellion was launched in 1786.
The Civil War
In July of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln had to divert several regiments of Union troops to New York City to put down massive draft riots. Working-class men of the city rioted when they learned that the new federal draft laws allowed rich men to buy their way out of serving in the Civil War for a $300 commutation fee.
World War I
General Smedley Butler wrote in his book, War is a Racket that World War I soldiers were paid a paltry $30 per month. And after numerous deductions: "Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days." (Page 18.) After the war, Congress awarded bonuses to soldiers, but part of it was paid in certificates that could not be cashed-in for 20 years. Due to the hardship of the Great Depression, veterans pressed Congress to pay the bonuses earlier. President Hoover and the Republicans refused, triggering large protests which came to be known as the Bonus Army. In 1932, President Hoover ordered General MacArthur to disperse the Bonus Army with infantry, cavalry, and tanks.
World War II
The Oligarchy was perhaps at its weakest level in American history during the years after World War II. The G.I. Bill was passed in 1944, and veterans were empowered to join and build the middle class.
The mass exodus of factories to China began at about the same time that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was launched. The GWOT officially began on October 7, 2001, and the USA brought China into the World Trade Organization only two months later on December 11th. While sweatshop-generated dollar signs danced before the eyes of greedy oligarchs, no consideration at all was given to where returning veterans would work after their service in the GWOT.
Even worse, in 2006, with two wars in progress, the Bush administration pressured the Army to outsource some of the staff at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to two politically connected contractors: IAP Worldwide Services, and KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary. Wounded soldiers soon found themselves housed in squalid conditions. The Washington Post published a series of stories on the Walter Reed scandal.
In 2001, ExxonMobil was paying Indonesian National Army soldiers $300 per month to guard its natural-gas operations in Aceh. ("Private Empire", Kindle 2005.) That’s $1.88 per hour. The soldiers were accused of perpetrating atrocities against rebels.
Private-sector unions are a shadow of their former selves. Membership dropped to 6.9% of the workforce in 2011 from 24.2% in 1973.
But that isn’t good enough. The Oligarchs want to take it down to 0%. They won’t be satisfied until unions are illegal. Perhaps they will permit a government-controlled union such as those operated by the communist governments of China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Perhaps not. After all, communist governments at least have to make a pretense of being on the side of workers. Oligarchs do not. Oligarchs look at people as "warm bodies" – plentiful, disposable, and interchangeable. To them, having a union for people is like having a union for plough horses.
This callous attitude was on display in 2012 when many multinationals were announcing record profits. In July of that year, Caterpillar announced that second-quarter profits were up 20% to a record $17.4 billion. The company celebrated by beating down the wages of its machinists at their Joliet, Illinois plant.
Why would Caterpillar do such a thing? Because they can. Or more precisely, because global labor arbitrage, and the Reserve Army of Labor allows them to get away with it.
The most-senior Caterpillar machinists were making about $55,000 per year. At the end of this CNBC video, you can see former auto executive, Bob Lutz, calling such union workers an "aristocracy." Can you believe that? Said Lutz:
"The old-time industrial wage that the high-end industrial aristocracy of the extremely highly paid UAW and machinists is a thing of the past, and we’re going to have to get competitive."
The CEO of Caterpillar was being paid $17 million per year at the time, and the $55,000 machinists were the aristocracy? Ridiculous.
When Lutz says that "we" have to get "competitive", he doesn’t mean management, of course. He means workers must accept "global" wage rates. And that’s no more than $2.00 per hour ultimately. For now, new industrial workers are getting a working-class $11 per hour.
In effect, what these oligarchs are demanding here is literally the eradication of the blue-collar segment of the American middle class. They got exercised by the Caterpillar strike because they are class warriors, hell-bent on their scorched-earth campaign. The outcome of the strike would not change Caterpillar’s profits very much, but that isn’t the point. The point is to crush insolent citizens. The oligarchs have seen the future of the USA, and it is Chinese-style authoritarianism. They have Beijing Fever, and are demanding total subservience from workers.
Bob Lutz was working for General Motors in 2008. In this video, you can see him begging for the taxpayers to bail out his bankrupt company. GM eventually received a $49.5 billion loan from the taxpayers. Only a few years later, he was calling for the blood of those very same taxpayer/workers.
Bob Lutz collects classic cars, motorcycles, helicopters, and fighter jets. If you see one of these flying over your protest, it might be Lutz maneuvering for a strafing run:
But an oligarch can never have too many jets. And so, the middle class must be liquidated with the resulting savings from lower wages flowing into the fighter-jet collections of the likes of Bob Lutz.
Labor Unions are Evil All of a Sudden?
Right-wing Republicans like Lutz and Kudlow weren’t always so rabidly anti-union. As a matter of fact, during the Cold War, they were huge fans of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity union in Poland. The labor union that broke Soviet tyranny.
Here is what right-wing Republican Jack Abramoff wrote about Solidarity in his book, "Capitol Punishment" (page 15):
"We organized a national petition drive to support Lech Walesa’s solidarity movement in Poland, and put together a protest rally which ended with an impromptu rush on the Polish Embassy."
The oligarchs would have us believe that with the Soviets defeated, there is no longer a need to have labor unions as a counterweight to tyranny.
The Hunger Games is a movie, and series of novels set in the future where "The Capitol" rules North America. The Capitol is a super high-tech, and super ruthless society, forcing plebeian children to slaughter each other for entertainment.
We aren’t quite that ruthless yet, but when it comes to offshoring jobs, and throwing millions of Americans out of work, and eviscerating the middle class, our oligarchs are 100% ruthless. What happens to the children of those discarded workers? According to the USDA, 47% of food-stamp recipients are children. So that’s about 22 million children playing this early version of the Hunger Games.
Think they are having fun?
"It is an iron rule of empire that the first conquest an imperial state makes is of its own citizenry."
-F.W. Brownlow 
In the wake of the massive sit-down strikes of 1936-1937, the Oligarchy grudgingly permitted the construction of a middle class. After all, one cannot wage war on Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union with workers sitting on the assembly lines.
However, once the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and the Cold War ended, it was payback time. Time to put those uppity workers back in their place. Time to kick them out of their "green, leafy" suburbs, and send them back to the sweatshops, slums, and shantytowns where they belong. Time to make them "bend the knee" to their betters.
And to cough-up some cash, because the Oligarchy needed a bailout.
Ironically, the rise of the American Oligarchy should be viewed as a symptom of American decline. After all, transitioning from a fabulously successful middle-class society back to a feudal two-class society (oligarchs and plebs) can hardly be considered progress. This decline began as a consequence of what historians call the "imperial overstretch" of the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam War was designed to be a perpetual profit-generator for the military-industrial complex – even at the expense of the financial integrity of the federal government. To buy all of those helicopters, the government had to print lots of money, which caused inflation. Around the world, nations saw the purchasing-power of the dollars that they held start to melt away, so they rushed to cash-in their dollars for gold.
President Nixon had no choice but to "close the gold window" in 1971 to prevent Fort Knox from being cleaned out. In retrospect, we can see that severing the dollar from gold was a linchpin in permitting unlimited globalization in the following decades because it removed constraints on trade deficits. So, that inadvertently laid the foundation for the Oligarchy to build upon down the road via massive offshoring. However, there were more immediate effects of the war.
The federal government’s financial problems were plain for the world to see. Our enemies knew that we were weak and went on the offensive. Many American and British oil facilities around the world were nationalized during that period. Even worse, the Soviets trained and equipped the Egyptian army and sent them into Israel in 1973, which brought on the Arab Oil Embargo.
The debacle in Vietnam led directly, and swiftly, to OPEC’s rise to power. However, nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran didn’t have banking systems able to handle the flood of petrodollars. So they kept their money in pretty much the only place they could: western banks. David Rockefeller, who was CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank at the time, states this in his Memoirs (Kindle 5750):
"Chase’s long-standing relationships with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, gave us ready access to the region’s funds."
So, for example, when an American refinery bought oil from the Saudis, no money went to Saudi Arabia, but was simply transferred out of the refinery’s Chase account and into the Saudi’s Chase account.
Essentially what happened was that money from American consumers that would have otherwise been spent making payments on things like washing machines, was diverted into OPEC bank accounts at U.S. banks.
With more money on deposit, and thus, more money to loan, the banks, including Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, proceeded to squander it by loaning it to Third World nations like Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina in the 1970s. The Latin American Debt Crisis began in 1982 when Mexico defaulted. This is one of the most-spectacular examples of the Oligarchy’s incompetence because after making the loans, Rockefeller took actions to guarantee their default!
In Memoirs (Kindle 7424), Rockefeller said that President Carter offered him the job of Federal Reserve Bank Chairman in 1978. Rockefeller turned down the offer because he didn’t want to suffer the bad publicity from the "draconian policies" that he thought were needed to combat inflation. Rockefeller then "strongly recommended Paul Volcker" for the job, Volcker was appointed, and got busy with Rockefeller’s draconian policies. By 1981, Volcker had taken interest rates up to 20%, and Rockefeller’s banking clients south of the border were crushed like bugs. They had no chance to service their huge loans at those rates.
The debt owed by Latin America was so huge that it caused a "lost decade" in the region, and drastic measures were required for the bankers to get their money back.
David Rockefeller then invented modern globalization as a mechanism to funnel money from the USA, Germany, and Japan to the Latin American countries which owed his bank money.
Rockefeller’s first swing at the scheme was with the Trilateral Commission. The idea was to convince Japan and Germany to take more imports from Rockefeller’s debtor nations, which would then use the revenue to pay off their loans. At the time, Japan and Germany had large trade surpluses, so it seemed like a reasonable ploy.
Initially, the Trilateral Commission was very successful. Its first official meeting was held in 1973, and it took over the American government only three years later. Trilateralist J. Paul Austin, chairman of the Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Company, recruited local boy Jimmy Carter into the group, loaned him a corporate jet, and bankrolled his campaign. Elected in 1976, President Carter named a couple dozen Trilateralists to top posts, including Vice President Mondale.
Mondale was dispatched to Germany and Japan to sell the scheme, however Japan and Germany were hard-core mercantilist nations and were not about to allow cheap imports to damage their domestic industries. They told Mondale to pound sand.
In retrospect, the Trilateral strategy was naive. One does not talk mercantilist nations out of such policies.
David Rockefeller retired as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1981, just before Mexico defaulted. Did he see it coming? Probably so. From page 434 of his Memoirs:
"In 1981, soon after retiring from the bank, I re-assumed chairmanship of both the Council of the Americas and the Center for Inter-American Relations."
Having failed with the Trilateral Commission, he resumed his efforts with the Council of the Americas. Rockefeller had just witnessed a huge transfer of wealth from American consumers to OPEC. Did he get the idea to engineer another such transfer? From American consumers to Latin American nations this time? And thence to himself as a shareholder of Chase?
In 1986, Rockefeller commissioned a study from Fred Bergsten (a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations). From page 435 of Memoirs:
"…a landmark work that went a long way toward replacing the prevailing economic orthodoxy with a new set of assumptions that would eventually become know as Neoliberalism or the Washington consensus."
Note: The term "Neoliberalism" is not used very often in the USA, but around the world it is used to describe the negative effects of laissez-faire economics, somewhat similar to "trickle down economics" only with a more sinister connotation.
Rockefeller also had the temerity to say that he would be breaking the power of Latin American oligarchs:
"…in other words, by ending the symbiotic relationship between government and the oligarchs over the economics of the region."
Of course, it was really a transfer of power from the local oligarchs to American oligarchs like Rockefeller. Under orders from their American banking creditors, Mexico began to "voluntarily" institute "free trade" reforms, and then we arrive at:
On page 436 of his Memoirs David Rockefeller writes:
"As one country after another adopted the export-driven model of economic growth, they needed a destination for their goods, particularly the U.S. market."
And so, Rockefeller put President George H.W. Bush to work on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the rest is history.
After NAFTA was adopted, Rockefeller began to agitate for the "Free Trade Area of the Americas" that would include all Latin countries except for Cuba. He wrote (p. 437):
"…there was a tangible sense that we could and would solve our many problems together."
By “our” he didn’t mean "America" of course. He meant the Oligarchy. Rockefeller also essentially admits that he was the driving force behind the absence of labor and environmental standards in NAFTA, and the unconstitutional "fast track" process that got it passed (pages 437-438):
"In the final years of the Clinton administration a strongly protectionist Democratic Party, insistent upon unrealistic and unworkable labor and environmental standards, joined with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives to thwart most trade initiatives – especially granting the president authority to negotiate trade agreements on a "fast track" basis, which Congress could then accept by a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution." (Emphasis added.)
President Bush referred to "fast track" as "trade promotion authority" or TPA. So, in the next quote Rockefeller takes credit for TPA, and when he says "Council of the Americas" he is referring to pretty much himself (page 438):
"The Council of the Americas played an integral role in the ultimately successful effort to secure TPA…the Council lobbied hard for the legislation."
And so, the Constitution was violated, labor rights and environmental standards were cast to the wind, and the Age of Globalist Carpetbaggers was upon us.
The fight to monetize the middle class on behalf of the Oligarchy quickly became the top issue during the very next presidential campaign after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. George H.W. Bush was president from 1989-1992, and it is fair to say that his support for NAFTA cost him re-election.
Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot entered the race with a platform of fiscal responsibility and opposition to NAFTA. In June, Perot was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton:
"In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent."
If Perot had not entered the race to battle against NAFTA, Bush may have been re-elected.
The Giant Sucking Sound
Perot became famous for coining the phrase: "the giant sucking sound" (GSS) which you can see Perot explain at the 1:54 mark of this presidential-debate video. Since wages were so much lower in Mexico than they were in the USA, Perot explained that factories and jobs would be sucked into Mexico.
Initially, some factories would move south to take advantage of dramatically lower payroll costs. Then they would export their products back into the USA – sporting greatly reduced prices. At that point, their remaining American competitors would have a choice: move production to Mexico in order to compete on cost, or go out of business.
So, the GSS was a positive feedback loop where Mexico became a giant black hole, pulling factories out of the USA. Even patriotic owners of factories that did not want to fire their American workers and move their plants to Mexico had no choice but to do so. Sure, they could cut the wages of their American workers to try to lower costs. However, no American could pay his mortgage on $2 per hour, so even if there was no minimum wage, there was no practical way for American factories to compete.
Fifteen years later, the GSS had spread to China and India growing into a "category 5" hurricane that smashed the U.S. economy during the Financial Crisis of 2008 (see below). To this day, the Giant Sucking Sound rages at full force, transferring wealth from the middle class to the Oligarchy, just as intended. When you see investors on ABC’s "Shark Tank" television show demanding that patriotic company owners move their factories to China, that’s the GSS in action.
Not being a professional politician, Perot delivered a flaky performance. He dropped out of the race in July, and jumped back in during October. Nevertheless, he received 19.8% of the vote, which was the best showing of a third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Perot was generally recognized to have won at least the first of three debates with Bush and Clinton. And that rattled the political establishment. So they changed the rules. The changes adopted by the Commission on Presidential Debates prevented Perot from participating in the debates during the 1996 campaign – even while polls showed that 80% of Americans opposed the new rules and wanted Perot in the debates.
Perot’s candidacy demonstrated popular opposition to globalization. However, the Oligarchy changed the rules, vetoed the American People and went forward with their plans – which is how things work in an oligarchic system, of course.
After the 1992 election, Perot continued to battle NAFTA. And the new Vice President, Al Gore, was sent to fight on behalf of the Oligarchy.
Al Gore – Slick Corporate Shill
While Al Gore currently has a tree-hugger image, it is important to remember that he was one of the Founding Fathers of the American Oligarchy due to his efforts to neutralize Perot and pave the way for NAFTA. Ironically, Gore’s father, Senator Albert Gore, Sr. led the fight against the "Canada-United States Automotive Products Agreement" back in 1965.  That pact sent a large number of U.S. auto plants to Canada. Too bad Al junior didn’t learn anything from his father.
After the 1992 presidential election, Perot continued the fight against NAFTA. This video is the first of eight of the Larry King show from November 9, 1993. Ross Perot debates NAFTA with Gore, and Gore comes across as every inch the slick, lying, corporate shill.
In the video frame below, we see Al Gore holding up a chart illustrating the USA’s trade surplus with Mexico in 1992 (at 3:55 into video #2). Said Gore:
"If that trend continues for another two years, and NAFTA will, by removing those barriers, greatly accelerate it, we will have a larger trade surplus with Mexico than with any country in the entire world."
So, did it play out as Gore asserted? Not so much:
Did Al Gore know that the tiny surplus (green bars) that we had with Mexico would turn into a massive deficit because of NAFTA? Of course he did! He knew Perot was right. A chimpanzee could have seen this coming!
But that, of course, is not the point. Al Gore was just doing his hatchet job and didn’t care how our deficit with Mexico would evolve.
Throughout history, a trade deficit was considered to be an alarming condition. Imagine that we were using gold for money, and every year we bought $100 billion worth of stuff from Mexico, but they only bought $60 billion of stuff from us. So, each year, the amount of gold in the USA would drop by $40 billion. Over time, our big pile of gold would migrate to Mexico. Mexico could then, if it desired, use that money to build an army and invade the USA.
Of course, today we are not on the gold standard, and globalists argue that worrying about the trade deficit should go the way of the horse-and-buggy. But instead of gold building up in many of our trading partners, dollars are building up. China has over $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds at the time of this writing. Not only do we have to pay them interest, but being that deep in debt to them gives Beijing what amounts to veto-power over U.S. policy. And they have used that veto to get away with manipulating their currency (among other nefarious things) for decades with no response from the U.S. Treasury.
In any case, you can tell that the globalists are lying because first, Al Gore told us that NAFTA would expand our trade surplus with Mexico. Then after the exact opposite happened, the globalists told us that trade deficits don’t matter. Edward Conard has gone so far as to say (Kindle 810) that "The trade deficit can grow forever." Of course, whether the trade deficit is important or not is of no concern to the Oligarchy. They just want their sweatshop profits, and if it harms America, then America be damned.
Throughout the show, Gore talks down to the audience, speaking in a slow-motion, pedantic, insulting tone, as if he were addressing an audience of dunces. Which he undoubtedly considers the American people to be.
Item: Right at the beginning, Gore lies about the "side agreements" that were supposed to ensure civilized environmental and labor conditions in Mexico. Update: That never happened. Ironically, Mr. Granola contributed to a great deal of polluting in Mexico, California’s Salton Sea, and every other country, like China, to which globalization has spread since then.
Item: At 3:00, Gore tells a story about a friend of his who is a tire worker, and a member of the United Rubber Workers. Gore said that his friend had studied NAFTA and was supporting it because it would help his company sell more tires to Mexico. Update: In 2009, President Obama had to put a 35% tariff on Chinese tires to save American jobs.
Item: At 5:33, Perot shows an amazing photo of a U.S. factory (maquiladora) in Mexico surrounded by a shantytown. The shantytown wasn’t there before; it sprang up around the factory because the workers weren’t paid enough to live in houses or apartments. The workers built their shanties out of cardboard boxes discarded from the plant. Note: some U.S. factories were moved to Mexico before NAFTA as part of a pilot project.
Item: At 6:09, Perot says that American farm animals enjoy better living conditions than maquiladora workers.
Item: At the beginning of the video, Gore claims that the concept of free trade with Mexico has already been proven. Said Gore: "We know this works."
Item: At 0:27, Gore claims that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 caused the Great Depression. Note: At that time, exports were a tiny part of the U.S. economy – only $5.9 billion while GDP was $103.6 billion. The idea that higher tariffs could cause the Great Depression is ridiculous. See this page for more.
Item: At 5:53, Perot says: "People who don’t make anything can’t buy anything."
Item: At 3:38, Perot says that the national television networks refused to sell him commercial time for his anti-NAFTA campaign.
Item: At 0:53, Perot says: "Here is the NAFTA game: buy U.S. manufacturing companies cheap, right after NAFTA passes, that are labor intensive, that make good products, that have marginal profits. Close the factories in the U.S., move the factories to Mexico, take advantage of the cheap labor, run your profits through the roof, sell the company’s stock at a profit, go get another one."
Item: At 6:45, Perot criticizes Mexican violent union-busting. He said that when workers went on strike, American companies called in Mexican police to beat and kill them, and then punished the remaining workers by lowering their wages.
Item: At 8:16, Perot criticizes the brutality of Mexico’s oligarchy and ruling PRI party. He predicts that the PRI will fall from power. Update: the seemingly invincible PRI was dethroned seven years later.
Item: At 9:40, Gore claims that better jobs in Mexico will "cut down on illegal immigration" into the USA. Update: over the next seven years it more than doubled from 370,000 to a record 770,000 according to the Pew Research Center.
Item: At 0:52, Perot talks about a major U.S. chemical company that has a facility in Mexico where it simply buries toxic waste, and poisons the water supply. In the shantytown surrounding the plant, babies are born without brains. Gore nods in agreement. Note: Perot was apparently referring to the Stepan Chemical plant in Matamoras. See this page.
Item: At 4:23, Gore says that the "side agreement" will allow us to compel Mexico to enforce its environmental laws – "a major step forward." Update: The Sierra Club reports that the maquiladoras created a cesspool of horrific pollution and health conditions.
Item: At 3:54, Gore says that we will sell lots of computers to Mexico after they drop their 20% tariff. Update: Today, thanks to "free trade," we don’t even make computers any more. We import all of our computers, cell phones, and electronic gadgets from Asia. Our televisions are assembled in Mexico from Asian parts.
Item: At 5:26, Gore says: "We want to fight for working men and women, and NAFTA is part of it." Update: Gore wins Biggest Lie Ever Told Award.
Item: At 6:30, Perot proposes a "social tariff" to force the Mexicans to pay their workers better as Gore scoffs. Update: that suggestion was obviously never adopted, and according to Truthout, wages have declined in Mexico since NAFTA.
Item: At 7:10, Gore says that it is "unrealistic" for us to insist that countries like Mexico treat their workers decently. Gore says that "we can’t change the world." Note: if Abraham Lincoln had that attitude, we would still have slave states. And Gore, of course, is wrong. Like Perot said, we could create a huge wave of change simply by making civilized standards a condition for access to our huge consumer market.
Item: At 8:25, Gore says that cheap labor is not a factor when multinationals are deciding where to locate their factories, and U.S. products can compete with cheap-labor products because we have superior productivity. Update: Multinationals went for the cheap labor as if their heads were on fire, and high productivity did not save scores of entire U.S. industries from being wiped out.
Item: At 1:40, Perot says to Gore: "You’re lying" after Gore said that Perot lobbied Congress more than anybody else during the period when Gore was a Congressman. Gore’s ad hominem attack was lame. Gore accused Perot of lobbying Congress twenty years prior, but could not provide any specifics – even when Perot pressed him.
Item: At 3:40, Gore starts talking about the world’s largest Walmart in Mexico City, and how it was selling American products like hotcakes to the Mexican people. Update: Maybe they were American products back then, but they are Chinese now. Walmart has systematically forced small American manufacturing companies to move their plants overseas in order to cut costs via cheap labor.
Item: At 5:45, Gore says that General Motors moved jobs to Mexico, but then brought them back to the USA because U.S. workers are more productive. Update: Today, GM and many other multinationals operate large auto plants in Mexico. Mexico is the #8 auto-making nation in the world, ahead of industrial nations like the United Kingdom, Canada, and France.
Item: At 7:09 – Perot says that Mexican companies had spent a fortune building textile plants in Cuba where labor costs were "next to nothing." Note: He was apparently implying that cheap textiles from Cuba could get into the USA tariff-free via Mexico.
Item: At 7:25, Perot says that Mexican workers are far more productive than Gore gives them credit for. Update: Mexican auto plants are now considered to be just as good as American plants quality-wise.
Item: At 0:21, Gore says: "We ought to thank our lucky stars that the Mexican people have had the vision and courage to strike out on the American path toward the ideas of Thomas Jefferson…" Update: Mexico is nearly a failed state, thanks to drug violence, and is a huge geopolitical problem for the USA now. Many small Mexican farmers were forced to switch to drug crops after NAFTA allowed big, and tax-payer subsidized, American farms to flood Mexico with cheap food. Nobody is "thanking their lucky stars," and as we will discuss later, there was no "vision" involved; Mexico was forced into NAFTA by American bankers.
Item: At 4:35, Perot says that if we continue to de-industrialize, we won’t be able to militarily defend the USA. Update: That prediction came true in Iraq when we couldn’t produce enough bomb-proof steel to armor our Humvees against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The blame for soldiers that were killed and maimed can be laid at the door of globalists like Al Gore.
Just about everything Gore claimed and predicted turned out to be completely wrong. Perot’s predictions all came true, except for the one about how the American people would never allow de-industrialization to go so far as to inhibit our national defense. Sadly, he was wrong about that.
In retrospect, we can see why Perot and the Reform Party were defeated: the system had gone from fighting the Soviets to fighting the American people. And to this day, we Americans remain a conquered people, ruled by a rapacious oligarchy.
Note: Sir James Goldsmith was sort-of Perot’s British counterpart. British and European readers might be interested in his book "The Trap" which he wrote in 1993.
Blood in the Water
NAFTA was resisted by the right (Pat Buchanan), the center (Ross Perot), the left (Ralph Nader), and even by a top libertarian (Murray Rothbard). But once thousands of factories and millions of jobs began pouring into Mexico from the USA, and fat profits rolled into oligarch coffers – it was too late. Blood was in the water, and a feeding frenzy of more “free trade” developments quickly followed.
The “Asian Flu” Financial Crisis of 1997 had a similar effect as the Latin American Debt Crisis. Countries with shattered economies such as South Korea and Thailand turned to David Rockefeller’s “Export to America” plan, and with the help of the “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade” (GATT), even more cheap products poured into the USA.
The USA’s economy is huge, and while NAFTA and GATT cut deep, they weren’t enough to bring us down. However, the death blow came on December 11, 2001 when the USA brought China into the World Trade Organization. Prior to that, “free trade” with China was contentious because it was a communist country that perpetrated numerous human-rights violations, including the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Multinationals couldn’t be sure about making investments in China because Congress might sever relations.
Admission into the WTO dispelled those worries, and made China a sure thing. The multinationals dove in, and with its gigantic, impoverished population, China was able to “accept” a much larger chunk of our industry than Mexico ever could. Less than a decade later, the USA’s economy lay in ruin.
Unlike the OPEC nations, the Chinese did not leave their cash on deposit with western banks. Instead, they invested it themselves, and it was their particular choice of investment that determined the precise characteristics of America’s fall.
Offshoring Caused the Financial Crisis of 2008
“The financial industry’s agenda – deregulation, free trade, and low taxation – has dominated the nation during the past thirty years.”
-Judith Stein, Pivotal Decade, (Kindle 5774)
Some people blame the financial crisis on rogue bankers; some blame the government backing of subprime loans, and some blame Alan Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low. However, the finical crisis would have never occurred at all if trillions of dollars had not been gouged out of the middle class and sent to China.
Think about what happens when General Electric moves a lightbulb plant from Ohio to China: they fire their American workers and stop paying them. Those dollars are no longer spent by the American workers in the USA, but rather go to China. Now think about what happens when that scenario is repeated for tens of thousands of factories: a huge economic tidal wave is created.
And what did the Chinese do with their newfound wealth? They were very conservative; they invested in what were the safest instruments in the world: U.S. government bonds. However, the U.S. government doesn’t issue bonds to satisfy the demand in the bond market. It only issues bonds when it needs to borrow money. If the budget is balanced, as it was during the Clinton years, the government simply doesn’t need to issue many new bonds.
Of course, GE also made huge profits in this example by reducing its payroll. And corporations also put cash into government bonds.
So, one of the consequences of offshoring was to dramatically increase the demand for government bonds. What did the Chinese do with their trillions of dollars when there weren’t enough treasury bonds to go around? They bought the next best thing: mortgage bonds from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (“agency bonds” or just “agencies”) because they were backed by the U.S. government.
That flood of money dramatically depressed interest rates, and blew up the housing bubble. The vast size of the U.S. housing bubble was directly proportional to the amount of money extracted from the hides of middle-class households by offshoring.
The flaws in our banking system would probably not have been fatal absent this vast re-engineering of the U.S. economy. And there would have been no crisis because American workers spend their money differently than the Chinese. We are notorious spenders and the Chinese are notorious savers. Think of a union auto worker. What did he do with his paycheck? Buy treasury bonds, or a new boat?
In a 2005 speech, Ben Bernanke dubbed this phenomena as the “savings glut.” Of course, China and other countries also build-up dollar reserves by simply purchasing dollars in the foreign-exchange market. That keeps their own currencies weak, and exports to the USA going strong. So, it’s not just a cultural preference, but also a premeditated, mercantilist, economic attack on the USA.
Perhaps Alan Greenspan did keep rates too low for too long. However, that was right in the middle of the mass exodus of factories and jobs to China. Can Greenspan be blamed for using a traditional economic-stimulation method that had historically worked well in our relatively closed-borders economy? The simple fact is that Greenspan would not have kept his foot on the gas pedal so long if the multinationals were not transferring all the jobs to China.
And when Greenspan finally did raise rates, long-term rates stayed low. The housing bubble defied Greenspan’s attempt to pop it because of the tidal wave of middle-class money that was being redistributed through China. That was Greenspan’s famous “conundrum.” However, even if he had figured out the cause, could he have done anything about it? After all, the Fed has no control over trade policy.
To this day, many people blame our lackluster economy on the financial crises. They say that recessions caused by banking crises require more time for recovery. Many complicated theories have been put forth. But why don’t we just use Occam’s Razor and look for the simplest explanation? The jobs aren’t here because we sent them away!
The globalists tampered with the natural order of things, and caused a huge financial catastrophe, mass unemployment, and mass poverty in what had previously been a fabulously wealthy nation.
Of course, as we saw above, Wall Street bankers are far from innocent. While the subprime-mortgage crisis was a consequence of globalization, it was David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank who could fairly be named the “Father of Globalization.”
Rockefeller’s dumb loans lead directly to the Latin American Debt Crisis of the 1980s, which was very similar to the subprime-mortgage crisis of 2008. Back then, it was OPEC, rather than China, that gouged a huge amount of money from consumers in the USA. Like the Chinese, OPEC sent their money back to the USA in a huge tidal wave, but instead of it going into bonds, it went into bank deposits. The banks then immediately squandered the money by loaning it to Third World nations like Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina. Just like they totally miss-managed the wave of money that came in from China thirty years later.
The moral of the story is that it is imperative that we prevent these mass extractions of wealth from consumers. The damage to individuals is bad enough, and the banks have proven, more than once, and in spectacular fashion, that they have no clue how to manage the tidal waves of “liberated” middle-class funds. Perhaps the middle class has been so deeply damaged that there can be no more such tidal waves. Or maybe the privatization of Social Security will be that last great looting spree for the American Oligarchy. Time will tell.
The Oligarchy came out of the Great Recession smelling like a rose. Their captive government in Washington bailed them out, the middle class failed to rebel, and the Oligarchy even got more “free trade” deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. And the Oligarchy can soar even higher simply because there is still meat on the middle-class bone to be picked.
“We are still a democracy, but we have moved in my lifetime towards a plutocracy. We do not have a plutocracy, I want to emphasize that, but the distribution of wealth and the influence of wealth have moved in that direction.”
Buffett uses the word "plutocracy," which is pretty much the same thing as "oligarchy." An oligarchy is a form of government where a small number of (usually) rich people hold all the power. The reason why Buffett is wrong is because the American people oppose globalization, mass immigration, and the liquidation of the middle class. And yet these polices go full-steam ahead, generating profits for a small number of multinational corporations. So, it is fair to describe the USA as an oligarchy. And as we will see below, Buffett himself has joined the feeding frenzy of oligarch sharks devouring the middle class.
The people listed here are leaders of this oligarchic system, so it is fair to label them as oligarchs. To be clear though, advocating this form of government is not a crime. Many oligarchs truly believe that their system is actually good for all people. They are delusional, of course.
(Note: this is not a comprehensive list; an entire book could be written with profiles like the ones below.)
David Rockefeller – Founding Father of the Oligarchy, Framer of Globalism
As we saw above, Rockefeller takes credit for constructing NAFTA. As a banker who had made dumb loans to Latin American governments, he cheerfully sold out the American middle-class to extricate himself.
Since Rockefeller’s grandfather, John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil in Cleveland in 1870, nobody in the Rockefeller clan had written an autobiography until David published his Memoirs in 2002. Most of the book is very boring, dealing with sibling rivalries, details of his art collection, the plight of Rockefeller Center, etc. However, there are some astounding admissions in Chapter 27 "Proud Internationalist" and Chapter 28 "South of the Border." Here is perhaps the most amazing confession (Kindle 8122):
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
One wonders if Rockefeller would have been so proud if he had been writing after the Financial Crisis of 2008 when his global "economic structure" collapsed like a house of cards, and mass poverty exploded across the USA.
Rockefeller’s design also created the USA’s massive trade deficit. However, before Rockefeller needed to turn the USA into a dumping ground for his sweatshop products to save his bacon, he held a traditional view of international trade: that we should run a surplus rather than a deficit. In a 1962 letter to President Kennedy, he wrote:
"The major gain has occurred in our trade account and has been reflected in the rise in our exports since mid-1959. While imports also have advanced, it appears that we shall, nevertheless, realize a favorable balance on trade this year of $4 to $5 billion."
As a child, Rockefeller was an obese, "socially awkward" bug collector, ignored by his four older brothers. Perhaps that is responsible for his "Napoleon Complex." Rockefeller spent nearly his entire career at Chase Manhattan Bank, however, he was never a trained loan officer. When the rich kid waltzed in, the real bankers at Chase were skeptical of his ability to lead the company, and they were right. Rockefeller never took the time to become proficient at lending, and nearly burned the place down. He was more interested in jet-setting around the world doing amateur diplomacy. He was very keen on symbolic gestures like being the first Western bank to open a branch in Moscow or Beijing – almost as if he were opening embassies instead of banks.
To this day, modern oligarchs imitate Rockefeller, spending a tremendous amount of time flying around the word holding conferences with each other, taking photos of themselves, no doubt name-dropping like verbal machine guns. Here is a quote from Memoirs (Kindle 5994), that today’s oligarchs likely aspire to:
"We enjoyed the experience of eating Central Asian bustards, snared by Sheik Zayed’s falcons in Pakistan, cooked in Bahrain, and finally consumed by a carload of hungry Chase bankers on a hillside in Yemen!"
This is the problem with oligarchs running the world: they are too busy indulging in preposterous ego trips when they should be studying and practicing good governance.
Paddy Chayefsky may have had Rockefeller in mind when creating his Arthur Jensen character in Network. Jensen is the executive that commands Howard Beale to stop his "mad as hell" tirades:
"The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance!"
Chayefsky was prophetic because nearly thirty years later Rockefeller wrote pretty much the same thing in his Memoirs (Kindle 5738):
"It was imperative that some way be found to pump that capital back into the oil-consuming nations to "recycle" the petrodollars, or recession and stagnation might turn into a full-blown worldwide depression."
Network-television expert Dennis W. Mazzocco, PhD began his book, "Networks of Power" with:
"The 1976 movie "Network"…does not exaggerate when it describes corporate media as an extension of state power."
David Rockefeller was not a media mogul, however NAFTA was clearly an Oligarchy project, and as we discussed above, other "Arthur Jensen" types kept Ross Perot’s anti-NAFTA commercials off of the television networks during the heat of the battle.
Walter Wriston – Architect of the Oligarchy
As we discussed above in Dark Art #10, former Citicorp CEO, Walter Wriston was a top oligarch. He wrote "The Twilight of Sovereignty" in 1992, no doubt to help along the NAFTA bill in Congress. Like Rockefeller, Wriston loaned billions of OPEC dollars to Latin American nations, and Citibank barely survived the ensuing Latin American Debt Crisis. (Read more in "Citibank: Teetering Since 1812" at Time.com.)
Regulators looked the other way ("forbearance") as Citibank struggled to regain solvency. If it hadn’t been for Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal buying 14.9% of the company for $797 million in 1991, Citibank might have gone under, or more precisely stayed under. Bankers like Wriston and Rockefeller used NAFTA to enforce an involuntary bailout of their banks. They sent American middle-class jobs to Mexico so that the Mexican government could generate dollars to pay off their bank loans.
Wriston wrote another book in 2007 titled, "Bits, Bytes, and Balance Sheets." In the very first paragraph, he warns us about "overregulation" of business. That’s right; a banker was warning about too much regulation only one year before the Financial Crisis of 2008. Talk about clueless…
The Koch Brothers – Top-Tier Oligarchs
The billionaire Koch Brothers are perfect specimens of the robber-baron industrialist type who promulgate libertarian ideology to keep their payroll- and toxic-waste costs down. According to The New Yorker, the Kochs have given over $100 million to right wing &
The Koch’s are not as famous as other billionaires because their company, Koch Industries, is privately held, and they prefer to keep a low profile. However, they are very active behind the scenes. So much so that they are called the Kochtopus. See this page for an exhaustive list of their activities.
David Koch was the Vice Presidential candidate on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket with Ed Clark as the Presidential candidate. As a candidate, there was no legal limit on how much Koch could spend, so spend he did, and that was the best showing ever for the Libertarian Party as they captured 1.06% of the popular vote. (See statistics here.) Koch did not enjoy his political experience, and has worked behind the scenes ever since.
The Kochs are enemies of the fundamentalist libertarianism of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard because a truly small government could not do them any favors. Rather, the Kochs support the Friedrich-Hayek flavor of "flexible" libertarianism. This Chicago School of economics provides a free-market fig leaf to the Oligarchy; an intellectual façade for their dirty deeds.
Warren Buffett is widely regarded as one of the good guys. He is famous for saying:
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
In August 2011, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" and recommended higher taxes on rich people. However, as we saw above, Buffett financed the 1985 "big bang" of media concentration: the CIA-assisted takeover of ABC by Capital Cities.
More recently, in 2012, Buffett invested $10.7 billion in IBM. Up until that time, Buffett had been famous for not investing in technology companies, proclaiming that he didn’t understand them. And then – boom! – a massive investment in IBM. The investing world was shocked. It was almost as if the man had undergone a religious conversion.
Did Buffett all of a sudden understand technology companies? No. Buffett made no such assertion. In fact, he was very vague as to why he bought the IBM shares. However, IBM had announced its intention to replace a huge percentage of its American workers with badly-paid Third-World workers, and was moving briskly toward that goal.
IBM was one of the USA’s largest employers, fielding an army of well-paid middle-class information-technology (IT) workers. So, massive profits could be made over a period of many years by replacing those expensive workers with cheap labor from the Third World (primarily India). The sheer number of Americans to be eliminated is key because a small company doing the same thing wouldn’t be worth Buffett’s time.
As we saw in Dark Art #2, global labor arbitrage on IBM’s scale is enormously profitable, and Buffett’s investment in IBM proves that assertion.
IBM is a big advertiser, so if you look to the Oligarch Media for the story, you will hear nothing but crickets. However, veteran IT journalist Robert X. Cringely published all of the gory details on his blog:
Not Your Father’s IBM – Excerpt:
"Top management will remain, the sales organization will endure, as will employees working on U.S. government contracts that require workers to be U.S. citizens. Everyone else will be gone. Everyone."
Something’s Rotten in IBM Dubuque – Excerpt:
"Whenever IBM has a big project they now have to bring in extra workers, usually from India. …They make sure there are never more than two or three workers coming on the same flight, effectively avoiding notice by Homeland Security."
Magical Thinking at IBM – Excerpt:
"Every non-executive job at IBM is viewed as a commodity that can be farmed out to anyone, anywhere."
How to Fix IBM in a Week – Excerpt:
"A huge threat to revenue is the only way to move IBM in the proper direction."
We’re All Just Lab Rats to IBM – Excerpt:
"My recent IBM columns have stirred up a lot of interest everywhere except in the press. One reporter called from Dubuque, Iowa, but that’s all."
By 2015 IBM Will Look Like Oracle – Excerpt:
"…what could be one heck of a class action lawsuit."
The Walton Family – Top-Tier Oligarchs
Many American companies are forced to play the globalization game, or face being wiped-out by lower-priced competition. Walmart is not one of those companies. Walmart is not forced to play by the rules; they have been writing the rules. More than any other company, Walmart has been the engine driving Ross Perot’s "giant sucking sound."
Walmart was the pioneer of the low-wage/free-trade system of the American Oligarchy. Notorious for fighting unionization, it is less well known that Walmart lobbied hard for NAFTA and globalization. Walmart forces U.S. manufacturers to move to China in order to reduce prices, funds "Right to Work" organizations, operates "sweat warehouses," and purchases products from America’s most-brutal sweatshops such as C.J.’s Seafood.
Walmart has an incredibly high turnover rate. So much so that it needed to report the fact to the Securities and Exchange Commission in its 2010 10-K filing: "the company…experiences significant turnover in employees each year." Walmart did not mention an exact rate, but outside sources estimate 50-70% of workers quit within the first year. Walmart operates a "chew them up and spit them out" system as we discussed in Dark Art #6.
The Mexico City Walmart was sort of a Potemkin Village used to sell NAFTA to the American people. (See page 253 of To Serve God and Wal-Mart by Bethany Moreton.)
A large chunk of the income of former middle-class Americans has been transferred to the Walton Family. Today, there are 46 million Americans living in poverty, and the six members of the Walton Family have more money than all of them combined. Many Walmart employees live below the poverty line. (Read more here, and see Wikipedia’s Criticism of Walmart page.)
The Walton Family Foundation also funds organizations striving to privatize public schools. This would be another huge profit center as middle-class teachers are beat down to working class.
Walmart is the jet engine of the Oligarchy.
Jimmy Carter – Political Enforcer
President Carter and Vice President Mondale were members of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Their mission was to convince Japan and Germany to open their economies to imports from Latin American nations that owed money to Rockefeller. They failed.
Ronald Reagan – Political Enforcer
Reagan was the figurehead of the "military industrial complex" faction of the Oligarchy. He disdained the Carter-Trilateral-Rockefeller wing. He didn’t want to sell Coca-Cola to the Chinese; he wanted to point missiles at them – lots and lots of missiles. However, the Vietnam War was still fresh in American minds in 1980, and the risk of escalating with the Soviet Union made even the smallest wars very risky. So, while Reagan didn’t actually invade any countries, aside from Grenada, he most certainly did come through with a huge amount of military spending.
Reagan was a traditional American protectionist. He forced automobile import quotas on the Japanese, forced Japan and Germany to revalue their currencies, and employed Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Reagan slowed down the process of globalization.
The globalist wing of the Oligarchy was represented in the Reagan administration by "Rockefeller Republican" Vice President George H.W. Bush. However, Bush couldn’t get busy on NAFTA until he became president in 1989. When Bush ran for re-election in 1992, Buchanan entered the race, and Bush denounced him as a protectionist. But even though Bush lost that race, the globalists didn’t lose because Clinton was a globalist too, and Clinton signed the NAFTA bill into law.
It’s important to remember that both wings of the Oligarchy always have considerable "representation" in every administration. During the Reagan Administration, the banker wing was represented by former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan who was first Secretary of the Treasury and then White House Chief of Staff. In the infamous "speed it up" video, you can see Regan giving the President a direct order. Why would Regan do such a thing in public? He was clearly showing people who was boss. A man drunk on is own power, putting on a foolish display, not realizing that oligarchs must not flaunt their power over elected officials if they expect to survive.
George H.W. Bush – Political Enforcer
President Bush signed the NAFTA treaty with Mexico and Canada, and made David Rockefeller’s dream come true.
Bill Clinton – Political Enforcer
Signed the NAFTA bill into law. Teamed up with Newt Gingrich to evolve GATT into the WTO. Brought China into the WTO. Bungled the deal with the Chinese who initially offered American companies the ability to hold a 51% controlling interest in Chinese companies. Clinton turned down that offer, and desperate to get the deal done for his legacy, had to crawl back to the Chinese who lowered their offer to 49%. Probably the most-destructive president in U.S. history.
Newt Gingrich – Political Enforcer
Voted for NAFTA. As the "Speaker Elect," he led the Republican effort in the House of Representatives to get the WTO bill passed. Advocated bringing back child labor during the Republican presidential primaries in 2012.
George W. Bush – Political Enforcer
Bush spent most of his administration invading various countries. He also supported China’s entry into the WTO.
Grover Norquist – Protector and Magician
Grover Norquist has convinced numerous Republican politicians to swear to his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." Disobedient politicians face defeat in their next elections at the hands of Norquist’s hordes of grass-roots voters. By convincing his gullible conservative followers to oppose all tax increases, he effectively hypnotized them into supporting the Oligarchy. Many oligarchs pay taxes at lower rates than Norquist’s followers. Multinational corporations funnel revenue through tax havens and pay very low rates. Norquist is their protector.
Al Gore – Snake-Oil Salesman
Gore, and the slick marketing team behind him, defeated the more humble, down-to-earth Ross Perot, to get NAFTA passed. Today we know that nearly all of Gore’s statements were lies, many proving to be spectacularly so.
Barack Obama – Political Enforcer
Obama campaigned against NAFTA, but after he was elected he expanded "free trade" to South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. He also pushed the NAFTA-like Trans-Pacific Partnership. Obama prevented the people from putting the bankers back in their cages during the Great Recession. He did the opposite of what FDR did during the Great Depression.
Larry Kudlow – Ideological Enforcer
Most of the people who work for the Oligarch Media are simple propagandists dutifully reading the scripts scrolling down their teleprompters. But CNBC’s Larry Kudlow will ruthlessly tear into any fellow Republican he thinks is straying from the oligarch party line.
Mark Cuban was watching CNBC during Mitt Romney’s speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, and was surprised when Kudlow tore into the candidates:
Cuban was expecting Kudlow to support his fellow Republicans. However, party affiliation means nothing to oligarchs. What counts is the oligarch party line, which is: "We should not be taxed or regulated!" After all, how can one go about doing "god’s work" when the "small people" are constantly nipping at your heals?
Kudlow was upset that Romney did not forcefully demand more tax cuts for the rich. He was also upset with the usage of the phrase "tax fairness" in Paul Ryan’s speech, because that is code for raising taxes on the rich.
Kudlow, with no need of a teleprompter, vociferously campaigns for all the key points of the Oligarch Agenda: unrestricted offshoring of jobs, unlimited immigration, tax cuts for the rich and corporations, savage austerity for the "small people," unlimited despoliation of the environment, the crushing of labor unions, the privatization of every government function, etc. If you want to know what the Oligarchy’s position is on current events, you can find out by watching Kudlow.
Thomas L. Friedman – Snake-Oil Salesman
Just like Al Gore sold the snake oil of NAFTA to the American people in the early 1990s, so today does Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times sell us the snake oil of total globalization. Friedman preaches the literal dissolution of the USA into the global collective.
In 2012, when unemployment was over 8%, and there were 46 million Americans on food stamps, Friedman wrote:
"Forget about ‘outsourcing.’ In today’s hyper-connected world, there is no ‘in’ and no ‘out.’"
According to Friedman, only rubes and bumpkins believe in the "myth" of outsourcing. There is no "in" or "out" because there are no borders; no USA – only multinational corporations arranging the people of the globe to suit their profit margins.
On the right, Paul Ryan and The Wall Street Journal preach "Savage Austerity." On the left, Thomas Friedman and The New York Times preach "Brutal Globalization." Friedman kicks you out of the middle class, and when you request assistance, Ryan kicks you when you’re down. So, get used to it because this is the face of the Oligarchy.
In an October 20, 2012 column, Friedman wrote:
"…one brutal fact: ‘The high-wage, medium-skilled job is over,’ as Stefanie Sanford, a senior education expert at the Gates Foundation, puts it. The only high-wage jobs, whether in manufacturing or services, will be high-skilled ones, requiring more and better education…"
Friedman’s "brutal fact" is no such thing. If he were honest, he would call it what it is: a brutal policy. The foundation of Friedman’s propaganda effort is the Big Lie that globalization is an irreversible force of nature, like a tsunami that can’t be stopped. It is no such thing. It is a policy being imposed upon the USA by the Oligarchy. It is no more a "fact" than were the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq sold to us by another snake oil salesman – Colin Powell.
Friedman is actively propagating the "open immigration" meme, where "open" means "unlimited," or "quantities sufficient to displace all Americans currently employed by Corporate America," or "however many immigrant workers Corporate America wants."
Here is what Friedman wrote in the New York Times on October 30, 2012 (link):
"And the Republican-dominated Chamber of Commerce here is leading the charge for open immigration, so Minnesota can bring in more knowledge workers from India to enrich its work force."
Why is Friedman carrying on about this? Because IBM has a huge facility in Rochester, Minnesota, and is a member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, and is scrubbing its staff clean of American citizens. Here is a video of Friedman lecturing at IBM where he asserts that American citizenship is worthless (at the 28:22 mark):
"Get your kids to think like new immigrants…We are all new immigrants today… We are new immigrants to a hyper-connected world. And how does the new immigrant think? He or she starts every day and says: Nothing is owed me. Nothing is owed me in this world. There is no legacy place waiting for me at IBM or Harvard or my state university…"
Thomas Friedman wants you to teach your children that their American citizenship is of virtually no value; that, economically, they have no priority over non-citizens. Friedman wants you to condition your children to accept their downgraded status. He wants them to grow up docile, and accepting of their $2 per hour sweatshop jobs and shantytown homes. That way, there will be fewer protests and strikes, which will reduce the security costs of the Oligarchy, along with the payroll costs of IBM.
Bob Lutz – Minister of Hate
See the "Ruthless Smoking Gun #7" section above.
Peter G. Peterson – Minister of Austerity
A dead giveaway that a person is an oligarch is that he advocates austerity – always. After all, if benefits for the "small people" can be cut, then there is more room for tax cuts for the Oligarchy, or subsidies, or bailouts, or a splendid new war, etc.
For example, in 1974 President Nixon offered David Rockefeller the job of Secretary of the Treasury. Rockefeller turned down the offer because he didn’t want the bad publicity that the required "tough measures" would cause.  In 1978, Rockefeller did the same thing when President Carter wanted to make him Federal Reserve Chairman. Rockefeller said that he would be forced to implement "draconian policies." 
When David Rockefeller retired from being Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1985, his crony Peter G. Peterson took over. In 2007, Peterson became a billionaire after the initial public offering of his company, Blackstone Group, and Peterson had an epiphany – he decided to dedicate himself, and his wealth, to the grand cause of austerity. As he explains in a Newsweek magazine column titled: “Why I’m Giving Away $1 Billion” he set up The Peter G. Peterson Foundation with an incredible $1 billion endowment.
During the "Fiscal Cliff" crisis of 2012, Peterson donated even more money to the austerity campaign. Here are some stories:
John A. Allison, IV – Propagandist
Allison is the former CEO of BB&T bank, and now head of the libertarian Cato Institute. Allison appears to be an earnest devotee to an invalid ideology.
Charlene Barshefsky – Trade Negotiator
A member of the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations, Barshefsky was the U.S. Trade Representative who negotiated the agreement with China that culminated in China’s entry into the WTO. The November 15, 1999 agreement apparently has no official name, but can be downloaded from this page. It is more of a spreadsheet than a treaty.
Bill Gates – Colonizer
Bill Gates is doing a lot of good work via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. However, he has personally kicked thousands of Americans out of the middle class. Microsoft is a huge importer of cheap labor from India. In this video, you can see Gates testifying before Congress and calling for an "infinite" number of immigrants.
At 1:20 into the video, when asked how many H-1B visas he would like, Gates replies:
"My basic view is that an infinite number of people coming who are taking jobs that pay over $100,000 a year, they’re going to pay taxes, we create lots of other jobs around those people. My basic view is that the country should welcome as many of those people as we can get."
Gates acts as if these would be new jobs. However, all of the available evidence shows that tech companies fire existing well-paid American workers and replace them with immigrants making far less.
At 3:05, Gates says about limits on immigration:
"That’s sort of like a centrally-managed economy."
This is a common refrain among oligarchs and their libertarian flunkies: that any sort of restriction on corporate behavior is tantamount to communist central planning. What Gates is really arguing for is anarcho-fascism where corporations do whatever the hell they want – including destroying their host nations.
We do not need any of the H-1B workers Gates is demanding. For a detailed analysis of the work-visa programs, see this blog post by tech journalist Robert X. Cringely.
Bill Gates wants to re-colonize America with "better" people. And to the oligarchs, "better" means "works cheaper." What will happen after Microsoft replaces all of its American workers with Indians? They would start looking for even cheaper workers. Maybe the next wave would be Vietnamese, Indonesian, or Argentinean. Who knows? In any case, the Indians already here shouldn’t get too comfortable because their new corporate masters have zero loyalty.
Edward Conard – The Oligarchy’s Ambassador to America
Edward Conard was a managing director of Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital from 1993 until 2007. In 2012, he wrote a book titled: "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy is Wrong." The title really means: "All the blame directed at the Oligarchy for the Financial Crisis of 2008 is wrong."
The book is an astonishing defense of all the excesses perpetrated by the financial elite leading up to the crisis. It is astonishing not only because it is a flat-out endorsement of the Oligarchy, but because it claims that they can virtually do no wrong. In other words, the book is completely insane. However, it is important to study because it might be the closest thing that we have to a Rockefeller Manifesto.
Throughout his book, Conard rails against "income redistribution." He acts as if redistribution only goes one way: from rich to poor. However, the policies he champions cause massive redistribution in the other direction: from poor to rich. Mass immigration depresses wages for American workers and bloats-up corporate profits. Offshoring cuts the income of affected workers to zero, redistributing even more wealth into corporate profits.
Conard would retort that the income of American workers was "artificial" in the first place because artificial barriers protected them from being paid an "equilibrium" wage. What barriers are those? Trade and immigration barriers. You know, a little thing called American sovereignty.
Conard is an enemy of the policies that created the American middle class. And he is completely oblivious to the fact that income is always redistributed. Immigration and trade policies are political questions with a wide scale of possible settings – any of which will result in different types of income redistribution.
Think about it like this: Suppose you are gold miner and have discovered a vein of gold in the countryside. You need a gang of men to mine the vein. How should the profits of the work be split? Since you found the gold and own the land, you should get the lion’s share. Perhaps you would get 50% and the workers would split up the other 50%. More likely, you would just go into town and hire workers at the going rate.
Now suppose that times are good and unemployment is low. Everybody has a job, so to hire your men, you need to offer them substantially higher wages than they are already getting. Once you strike deals with each man, you calculate that your profit will only be 40%. You are disappointed, but you mine the gold anyway. The project is a success, and everybody involved makes a nice profit.
Then you locate another vein. This time around, you vow to make a higher profit. Why should you pay high wages to the local prima-donna workmen? There is news of a famine in Portugal, and your eyes light up. You think: "Ka-Ching! Starving people will work cheap!" Filled with excitement, you fly to Portugal, hire a crew for pennies on the dollar, fly them to Canada, and then sneak them across the U.S. border. They mine your gold, you make a 90% profit, fire the workers, who then shuffle into town to apply for food stamps.
Congratulations! You have executed a splendid redistribution of wealth! Wages that would have otherwise been paid to U.S workers, are now safely ensconced in you Cayman Islands account. And all that you had to do was violate American sovereignty. You get an A+ in Oligarchy 101 – Principles of Evading Sovereignty.
Of course, in real life, you might use H1-B visas, student "guest worker" programs, or illegal immigrants already here. But the Conard principal is the same: use the global surplus of people to redistribute wealth from American workers to oligarchs – even if you have to erase the USA’s borders in the process.
Conard believes that we should worship the Oligarchy because they are on top of the heap for good reason (Kindle 185):
"Survival of the fittest ruthlessly prunes away less capable alternatives, ensuring that only the most valuable and robust remain…We should be highly skeptical of proposals that claim to offer improvements, and scrutinize them carefully for unintended consequences."
And the Oligarchy was indeed "skeptical" of the "proposals" that created the middle class. So much so that they planned a fascist coup against President Roosevelt. Today, Conard carries on that fight against what remains of the middle class.
Like many oligarchs, the robot-like Conard ticks some boxes on the PCL-R psychopathology test. In this New York Times interview, Conard ticks the “emotionally shallow” box:
"God didn’t create the universe so that talented people would be happy. It’s not beautiful. It’s hard work. It’s responsibility and deadlines, working till 11 o’clock at night when you want to watch your baby and be with your wife. It’s not serenity and beauty."
Working hard to achieve one’s goals is admirable. But working hard for the sake of working hard is the result of brainwashing. And that is what the Oligarchy demands of, not only its peons, but of its overseers, and its oligarchs-in-training, like Conard. This is nearly the same attitude that was the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp: "Arbeit macht frei" – "work makes you free."
Conard is also an "internet denier." He scoffs at the federal government’s role in developing the internet. At 18:30 into his C-SPAN interview, Conard says:
"I’m skeptical of it…When you think about the internet, think about all the commercialization of it that’s occurred since 1992 or 1993 when they came up with the browsers. Almost all of that has been done by private enterprise. Very little of it…was done by the government."
Sure, but that commercialization could not have happened without the infrastructure being invented in the first place. It’s like denying that the road is of any importance to the shops now thriving on it. This is a typical arrogant oligarch attitude.
There’s plenty more to say about Conard. In fact, he wrote so many crazy things in his book, that another entire book could be written criticizing it.
In August 2011, Conard tried to sneak a huge $1 million campaign contribution to Mitt Romney via a dummy corporation, but was forced to fess up by watchdogs.
On June 6, 2012, Conard was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Conard won the debate with the liberal Stewart who totally failed to provide resistance to several ridiculous points asserted by Conard. The interview is in three parts: Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3.
Ayn Rand – Patron Saint of the Oligarchy
Ayn Rand did not invent laissez faire capitalism, however she popularized it with her novel, Atlas Shrugged, and thereby did more to return the Oligarchy to a position of nearly absolute power than anybody else. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. Thirty years later, the ideological movement that followed culminated in Alan Greenspan being appointed as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1987.
Alan Greenspan – The Oligarchy’s Referee
Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand’s inner circle, and read Atlas Shrugged as Rand was writing the book. Greenspan removed many restrictions on the financial sector just as David Rockefeller was constructing the international trading system that would send a tidal wave of former middle-class money at the U.S. financial system. Rockefeller created the hurricane, and Greenspan took down the storm shutters. Greenspan refereed the Financial Oligarchy’s games, but never called a single penalty. He enabled, and presided over a system of near financial anarchy.
Phil Gramm – Political Enforcer
Phil Gramm was an economics professor before he entered politics as a Democrat. He later switched to the Republican Party, and was the driving force in turning the banksters loose on America. The Senator’s "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" of 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had kept the banksters caged since the Great Depression. Gramm was also instrumental in getting the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" passed. That bill created the CDS casino business and was a huge factor in the Financial Crisis of 2008. We will discuss these disastrous laws further in the "Dethroning the Bankers" section below.
The Republican Party – The Grand Oligarchy Party
Much of the destruction of the middle class can be laid at the door of the Democratic Party. After all, David Rockefeller’s globalization program was mostly implemented by Bill Clinton. However, the "Party of Lincoln" has become a flat-out advocate of the Oligarchy. Democrats worry about our headlong plunge toward a two-class society. But the Republicans cheer it on, among other things, waging a viscous scorched-earth campaign against what remains of private-sector labor unions. The Republicans even nominated a rapacious, carpetbagging oligarch, Mitt Romney, as their presidential candidate in 2012.
"The fruits of abundance were everywhere, but they were cultivated."
-Judith Stein 
Aristotle taught that there were three basic forms of government: 1) Oligarchy, which is rule by the rich, 2) mob rule by the poor, and 3) middle-class rule. Aristotle believed that middle-class rule was the best. From Chapter XI of his Politics:
"The middle state is therefore best, as being least liable to those seditions and insurrections which disturb the community…"
Aristotle thought that when wealth is spread more evenly, people get along better.
A Middle Class Society Must Be Deliberately Constructed
Aristotle also taught that middle-class societies were rare:
"…a government has never been established where the supreme power has been placed amongst those of the middling rank, or very seldom…"
What’s fascinating about this ancient observation is that substantial statistical support for it was found by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto in 1909. Here is how Pareto’s discovery was described by the inventor of fractal geometry, Benoit Mandelbrot, in his book "The Misbehavior of Markets" (page 153):
"One of Pareto’s equations achieved special prominence, and controversy. He was fascinated by problems of power and wealth. How do people get it? How is it distributed around society? How do those who have it use it? The gulf between rich and poor has always been part of the human condition, but Pareto resolved to measure it. He gathered reams of data on wealth and income through different centuries, through different countries: the tax records of Basel, Switzerland, from 1454 and from Augsburg, Germany in 1471, 1498 and 1512; contemporary rental income from Paris; personal income from Britain, Prussia, Saxony, Ireland, Italy, Peru. What he found – or thought he found – was striking. When he plotted the data on graph paper, with income on one axis, and number of people with that income on the other, he saw the same picture nearly everywhere in every era. Society was not a "social pyramid" with the proportion of rich to poor sloping gently from one class to the next. Instead it was more of a "social arrow" – very fat on the bottom where the mass of men live, and very thin at the top where sit the wealthy elite. Nor was this effect by chance; the data did not remotely fit a bell curve, as one would expect if wealth were distributed randomly. "It is a social law", he wrote: something "in the nature of man."
Mandelbrot thought that Pareto’s formula was "a marvel," and summarized it (page 157):
"Money begets money, power makes power. Unfair, but true – both socially and mathematically."
Pareto’s discovery might be developed further into a concept called "naturally-occurring oligarchy" (to coin a phrase) because extreme wealth easily translates into political power. This phenomena is crucial because it teaches us that we cannot just sit back and wait for a middle-class society to materialize of its own accord. That a middle-class society must be purposely constructed, and that once established, vigilantly maintained.
We Americans have been conditioned to believe that our middle class was a natural development from the laissez-faire economics of our early history. And that is exactly what the oligarchs want you to believe. But in reality, the American middle-class was constructed with a conscious rejection of laissez-faire economics. And today, laissez-faire economics is being used to tear down the middle class.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that we know how to create a prosperous middle class because we already did it; and the project was an astonishing success. Like Judith Stein said in the quote above, the middle class was cultivated. By who, you ask? Well, certainly not the Oligarchy. As a matter of fact, the Oligarchy was tapped as a source of development funds by a progressive income tax.
How the Middle Class was Built
"The aftermath of World War II was even more decisive in ending the Depression. After the war ended, a series of laws was created that allowed returning soldiers to buy homes on credit, easily finance a college education, and become white-collar professionals. The federal government built an interstate highway system, opening up the areas around cities for residential construction. These measures constituted a vast transfer of wealth, spurring growth in factory and office work and maintaining wartime economic gains. The American middle class was born. Roosevelt’s reforms – dictated by World War II – were aimed at supporting the urban working class. They turned the ethnic working classes’ children into middle-class suburbanites."
-George Friedman 
In order to restore a middle-class America, we do not need to invent anything new. Rather, we only need to look back at our history, and examine the policies that created the middle class. And that middle-class marvel was built on the bedrock of restricted immigration. After all, it doesn’t matter how advanced your freshly-minted, GI-Bill degree is if there are a thousand other job applicants clutching similar diplomas in the waiting room of every job interview that you go to.
An Artificial Scarcity of People
"Within this present generation, that stream from abroad has largely stopped. We have within our shores today the materials out of which we shall continue to build an even better home for liberty."
-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, October 28, 1936
Bet you never heard that quote before, right? But it’s true, liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt stopped immigration almost completely during the Great Depression, and was satisfied to keep it that way. Only 23,068 immigrants came into the USA on FDR’s watch during all of 1933, and the decade of the 1930s had the lowest immigration since the continental United States was geographically constructed. Today, FDR would be considered a racist fascist. But he was right; we did indeed have enough people to build the world’s most-powerful nation as subsequent events proved.
Whether or not modern liberals want to admit it, FDR’s restriction of immigration was the foundation for the construction of the American middle class. The man laid down the very bedrock itself. Even the Oligarchy’s Ambassador to America, Edward Conard admits as much:
"…a restricted supply of labor, produced healthy wage growth." 
The very last thing that Conard and the Oligarchy want is a restricted supply of labor, let alone wage growth! No. The Oligarchy is very clear about its desire for Marx’s Reserve Army of Labor. This is why they love nations with vast seas of impoverished peasants like China, India, and Mexico. They want workers on their knees, begging for jobs in order to feed their starving children. A man with starving children will work for almost nothing.
Conard goes on:
"…a highly restricted supply of workers. For the sake of mankind, let’s hope those conditions aren’t repeated!" 
"Mankind?" What he should have said was "Oligarchkind."
Our experience with restricted immigration during the Great Depression is a proven policy for creating a middle class. Irrefutable. Cold. Hard. Fact. Diamond hard. Speaking of which… Just as the supply of diamonds is artificially restricted to make the gems more valuable, so too must we restrict the supply of Americans in a world where the number of humans, seven billion, is infinite for all practical intents and purposes.
Geopolitical expert George Friedman wrote in "The Next 100 Years" (page 120):
"In the 1920s, the world was in the midst of an accelerating population explosion. The problem facing the United States, and the world, was what to do with an ever-increasing pool of labor. Labor was cheap, and it tended to move to countries that were wealthy. The United States, facing an onslaught of potential immigrants, decided to limit their entry in order to keep the price of labor – wages – from plunging."
And it worked. Like a champ. And we can do it again.
However, the Oligarchy has other plans for its conquered American province. Here is Conard (Kindle 824) on the global masses:
"If their labor was free, how much of it should we buy? All of it. At seventy-five cents an hour, it is effectively free. At that price, surely we can find better uses for our own labor, just like the farmers with the low-cost tractor."
The Oligarchy is doing the exact opposite of what has been historically proven to create a middle class. Conard’s statement is a smoking gun that the middle class is being systematically dismantled. And the transition to the low-cost tractor wasn’t exactly painless. The "Grapes of Wrath" era of American history was no walk in the park for displaced farmers. In fact, over-eager adoption of mechanized farming caused catastrophic environmental damage to the Great Plains turning the area into the notorious Dust Bowl.
Now, George Friedman went on to write:
"The population surge is abating, and people are living longer. This leads to an older population, with fewer younger workers. It means that the United States will be short of workers no later than 2020…and will need immigrants to fill the gap."
Let’s suppose that this is true, and that our persistent unemployment problem will somehow be solved by 2020. That doesn’t change the fact that the Oligarchy’s policy is evil. After all, replacing older American workers with immigrants before the Americans retire destroys their financial condition. To see some real-life stories, watch Dan Rather Reports – No Thanks for Everything. For example, Diane Drozdowski was making a $48,000 salary as an SQL programmer at American Express. The company then brought two un-skilled men from India to replace her. The Indians said that they were being paid $10,000 each. Drozdowski was required to train them and was then fired. Notice that her replacements don’t make enough money to meaningfully contribute to the Social Security system – if they are contributing at all. (Note: SQL is a database programming language.)
We may need to actively recruit immigrants in the future to support the baby-boom generation in retirement. But that is not why the Oligarchy has brought the wave of immigrants. They have brought the wave to ruthlessly monetize the middle class.
The infamous Triangle Shirtwaist sweatshop fire occurred in 1911 – during a period of mass immigration – because when workers are plentiful, burning up a few is just a routine business expense. After all, a fresh batch of Jewish and Italian women will be on the next boat from the old country.
That is why we have no "limiting principle" for legal immigration. To an oligarch, you can never have too much cannon fodder.
To see how the oligarchs rationalize their destruction of the American middle class, consider this quote from journalist Chrystia Freeland’s book “Plutocrats” (Kindle 4238):
“I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”
The communist Chinese regime learned about sweatshops from their cousins on Taiwan. They didn’t see a third way. They saw their failing communist system, and Taiwan’s profitable sweatshop system. So, the Taiwanese-born CFO in the quote above is suffering from “Chinese Disease” where the concept of a middle class is weird and alien. He just doesn’t get it. He acts as if the ocean of cheap labor is a recent development, which it most certainly is not. We Americans solved the problem over 150 years ago. Consider this quote from the 1851 book “The Harmony of Interests: Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Commercial” written by economist Henry C. Carey:
“Two systems are before the world… One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level.”
The global surplus of labor has been around almost as long as the industrial revolution itself. We Americans found the cure for Chinese Disease: protectionism, which not only allowed us to industrialize rapidly, but also enabled us to build the world’s largest, and wealthiest middle class.
However it occurs, overpopulation is dehumanizing. The fact that we have created overpopulation on purpose is an appalling betrayal of the American people, and the root cause of the increased brutality found in American workplaces.
End Global Labor Arbitrage
The globalists like to argue that we don’t have to worry about labor arbitrage any more because global wages will soon reach an "equilibrium level." For example, Chinese wages will rise, and American wages will fall, until they reach a stable, matching level. But if that does happen, it will be by U.S. wages doing the bulk of the adjusting. Downward. Drastically.
The Oligarchy didn’t go to all that trouble of building sweatshops in low-wage nations for nothing. They built them there with expectations that brutal host governments would see to it that wages stayed low. And so they have. While the Mexican economy has grown dramatically (at the expense of the USA) thanks to globalization, the 2010 Mexican Census found that 57% of workers make less than $13.50 a day, which is $1.69 per hour.
Nevertheless, this will remain an important propaganda talking-point for the Oligarchy. But rest assured, their intention is to drive U.S. wages down to the "global rate" of $2 per hour.
In a world with 7 billion people, none of us will live to see the day when Third World wages rise to current American standards. And even if global labor arbitrage did come to an end, that would not change the fact that 47 million people have piled-up on the food-stamp rolls. The mass poverty caused by the arbitrage doesn’t just disappear – it remains, waiting for justice.
Some things never change. The same "wages will rise automatically" logic was used in 1930 when chain stores first arrived in the Midwest. Small businessmen fought a long political battle to turn back the big stores, and The Nation magazine editorialized :
"The wages in chain stores for employees other than managers are inadequate and will eventually be raised. The chains will realize that it is to their own advantage to pay their labor well."
We are still waiting for Walmart to "realize" it. Waiting for equilibrium is equivalent to waiting for the pauperization of American workers.
Modern-day Republicans recoil in horror at the idea of progressive taxation (a.k.a. "taxing the rich") but that wasn’t always the case. In fact, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt pushed hard for progressive taxes throughout his administration, and such taxes became law during the administration of his hand-picked successor, Republican president William Howard Taft. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution establishing the income tax was ratified on February 3, 1913 while Taft was still president.
For example, in a speech on April 14, 1906, Roosevelt said:
"It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business."
However, Roosevelt explicitly rejected socialism in his 1907 State of the Union Address:
"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea…Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country…"
Only four years after the 16th Amendment was adopted, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia. So, as history shows, we can conclude that the Progressive Republican approach to the problem of naturally-occurring oligarchy was far superior to the Russian solution.
Modern Republicans fear that the proceeds of progressive taxation will fuel socialism; the fruits of their oligarch patrons being simply transferred to a permanent freeloader class. And this is indeed an important question: what is to be done with the additional revenue? However, the answer is simple: investment in the nation. Infrastructure, basic research, improved education, etc.
Republican President Eisenhower used the proceeds of the 92% top income-tax rate to build the interstate highway system. You don’t see many Republicans arguing with that project. Today, nobody argues that our infrastructure is in need of a massive overhaul. So, there’s our first great project.
For many on the left, progressive taxation is the only cure needed to treat the problem of naturally-occurring oligarchy. And that might be true in a closed system. However, in a wide-open globalized system such as we have today, the oligarchs will simply move to a more accommodating jurisdiction and continue to devour the American middle class from afar. Thus, further measures are required.
Deglobalization – Ending the Oligarchy’s Looting Spree
It’s painfully obvious that globalization has been a disaster for the American people. It has been a great success for the Oligarchy, but has wrecked the middle class, and devastated the working class. It is time that we admit the failure and put an end to it.
It is important to understand that this does not mean ending international trade. It merely means that we renegotiate our trade agreements to make them work for all of the American people, rather than just a handful of oligarchs.
Globalization and international trade are not synonymous. Legitimate trade is when the USA sells earth-movers to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia sells oil to the USA. Both nations benefit from each other’s strengths. Globalization is when the earth-mover plant is moved to Mexico for the sole purpose of reducing payroll expenses, and the earth-movers are then re-imported into the USA. That harms the USA, and is flat-out looting by the oligarchs who set it in motion.
So, the entire edifice of our trade treaties must be revoked and renegotiated. We should immediately announce our exit from the WTO, NAFTA, etc. Such a transition will not be easy, and should not be done abruptly. In fact, we could not do it abruptly even if we wanted to. It would be very painful to be suddenly cut off from Chinese electronics, Mexican cars, or Italian eyeglasses.
Re-industrializing will be a huge job spanning many years, and will require a great deal of scholarly debate to choose the best strategy. Perhaps a good approach would be to declare a "sunset" date for all of our free-trade agreements ten years hence. That will give industry time to plan and adjust. To spur things along, we could implement an across-the-board tariff of perhaps 10%, to be raised 1% per year for the next ten years.
Globalization Checklist – When combating globalization, one needs to know about each of its components. So here is a checklist of the things that an oligarch looks for in a nation before moving an American plant there:
1) Free trade – no tariffs on products exported back to USA.
2) Free money – investment capital can be sent there, and profits can come back here with no charges assessed.
3) Free immigration – employees can travel back-and-forth unrestricted.
4) A devalued currency – the nation’s currency is kept artificially cheap to ensure that sweatshop exports undercut the products of domestic producers in the USA.
5) A currency peg – after devaluation, the nation "pegs" its currency to the U.S. dollar. Its treasury department and central bank manipulate the currency to ensure that the exchange rate remains the same regardless of fluctuations in the value of the dollar. That locks in the advantage created by the devaluation in step #4 and demonstrates the nation’s commitment to keeping the Oligarchy’s sweatshops profitable.
6) Tyranny – ensures profitable operations by repressing labor unions; beating and killing workers; running them over with tanks, etc.
From the list above, you can see that globalization isn’t "free trade" at all. In fact, it is a form of colonialism. American oligarchs partner with corrupt, tyrannical regimes around the world to exploit their "labor resources" (people) like so much oil, rubber, or bauxite.
Protectionism and Tariffs
Only a few years after full-blown "free trade" began with China, our economy lay in ruins, our banking system smashed, the federal government trillions of dollars in debt, and 50 million people living in poverty. Only a herculean effort by the Federal Reserve Bank revived the corpse, which is barely able to stagger on its own two feet to this day.
We have been betrayed and looted by the Oligarchy and their predatory mercantilist Third-World sweatshop partners. It is time that we begin to see ourselves for what we really are: a developing nation in need of protection from foreign imports.
It is not possible for us to recover while competing with imports from nations which maintain massively devalued currencies and barbaric sweatshop working conditions and wages. And it is a simple fact of history that no nation ever rose to great-power status by embracing free trade. It is just the opposite: only protectionism can deliver rapid growth in a world infested with mercantilist sharks.
You might argue that protectionism worked okay for the first 150 years, or so, of our nation’s history, but the horse-and-buggy days are gone and protectionism doesn’t work in the modern "hyper connected" world. But you would be wrong. In fact, we have just witnessed a spectacular protectionist success in South Korea.
For a long time, South Korea was one of the few places in the world where you couldn’t find a Toyota to save your life. Why not? Because of their "Automobile Industry Protection Act" adopted in 1962. The Oligarch Media preaches that such protectionism always results in shoddy products because domestic companies are shielded from the discipline of foreign competition. But South Korea put the lie to that propaganda. South Korea now has the 5th largest auto industry in the world, and is gaining on mighty Germany. See the league tables here. Hyundai and Kia cars are now among the top brands in the USA, providing stiff competition to American and Japanese brands, and easily out-selling German brands.
We can do the same thing the Koreans just did, and we can do it in numerous industries, because we have lost numerous industries.
A flat, across-the-board tariff, as economist Ian Fletcher proposes, is probably best. However, an extra-high tariff may be required to bring textile industries back from low-wage nations. We need those jobs for the low-IQ segment of our population. Remember, when thinking about jobs, you must always ask yourself: "Where will the fans of ‘professional’ wrestling work?"
The American School of Economics
This manifesto is rooted in the historic American formula for economic success. The strategy that the USA used to surpass the British Empire was called the American School of Economics (ASE). Set into motion by President Lincoln in 1861, the ASE remained in effect until the early 1970s.
Today, we are continually harangued by Republicans to privatize the functions of government, such as the Post Office. We are told that the private sector can do anything better than our bumbling, incompetent, government bureaucrats. However, the Republican Party was founded with the exact opposite philosophy.
One of the first things that the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, did was to build the world’s first transcontinental railroad. The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 financed the construction with grants of federal land, and funds from 30-year government bonds. It was a spectacular success, and dramatically sped up the development of the western United States.
The ASE had seven pillars:
1) Protective tariffs.
2) Government-directed economic development.
3) A national banking system.
4) Government support of science.
5) Government support of public schools.
6) Rejection of Marxian class struggle.
7) Government subsidy of business (such as agriculture).
It could be argued that the restriction of immigration implemented during the Great Depression became an integral part of the system. The ASE aimed for harmony between labor and capital, and it had become obvious that the overpopulated condition of the nation was a grave threat to that harmony.
Under the ASE, the national banking system did not fuel stock-market speculation. Lincoln issued his famous “greenbacks” to help pay for the Civil War, but the money was spent buying things from Main Street. Afterward, Congress adjusted the amount of greenbacks in circulation by buying more things from Main Street. Today, the Federal Reserve Bank also adjusts the money supply, however, it does so by purchasing treasury bonds from banks. This approach would work much better if modern banks weren’t also operating financial casinos, because when the Fed injects money into the system today, it can fuel speculation on Wall Street just as easily as the intended increase of credit to Main Street.
The USA abandoned the ASE in the early 1970s, and switched to David Rockefeller’s “Chicago School” of global free trade. The Chicago School is very similar to the “British School” which wrecked the United Kingdom. Rockefeller did a year of post-graduate work at the London School of Economics in 1937 where his tutor was the free-market “Austrian School” economist Friedrich von Hayek. Rockefeller also studied under Joseph Schumpeter, another “Austrian” at Harvard, and got his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, which his grandfather, John D. Rockefeller bankrolled.
The Chicago School, British School, Austrian School, Washington Consensus, neo-liberalism, and laissez-faire capitalism are all pretty much the same thing: rationalizations for oligarchs to loot. David Rockefeller is responsible for turning the patriotic Republican Party into the Party of the Oligarchy.
Tariffs did not Cause the Great Depression
As we mentioned in the Ross Perot vs. Al Gore section, international trade at the beginning of the Great Depression was a small percentage of GDP, and not by itself capable of destroying the economy. Rather, something much more profound than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff occurred in 1931: the British went off of the gold standard.
The British pound sterling was the world’s reserve currency up until 1944 when the dollar took over in the Bretton Woods system. So, British actions during the Great Depression were far more important than they are today. On September 21, 1931, the Bank of England went off the gold standard in what amounted to a deliberate currency devaluation. That triggered a chain of bank failures which intensified, and eventually culminated in President Roosevelt’s “Bank Holiday” in March 1933.
However, the British action also smashed the international trading system. It became impossible to clear transactions – just like the brief seize-up during the Financial Crisis of 2008. Nations without resources in the 1930s, like Germany, Italy, and Japan could no longer buy what they needed on the international market, and had to make plans to acquire resources by a different method: conquest.
The USA remained on the gold standard, and saw exports plunge as a result since we were essentially demanding to be paid in gold when nobody had any. Many nations had held their currency reserves in sterling, which had been grievously depreciated, and could therefore not purchase the gold or dollars needed to buy our exports. The USA did not go off of the gold standard until April 30, 1933 – almost two years later – and the economy immediately bounced back. (See this.)
During the Financial Crisis of 2008, international trade ground to a halt all by itself – without a single tariff being raised. In fact, that was the lowest-tariff period in American history (see table here.) Our experience in 2008 shows that the “London Gold Exit” is a more plausible explanation for the Great Depression than Smoot-Hawley. As a matter of fact, to hear the globalists tell it, you would think that a financial crisis would be impossible here in their free-trade paradise – which it clearly was not. The smooth operation of international trade is almost completely dependent upon there being trust between the banks that issue the “letters of credit” which finance trade between nations. Compared to that, tariffs are a minor issue.
The collapse of international trade in 2008 is the top reason why the Financial Oligarchy must be dethroned. Turning banks into casinos is literally a threat to world peace.
Dethroning the Bankers
In response to the Great Depression, a series of restrictions were placed on banking in order to prevent future crises. Those restrictions worked; they were a great success for decades until they were removed.
Bring Back the Glass-Steagall Act
We must bring back the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was officially revoked in 1999. Glass-Steagall prevented banks and brokers from operating under the same roof. It prevented your bank from gambling with your savings – clearly a good idea – and created several decades of stable banking in the USA. Then the Financial Oligarchy bribed Congress to erode away Glass-Steagall. From PBS Frontline:
"In the 1997-98 election cycle, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (known as the FIRE sector), spends more than $200 million on lobbying and makes more than $150 million in political donations. Campaign contributions are targeted to members of Congressional banking committees and other committees with direct jurisdiction over financial services legislation."
The Oligarchy’s desire to merge banks with brokers is so that they can have more deposits to gamble with. And as we found out in 2008, they are not skilled gamblers. So, the institutions that hold your money, like banks and insurance companies must once again be strictly excluded from the gambling sector – even if the casinos are called "investment banks." We know what works, and what does not work with banking. We have historical precedent. It is not an issue open to question. Retail banking must be operated as a public utility. Not only is that a better way to organize the industry, but a more-boring organization will drive out the psychopaths who crave action for the sake of action (see the psychopath sections below.)
Revoke the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
We must revoke the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), which protected credit default swaps (CDS) from regulation. One of the nuclear blasts of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was caused by CDS trading at the insurance company, AIG. An $85 billion bailout was required to prevent a systemic meltdown. The CFMA prevented states from regulating CDS trading with gambling laws, because that’s exactly what it is: gambling. And it is totally outrageous that important financial institutions like banks and insurance companies are allowed to operate these CDS casinos.
A Financial Transaction Tax
We pay sales tax on nearly everything we buy, so why shouldn’t the Oligarchy also pay a sales tax when they buy stocks, bonds, options, futures contracts, etc? It was David Rockefeller and other bankers who sent our industrial firms to foreign lands. And one of the consequences of that globalization is that the stream of income taxes, and corporate taxes, flowing into the federal treasury is a lot less than it would have been otherwise.
Meanwhile, when the former middle-class funds return from nations like China, which have been enriched by the bankers’ globalization, those funds bloat up our financial sector. So, while the planks in this manifesto are being implemented, a financial transaction tax (FTT) should be applied to Wall Street. The tax should not effect anyone trading less than, say, $1,000,000 per year, or whatever level that would be sufficient to exclude the middle class from the tax.
Proceeds would be spent to support and retrain the millions of unemployed victims of globalization, and to rebuild infrastructure in preparation for the return of the factories.
France was the first nation to adopt an (FTT) in August 2012. However, it appears that the law will need to be modified because it excluded many derivative instruments such as ETFs. Ideally, all trading instruments would be traded on public exchanges and assessed the same sales tax – just like Chinese sneakers in a Walmart.
Return Investment Banks to Partnerships
Prior to 1970, the New York Stock Exchange prohibited member firms from incorporating. The Securities and Exchange Commission also forced investment banks to operate as partnerships instead of corporations. This convention was a result of the financial chaos of the Great Depression. Since the owners of a partnership are liable for company misdeeds, the SEC thought that that form of organization would encourage more responsible behavior. If they were corporations, the owners would be shielded from liability, and could engage in more risky activities.
The SEC was right. The investment banks that triggered the Financial Crisis of 2008 were incorporated. For example, Bear Stearns was founded in 1923, but incorporated in 1985. The other two big investment banks that disappeared, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, were also incorporated. Firms organized as partnerships fared much better in weathering the oligarchic chaos. 
The historical evidence is conclusive: investment banks must be organized as partnerships, or private companies, for their own good, the good of the nation, and the world.
The New York Stock Exchange
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) used to be operated as a non-profit organization designed to facilitate orderly trading between member firms. In 2005, the NYSE was converted into a for-profit corporation as part of the privatization craze. From the Financial Times:
"The SEC hoped these new regulations would increase competition. Indeed, spreads have narrowed in the most active stocks and commission rates have dropped, but there’s no free lunch. Due to a lack of economic incentives, traditional market makers, who used to act as shock absorbers in times of volatility, have exited the business, only to be replaced by ‘automated market makers.’"
Only five years after the privatization, public confidence in the NYSE was severely damaged by the Flash Crash of May 6, 2010. The tarnished reputation of the NYSE is a consequence of the maniacal application of laissez-faire ideology to everything that moves. And it harms the real economy by reducing investment money to new companies via initial public offerings (IPO). The Facebook IPO was an excellent example of the "small people" getting burned by Wall Street. Such incidents inspire people to stuff their money into their mattresses rather than IPOs.
Smash the Dollar/Yuan Currency Peg
In Dark Art #7, we discussed the damage being done to the USA by the dollar/yuan currency peg. So, what is to be done? In his historic “China Speech” on November 19, 2010, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke urged the Chinese to play fair and let market forces determine the exchange rate. And that is exactly what an honest trading partner would do. But of course, China is no such thing, and will never voluntarily let its currency float to an equilibrium level set by the forces of supply and demand.
Expecting the Chinese to float the yuan is tantamount to expecting them to give up mercantilism; to abandon the beating heart of their economic strategy; to expect the parasite to voluntarily stop sucking the host’s blood. Not going to happen.
An across-the-board tariff will nullify a large chunk of the peg’s effect. However, if the yuan is kept cheap enough, it might be necessary to put an additional tariff on Chinese imports. The amount would be whatever it takes to bring the prices of Chinese imports up to the level of domestic prices. So, if a Chinese tire, for example, is made with slave labor in a plant built on free land from the state, financed with a 0%-interest state loan, and sells for $50 thanks to the devalued currency, and the equivalent American-made tire sells for $80, a 20% across-the-board tariff would only bring the Chinese tire up to $60. So, an additional “China Special” tariff would be required.
This would be very, very unpopular with the multinationals that have moved so many plants to China. However, the American people would be overjoyed to get their jobs back as those factories came home.
If the Chinese cried “uncle” and let the yuan float in order to get the punitive tariff removed, factories would still return to the USA because much of the cost advantage would disappear as the yuan appreciated. However, the stronger yuan would make American products more affordable to the Chinese people.
The globalists constantly preach “free trade” except when it comes to currency trading. Then they demand that the dollar/yuan exchange-rate be set by dictatorial decree in Beijing. This fact puts the lie to the entire globalist edifice, which is not about free trade at all. Rather, it is about tilting the playing field in their direction, and only then allowing “free trade” to occur because they know the deck is stacked in their favor.
Bernanke’s “China Speech” was a revolutionary act because it directly challenged the keystone of the Oligarchy’s system. Fed stalkers who don’t understand this are simply knuckleheads. Unfortunately, the Fed has no control over trade policy and has no power to put tariffs on the Chinese. That power is assigned to the Congress by the Constitution.
And guess what? Beijing has a man in the Congress defending their interests. When commenting on a 2011 Senate bill to retaliate against China’s currency manipulation, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner said:
“I think it’s pretty dangerous to be moving legislation through the United States Congress forcing someone to deal with the value of their currency. This is well beyond, I think, what the Congress ought to be doing.”
Hard to believe. Exchange rates are an integral part of international trade, and Congress is charged by the Constitution to regulate trade. So, Boehner’s statement violates his oath of office where he swore to: “…defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
We had the same type of currency exchange-rate problem with Japan in the 1980s. Back then, during the Ronald Reagan administration, we put the smack down on the Japanese and forced-up the value of the yen dramatically with the Plaza Accord of 1985. We should have done the same thing with the Chinese long ago. But things are different this time around.
Back in the 1980s, American manufactures campaigned for the Plaza Accord. They fought hard to level the playing field with the Japanese. Not so today. Rather, it’s just the opposite. American-based multinationals send out flunkies like John Boehner to fight on behalf of Beijing because their factories are in China now.
And so what Boehner said is exactly right when we realize that the USA is no longer a sovereign nation. Boehner’s statement is a recognition that the Constitution is a dead letter, and the interests of Beijing come before the interests of the hapless American people.
A central tenet of Oligarchic rule is that the “local yokels” of the world’s nations – especially us American yokels – don’t have any say in trade or immigration policy. Borders shall be wide open to the convenience of multinationals. Whether they are exporting factories or importing cheap labor, plebs who imagine that they are still citizens of sovereign nations need to mind their beeswax. If Americans want to shake off their plebeian status, regain citizenship, and get their jobs back, they will have to sweep traitors like Boehner from office.
What Will Become of Foreign Sweatshop Workers?
First, we must recognize that the USA cannot solve the problems of the entire world – certainly not now, and maybe not ever. While our economy is very large, it is not infinite, and the idea that we can employ the whole world is comical. At the time of this writing in 2012, the USA had a total of 133.2 million non-farm jobs, and the population of the world was 7 billion. When charting these numbers, we see that our job market is barely even visible (click to enlarge):
Similarly, bringing the factories home will only create a tiny blip in the grand scheme of things, because we just don’t employ a significant percentage of the world’s population – even counting all of our offshore sweatshops.
What would happen if we revoked NAFTA, and the Oligarchy had to bring their factories back to the USA? Mexico might respond by raising tariffs on U.S. food imports. American farmers would be hurt, but farming is not a labor-intensive industry and any jobs lost there would be dwarfed by the factory jobs repatriated. Sweatshop workers in Mexico would lose their jobs, but the consequential increase in food prices would make it feasible for them to return to their farms. American food imports wiped out 1.4 million Mexican campesinos (peasant farmers), many of which turned to growing drug crops.
Mexico was forced into NAFTA by U.S. bankers as punishment for defaulting on loans (story here). Prior to its subjugation, Mexico was doing quite well with a protectionist development strategy that produced The Mexican Miracle.
Are sweatshop jobs better than farm jobs? Some people think so, however it depends on what price the farmer can get for his crops now doesn’t it? Sweatshop workers can never grow wealthy, but a farmer at least has a chance to prosper. A sweatshop is purposely designed to squeeze every bit of life out of workers at the lowest possible cost.
Even so, that is beside the point. The fact is that the USA is in the predicament that it is in because we have allowed the Oligarchy to re-arrange entire nations to suit their greed. Is it written in stone that the Oligarch’s version of Mexico is better than the previous, authentic version of Mexico? If an auto plant is transferred from Detroit to Guadalajara, has anything been truly accomplished for the USA or Mexico as a whole?
No, it has not. If the Americans rebel against the oligarchs and force that plant to return to Detroit, Mexico falls back to square-one, and Detroit rises back up to square-one. However, the profit squeezed out of the workers by the oligarchs remains, safe and sound, in the Cayman Islands.
Yes, nations like China, Mexico, and India will have to fend for themselves once they are cut off from the firehose spraying American jobs into their countries. But that’s inevitable anyway. They will eventually have to figure out how to build their own middle classes. Perhaps they will learn how by watching how we depose our oligarchy.
End the Empire Before it Collapses
The number of industries available for exportation to allied nations in return for loyalty and military bases is obviously a finite number. Additionally, the number of industries that we can export is limited by the resulting mass unemployment and poverty in the homeland. Federal dollars spent on unemployment compensation and food stamps cannot be used to build aircraft carriers. And so, we have come to the limit of this age of oligarchic and geopolitical trade policy: the funds required to prevent displaced workers from starving now restrict further imperial expansion.
After World War II, our economy was so huge that we were not fatally wounded by, for example, sending the television-building industry to Japan. However, after seven decades of such policy, combined with the Financial Oligarchy’s free-trade looting spree of the past two decades, we are clearly courting disaster. The credit rating of the federal government was reduced from AAA to AA+ in 2011 – an historic event not overlooked by the other nations of the world.
In addition to financial constraints, mass unemployment and poverty create political pressure and constraints. The Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011 accomplished nothing, but they did prove the existence of a large number of people willing to rebel for no reason at all. The bizarre “revolution about nothing” provided only a vague condemnation of the Financial Oligarchy. One wonders what such numbers combined with competent leadership could have accomplished. OWS could have taken its place next to the victories of the Bonus Army, the sit-down strikers of the 1930s, and the anti-war protesters of the 1960s.
In any case, we can no longer afford the imperial luxury of running massive trade deficits, which are partly the result of State Department policy made on behalf of the Pentagon.
We have created a mighty, globe-spanning empire. We are the only nation in history to control all the oceans of the world. Imperialists can take satisfaction in that. However, it was not done without a price – a heavy price – and now we are visibly staggering under the burden of that price.
Having reached the limits of geopolitical trade, what comes next? There is really only one option: economic nationalism. The reason that this is the case is because the rest of the world has been practicing economic nationalism all along. We have preached “fair trade” and a “level playing field” for decades, and not a single nation has been swayed – not even our best political allies.
Our trade deficits with Germany and Japan are not an accident, or the result of superior competition. The profits gained by those two nations are literally payment for political loyalty. Payment for their membership in the “Free World” and the global struggle with Communism. However, both Germany and Japan, along with the rest of the world, have never ceased mercantilist practices.
In fact, the European Union was founded as a “customs union” in the 1950s with the explicit intent of keeping out U.S. products and forcing American companies to move plants over there in order to continue doing business. The Japanese are legendary in their systematic targeting of American industries, a successful practice noticed and adopted by the Chinese.
Our preaching of the free-trade gospel to the world has fallen on deaf ears. Nothing but mercantilist sharks swim the seas of this dog-eat-dog globe. Once we abandon our quixotic approach to world trade, and adopt economic nationalism like every other nation on Earth, we will feel a lot better. We will command more respect because nations will no longer perceive us an economic punching bag, but also because they will need to court us for access to our giant consumer market. Of course, in order to retain super-power status, we need to throw off oligarchic rule before all of our wealth is transferred to the Cayman Islands; before our free-spending middle class is completely liquidated.
Even though the USA continues to permit large trade deficits, our allies and trading partners see the writing on the wall and are eager to jump ship:
In 2009, the “BRIC” nations, Brazil, Russia, India, and China began talking about their desire to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
In 2010, the Australian navy conducted its first-ever military exercises with the Chinese navy. That was a significant event because while the Financial Oligarchy is China-friendly, the Military Oligarchy is not, and Australia has been one of the USA’s closest allies. Australia exports a lot of natural resources to feed China’s giant manufacturing machine, so it is becoming more logical for them to switch loyalties.
In May 2012, China, Japan, and South Korea agreed to begin discussions on a free-trade accord. Large numbers of American troops were stationed in Japan and South Korea at the time, and yet they were planning to switch loyalty to China.
In August 2012, the Chinese navy paid its first-ever visit to Israel. The Israelis have been long-time allies, however perhaps they are thinking they need a richer patron now that the Pentagon-backed dictatorship in next-door Egypt has been overthrown.
China is now rivaling the USA for influence in Africa. African nations prefer to do business with the Chinese because the barbaric Chinese don’t lecture the Africans on human rights as the USA and other Western nations do. So, this is another consequence of our transferring so much economic power to China: a regression in human rights around the world.
What will happen once we are completely hollowed out? Without favors to dispense, and without a prosperous middle class able to purchase imports, we will begin to lose allies, and our empire will collapse. This process has already begun. Clearly, a strategic, orderly retreat is a preferable policy.
Retreating from our ruinous, imperial trade policy will hardly be the end of the world. While our trading partners will squawk at the loss of their lucrative trade surpluses, they will acknowledge that we had no choice; that it was inevitable. On the military side, they may not be so quick to switch loyalties. During a September 2012 dispute over the Senkaku Islands, Chinese mobs protested Japan, attacking Japanese auto dealerships and Chinese citizens who owned Japanese cars. Being pals with the Chinese might not be so easy for Japan, and the Chinese are very unlikely to permit new-found allies to run trade surpluses against them as the USA has done since World War II.
Our global military empire is intimately enmeshed with globalization. We ended the successful protectionist era of our history when the Cold War began in order to win nations over to our side of the conflict. Here in the era of “geopolitical trade” we recruit nations into alliance by permitting them to export their products to our market, and by allowing their people to enter our country. The demands of empire led directly to the sweatshops on Saipan. The Pentagon wanted land, and the islanders used that desire as leverage to get legal exemptions that permitted the establishment of sweatshops.
Of course, ideally, the Pentagon would be primarily occupied with actually defending the USA. During the summer of 2012, when U.S. forces were still trying to make Afghanistan safe for multinationals, a Russian Akula-2 attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles prowled undetected for several weeks in U.S. strategic waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
We spend around a $1 trillion on defense, security, intelligence, and wars and we couldn’t detect an actual invasion of our turf? Unbelievable. But it makes sense. The truth is that preoccupation with empire is itself a threat to national security because it neglects actual defense of the homeland.
Now, you might think that we can freeze things where they are now, and then rebuild the homeland from here. We successfully built up Germany, Japan, and China to contain Russia. Mission accomplished, right? Wrong. Now we are moving to contain China by expanding “free trade” with nations like South Korea and Vietnam. Ten years from now, will we be sending factories to Laos and Cambodia to contain Vietnam?
This endless cycle of “geopolitical trade” is really just a smokescreen for continued expansion of the Oligarchy at the expense of the homeland.
We must restrict, reform, or simply outlaw outsourcing as Cambridge, Massachusetts has done. The practice clearly has criminal intent to violate labor laws.
The Oligarchy’s intent is to strip every middle-class American of their job. This is pretty easily done in the private sector. Sending factories to China, for example, is a government-sanctioned business model. The Americans with jobs that can’t be sent to low-wage nations, housekeepers at hotels for example, are replaced by immigrants willing to work for rock-bottom wages.
But what about government workers? Would Americans stand for the Post Office, for example, firing its citizen workers and replacing them with Mexicans brought in on H-2B visas? Not likely. However, if you “privatize” the Post Office, then the Oligarchs can go to work eradicating all of those jobs held by lazy, greedy, unionized American citizens.
Clearly, there are numerous privatization success stories. But there are also numerous horror stories. At a minimum, we should have a moratorium on privatization, reverse the privatization of the prison system, and have an outright ban on all new privatization projects where reducing labor costs is the only rationale.
Kick Small States Out of the U.S. Senate
California’s 37.7 million people have two seats in the U.S. Senate – the exact same number as Wyoming’s 568,000 people. Because of this crazy arrangement, small agricultural states wield incredible power relative to the larger industrial states. So, when Big Agriculture’s lobbyists are campaigning for something, they come armed with, not only money, but an entire squad of Senators – something that no other lobby can do.
As a consequence of this concentration of power, the USA is being converted into an agricultural nation. Big Ag pushed for NAFTA to increase their food exports. Big Ag helped bring China into the World Trade Organization to increase food exports. What does Iowa care if Ohio is de-industrialized by these trade agreements as long as corn exports are brisk?
Big Ag also supports mass-immigration to keep the flow of cheap labor coming to harvest their crops. During the immigration debate in 2013, Big Ag opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, but supported a “path” to citizenship for farm workers. In other words, they wanted their cheap labor to stay, but not acquire any civil rights just yet. They also campaigned for Congress to expand the H-2A visa program.
Big Ag is notorious for inflicting horrendous working conditions on its migrant workers. For example, some workers report that they weren’t even given gloves to harvest the extremely toxic tobacco plant. Green Tobacco Sickness can be contracted by absorbing too much nicotine through your skin. Concentrated nicotine was once used by assassins to coat the tips of their daggers. All they had to do was scratch you, and you were dead. Nicotine relaxes your muscles. Too much of it relaxes the muscles that work your lungs so much that you stop breathing. When it is time to spray insecticide on the crops, growers go right ahead whether or not there are workers in the fields. Illegal immigrants are afraid to complain to authorities, so why not?
Prior to the Revolutionary War, British policy was to keep their American colonies as suppliers of raw materials such as cotton. The British did not want an industrial revolution in America. They wanted the cotton shipped to Britain, where they would make it into clothing, and then ship it back to America. It was a geopolitical policy designed to keep America weak and subservient. Today, we are reverting back to that model, complete with slave-like working conditions in the fields.
Kicking the small states out of the Senate is just hyperbole to get you to read what might be perceived as a boring section. Nevertheless, something has to be done. To read further, see “How the Farm Lobby Distorts U.S. Foreign Policy” and “Basics: How Overrepresented Are Rural and Low-Population States?”
Reduce Corporate Power Over Society
Right-wing Republicans and Libertarians assert that no restrictions or taxation should be placed on corporations. However, corporations do not exist in the wild; they are creatures of the state – artificial entities that the People bring into existence. Investors in corporations are given a huge free benefit: they are exempted from being liable for any misdeeds of their corporations. In a truly laissez-faire economy, the owners of businesses would be liable for everything they do via their business entities. Ironically, by operating through limited-liability organizations like corporations, investors are rejecting laissez-faire! They are hiding behind the skirts of the People!
The People grant limited liability to investors with the expectation of increased investment that will benefit the People. Morally, the People can design corporate structure to be anything they wish. Obviously, the question of what corporations can and cannot do is a completely legitimate one. And as we saw previously in the “Return Investment Banks to Partnerships” section, the People take a large risk when they grant the limited-liability privilege. Sometimes they literally create a monster like AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, or Enron.
The Role of Ideology
The United States has a long history of Jeffersonian ideology which champions the little guy: small farms, small business, and small government. However, it is important for proponents of this ideology to understand that Thomas Jefferson himself abandoned it when he became president in 1801. In his First Inaugural Address, Jefferson said: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
Alexander Hamilton’s federalism was simply more practical. The problem with rigid ideologies is that they can only work under static conditions – where nothing is changing. However, change was rapid during Jefferson’s time. Imagine if the USA had adopted a Jeffersonian economic system that prevented the development of large enterprises. What would have happened to the new railroad technology that was being developed at the end of Jefferson’s life? How well would it have worked if the first transcontinental railroad had to be patched together from thousands of small Mom & Pop railroads? Not very well at all
The new technology of the railroad could not be shoehorned into Jeffersonian ideology. The concept of competition didn’t work very well either. Railroads are expensive to build. Suppose you need ten years to make back your investment on a railroad that you have built between two small towns. But after a year of operation, a competitor sees how well you are doing and builds a competing railroad. If you then compete on price, your profits may drop below the level needed to make your loan payments. You will both go bankrupt. If you collude on pricing, you might both be able to eke out a profit, but you are breaking the law and might be prosecuted by the Justice Department. In this scenario, there is no way for you to succeed – no matter how hard you work, or how intelligently you run your business.
A more modern example is Howard Stern’s 1994 New Year’s Eve television special. The show was aired on cable TV and was a success, but Stern never did another one. He spent many hours ranting about the large share of profits that the Mom & Pop cable companies around the country were demanding. Each had a monopoly granted by their local governments, and consequently acted like miniature oligarchs. Stern was never able to agree to terms with them.
Ultimately, a scientific, pragmatic approach is best. When a technology does not lend itself to free enterprise, the people need to regulate it via their government. This is how we keep the natural monopoly of electricity generation from overcharging us. Corporations operate the utilities, but the prices they are permitted to charge are regulated by the people. The system works well with investors getting dividends and citizens getting affordable electricity. Utilities have an incentive to restore service after a storm because they can’t bill customers for electricity that is not delivered.
Imagine if Ronald Reagan had campaigned on extending free-market ideology to electric utility companies. Imagine if he had thundered: “We must get government off the backs of utility companies! They must have the freedom to charge whatever price they wish for their service! We must put an end to the central planning of power generation!” Do you think he would have been elected president twice? Not hardly. Of course, Reagan did no such thing. Nobody is that stupid.
Nevertheless, in a fit of privatization insanity in California in 1996, part of the electricity industry was deregulated. Only four years later, Enron was taking power plants off-line during peak hours just so they could charge higher prices on the artificially lowered supply of electricity. It was quite the spectacle: one of the world’s most technologically advanced areas suffering blackouts at the whim of private-sector electricity traders. The rest of the world probably thought that we were a bunch of yokels generating our power with hamster wheels.
Power-Reduction Principle #1 – Small-Scale Production
Whatever can be efficiently done on a small scale should be done on a small scale. A coffee shop, for example, can be efficiently operated as a small business. There is no economic necessity to have them all controlled by a giant corporation like Starbucks. Perhaps a large company could achieve economies of scale by purchasing their own coffee plantations, distributors, etc. However, what people making that argument neglect to consider is that large corporations also achieve legal- and political economies of scale. They use their large staff of lawyers to design tax-avoidance strategies. They use their large staff of lobbyists to pass laws that harm workers, etc.
If an enterprise can be efficiently operated on a small scale, large corporations should be prevented from “rolling up” all the little guys. Like Aristotle taught, it’s better to have ten middle-class, small business owners in your town than it is to have one coffee baron who employees the other nine at minimum wage. The middle-class organization of society is more economically robust, and politically harmonious.
Power-Reduction Principle #2 – Precedent
Why re-invent the wheel? Ask: How has this activity been done in the past? How is it done in other areas? How well have those other approaches worked out? Could that approach work here? For example, when studying what might be done about Walmart, we would look at how the Japanese have protected their small retailers from large stores.
Power-Reduction Principle #3 – Necessity
Example: do we need to designate corporations as people? The world has 7 billion people already; does it really need more? Is there a problem with the traditional method of making new people via sex or test tubes?
Power-Reduction Principle #4 – Utility
American cities have regulated water, sewer, and power systems. When was the last time that you saw a sewer district agitating in Congress for more immigration? When was the last time you saw a power company agitating to bring in cheap Mexican electricity? These utilities do not conspire to undermine American sovereignty because they have little incentive to do so, and their limited profitability does not attract the oligarch-type of capitalist. Since these systems work well for the people, we might look at turning other industries into utilities.
Banking is an excellent place to start because we have a tremendous success story in our history when banks were regulated as virtual utilities during the three decades between 1940-1970. And many cities have already turned internet-access into a utility with municipal Wi-Fi systems. Wireless Internet technology is still advancing, but it has reached a “good enough” stage that it can be operated by the people through their local governments. Americans have been suffering from corporate-imposed, substandard, over-priced internet service for long enough.
We Must Prepare for the Robots
What will happen when advanced robots can do every job better than humans? Will we all be out of work while one super-oligarch acquires all the world’s wealth? Obviously, that’s a pretty dumb plan. What we should do is operate robotic production facilities as utilities so that things like socks, toothpicks, and frying pans flow to citizens just like electricity and water. This step might be skipped if “3D printing” machines can be deployed in households, but service jobs will remain an issue.
Swinging Back the Corporate Pendulum
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was obvious that corporations worked better than communes. But then we got crazy, literally worshipping corporate power, and it wasn’t long before our hubristic oligarchs and their corporations crashed the global economy in 2008.
Now it is time to swing the pendulum back to the center; to a place where oligarchs are reigned in and unnecessary corporate power is scrubbed from our society. The fact is that modern tyranny is often constructed with a corporate form. Before the Civil War, tyranny could be found in the form of family-owned slave plantations. Today, tyranny can be found in the form of corporate production outsourced to sweatshop subcontractors.
Overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision
The 2010 “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” Supreme Court decision ruled that the First Amendment of the Constitution applies to corporations, unions, and other organizations such that the federal government cannot limit their political speech, meaning campaign contributions. In effect, it allows large organizations to dilute the authentic political voice of the people.
Corporations are quite obviously not people. The Supreme Court has given human political rights to corporations for the purpose of increasing their political power. That is a clearly fascist act. If, for example, the people of Florida wanted to establish a fascist system, they would have amended Chapter 607, the Florida Business Corporation Act, to explicitly give corporations such power. But of course, they have not done so; that would be crazy.
Eliminate Internal Globalization
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ …Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. …We demand this fraud be stopped.”
-Martin Luther King, 1961
International globalization creates a “race to the bottom” where countries compete with each other to attract sweatshops by offering the lowest wages, the most brutal working conditions, and the most lax environmental laws.
Within the USA, we have a phenomena that might be called “internal globalization” where state and local governments engage in the same sort of competition. As we discussed previously, governments compete for large businesses by offering tax incentives, infrastructure, favorable zoning, etc. This gives way too much negotiating power to corporations and should be eliminated by federal regulation. The spectacle of corporations pocketing withholding taxes from worker paychecks is an outrage against Democracy.
The Chamber of Commerce dreamed up “Right to Work” as a ploy to break unions. The exodus of factories from the unionized northern states to the “Right to Work” southern states has been one of the big drivers of income inequality. These laws should be abolished by federal regulation.
Now, Jeffersonians will decry this restriction of state’s rights. However, the result will be to increase the bargaining power of local governments versus the often much-larger companies that reside in their states. So, when a company demands a cut in its taxes, the local government can reply: “Sorry, our hands are tied; new federal regulations, you know.”
In 1950, the Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers signed an agreement called “The Treaty of Detroit.” The agreement was a great success and was adopted by many other industries. Once the battle between union states and right-to-work states is eliminated, we might be able to design a national “Treaty of America” to bring stability to labor relations. Our current plan, which is to rapidly revert to the sweatshop model, is not likely to produce harmony and tranquility in the future. It’s far more likely to cause strife and rebellion.
Another form of internal globalization is state incorporation of companies. For example, Citibank is notorious for moving its credit-card operations to South Dakota in 1981 after that state raised the maximum allowable interest charge to 25%. Delaware is an on-shore tax haven which helps corporations dodge the income taxes of their home states with Delaware-incorporated shell companies. This is an area that cries out for national standardization.
Limit CEO Compensation
Today’s exorbitantly compensated corporate CEOs are the stuff of legend. Of course, many of them are paid with the spoils that are clawed away from the people via the global law of the jungle.
One possible remedy is to adjust the CEO’s income-tax bracket based upon the ratio of her compensation to that of her employees. If she makes 200 times more than her average worker, then her tax will be in the highest bracket. If she makes 100x, then she will be in a lower bracket. The system would be designed to encourage a narrower ratio – and it should include the pay of workers at subcontractors – all of them – even the ones in Bangladesh.
Another remedy might be done at the incorporation level. Instead of having a corporation’s profits divided up between only shareholders, a certain percentage could be devoted to mandatory profit sharing. As we discussed previously, the People can incorporate companies any way they wish. This might be done nationwide with federally incorporated companies that are incentivized with a lower tax rate, or by eliminating state incorporation. Profit-sharing is a powerful way to build harmony between labor and management.
Curtail Covert Corporate Propaganda
We urgently need to find ways to curtail corporate propaganda. A good way to do this would be to require that all political information published by a corporation have the corporation clearly identified as the author. For example, this requirement would prohibit oligarchs like the Koch Brothers from paying a pet professor at a pet university to publish a paper titled: “The Virtue of Laissez Faire Economics” under his own name. Instead, the author would be identified as Koch Industries, Inc. Or better yet, corporations would be prohibited from funding “independent” think tanks, universities, or foundations altogether. If they wanted to hire intellectuals directly, and publish their work directly with their corporate logo stamped on the cover, that would be fine. They might also be restricted to publishing electronically only on their official website.
Television and radio networks should be required to disclose any news-like programs that are provided to them by outside entities, such as public-relations firms.
Whatever restrictions are imposed, the goal would be to clearly identify published information as coming from the corporation itself. A business enterprise should be able to make its own case, putting forth ideas on how its industry could be improved. But putting forth an agenda via front organizations designed to hide the participation of the corporation is clearly a nefarious activity and must be prohibited.
Non-media corporations should be restricted from owning media. For example, GE should not be allowed to own television stations.
Limit the Size of Corporations
Defenders of Walmart claim that it has out-competed smaller competitors because it is more efficient. But more efficient at what? After all, the Nazis were famous for making the trains run on time, but we don’t laud the Nazis. The truth is that Walmart has brought the southern slave mentality into modern business. They have indeed been more efficient – at beating down wages. They have also been eager to order suppliers to move their factories to China to beat wages down even more. Do we really want to go back to a pre-industrial slave society? Because that’s were Walmart is taking us.
Walmart and the Walton Family have grown so huge, rich, and powerful that they are now essentially dictating U.S. industrial and labor policy. And that is not acceptable. If the people wanted to return to a pre-industrial slave society like the one that existed in Bentonville, Arkansas before 1865, they would have elected representatives to re-establish the Confederacy.
The measures discussed elsewhere in this book would go a long way toward eliminating the excesses of rapacious oligarchs operating mammoth corporations. However, we should also have some sort of overall size limit that would function as an emergency “fire break” mechanism for controlling corporate fascism. Something analogous to the federal government’s “debt ceiling.”
In general, the mechanism would work by setting limits on the number of locations, employees, revenues, etc. Whatever is appropriate for the industry. Then, if a company hits that limit, it must cease expanding until the official limit can be raised. This mechanism allows the people to have a say. For example, suppose that twenty years from now an airline wants to establish service to the Moon. They would need to raise a lot of capital to buy expensive rockets and spaceships, and the limit on airline size would likely need to be raised. If put to a vote, a few environmentalists might campaign against it, but most people would probably support it.
People might also approve Walmart’s expansion into union strongholds, but at least there would be a debate. A recurring, ritualized reminder that corporations sometimes do harm would also have a benefit to the overall health of the nation. If Republican politicians can threaten to shut down the government once a year over the debt ceiling, why can’t Democrats do the same to Walmart? What’s good for the goose…
Oligarchs will argue that we need to create giant corporations to compete with those of other nations. However, the issue here is not economies of scale. It is the question of how much political power a corporation may wield. This is also not an issue of the Jeffersonian sentiment that “small business” is better than “big business.” The goal here is to evolve corporations that do no harm. Size is not an issue until the corporation begins to throw its weight around in the political arena, and until we can figure out how to prevent that, we need to limit size.
Walmart is every bit as destructive to America as was Enron, and Walmart should be prosecuted and dismantled just like Enron. Money should even be clawed-back from the Walton Family if legally possible. Prosecuted for what? Anything that will stick, like the bribery of Mexican officials that was uncovered in 2012. Remember, oligarchs consider themselves to be above the law, so if prosecutors look closely, they will find numerous instances of wrongdoing in almost any multinational. Enron is not the exception; it is the rule.
Antitrust law needs to become more ambitious. Preventing a monopoly from overcharging consumers is nice, but it is small potatoes compared to what Walmart does. Walmart degrades the very nation itself: crushing small businesses, forcing suppliers to offshore, and underpaying millions of workers. Walmart may not charge monopoly prices for food, but is there a moral difference when they pay workers so badly that they can’t afford to buy food? Walmart, and other slave-wage companies have thousands of workers who still qualify for food stamps (see GoodJobsFirst.org).
One way or another, Walmart and the Walton Family must be punished and stripped of their political power. Perhaps a special tax is in order. Maybe a “sweating tax” or a “factory exportation tax”, or a “job exportation tax.” We should make an example of Walmart to create a milestone in U.S. history. A grand turning point that will loom large in history books forever. A watershed where America turned away from the fascist/slave-production model, and back toward the middle-class model.
The alternative is to be dissolved into the international muck; the working conditions that multinationals like Walmart have created overseas: tyrannical regimes, sweatshops, pollution – all the rotten fruits of oligarchy. That is their vision for America, and it is a vision that must be smashed unequivocally.
"Corporations are people, my friend." -Mitt Romney
If we play along with Mitt Romney’s assertion, we might wonder: what are the chances of corporations being psychopaths, just like some people are? Which companies are the corporate version of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Jack the Ripper, and Ted Bundy? This may seem like a frivolous topic, but it is no such thing. Not all psychopaths become criminals, however a psychopath in control of a large organization such as a government, military unit, or corporation can do an enormous amount of damage to his fellow humans.
Think of a psychopath as a predator; like a coyote, wolf, or hyena. They may kill and eat a human baby, and not feel any remorse. He was hungry, so he captured some prey and ate it. It seems completely reasonable and natural to him. But, you wouldn’t want such a creature operating a day-care business. Or an electricity grid. The Enron employees who were put in charge of California’s electricity grid laughed it up as people suffered without power (see this CBS story). And “callous/lack of empathy” is one of the traits on the PCL-R psychopathology test.
Human predators are far more dangerous than animals, not only because they are smarter, but because they are much more difficult to identify. They blend right in because they look just like us. The proverbial "wolf in sheep’s clothing" is no myth.
We Americans don’t like to put restrictions on innocent people. However, we do restrict disabled people from holding certain types of jobs. For example, blind people are not allowed to fly airplanes. Of course, with autopilot technology, a blind pilot might be able to get along just fine these days. Nevertheless, we should probably put restrictions on psychopaths because their behavior is the result of a physical disability: abnormal brain structure.
Psychiatrist/scholar Iain McGilchrist, wrote in his book, "The Master and His Emissary" (page 113):
"Psychopaths, who have no sense of guilt, shame or responsibility, have deficits in the right frontal lobe…"
In 2011, The Journal of Business Ethics published a paper by Clive R. Boddy titled: "The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis." Here is a quote:
"In these senior corporate positions, the Corporate Psychopath’s single-minded pursuit of their own self-enrichment and self aggrandizement to the exclusion of all other considerations has led to an abandonment of the old fashioned concept of noblesse oblige, equality, fairness, or of any real notion of corporate social responsibility."
In a Bloomberg interview titled "Did Psychopaths Take Over Wall Street Asylum?" Boddy said:
"Anyone who makes decisions that affect significant numbers of other people, concerning issues of corporate social responsibility or toxic waste, for example, or concerning mass financial markets or mass employment, should be screened to make sure that they are, at the very least, not psychopaths and at most are actually people who care about others."
How could psychopaths be screened if they look just like normal people? Well, there is a test called the PCL-R which might be required of executives before they can assume leadership of commercial, government, and military organizations above a certain size. The PCL-R might also be made part of commercial surety bonding.
Was George W. Bush a Psychopath?
How else would you explain these two videos showing Bush using other people’s clothes as washcloths? At 11 seconds into this video, you can see Bush shake hands with a Haitian man, and then wipe his hand on Bill Clinton’s shoulder. And in this video you can see Bush wiping his eyeglasses on the clothes of a David Letterman staff member. Bush also bears an uncanny resemblance to psychopath serial-killer, Ted Bundy.
Oligarchs like the Koch Brothers propagate libertarian ideology that praises greed and selfishness as positive traits. This type of propaganda creates what might be called "pseudo psychopaths" – people who begin to act like natural psychopaths because everybody else is doing it.
After Walter Isaacson published his biography of Steve Jobs in 2011, a plague of managers acting like psychopaths spread across the nation. Designer Ben Bleikamp wrote a post on his blog titled "The Steve Jobs Complex" where he complained about the obnoxious managers who he had to work for. Bleikamp has since removed the "sacrilege" from his website, but he was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article from April 2, 2012 titled: "Bio as Bible: Managers Imitate Steve Jobs."
In 2011, psychologist Paul Piff published a paper titled "Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Piff reported:
"Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals."
New York Magazine published a story about Piff titled: "The Money-Empathy Gap" where he stated:
"While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything, the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
This is another reason for limiting CEO pay: excess pay fosters harmful behavior.
However, psychopaths are an even larger problem than the scientists suspect. Psychopaths don’t always just take the money and run; sometimes they build systems like slave plantations and concentration camps. Removing the psychopaths in charge of such systems may not have much benefit if the systems are allowed to continue operating under new management. In fact, the global economic system itself looks as if it was designed to nurture psychopath leaders.
Dismantle the Psychopath-Designed Globalist System
Defenders of globalization say that the system of international trade was designed for the benefit of the globe as a whole, even if the American middle class has to suffer. Here is a typical opinion published in Forbes:
"So I would actually posit that whether the American, or European, or rich world, middle class benefits from globalization is actually an incomplete question. Incomplete enough to be the wrong question. Almost to the point that the answer is "who cares?"
However, as we discussed earlier, modern globalization was invented by bankers to bail themselves out of bad loans to Latin America. So, even if the world as a whole does benefit, it is only by accident, and the effects are likely to be short-lived. After all, once all of the factories are sucked out of America, what will nations like China, Mexico, and India do next?
Globalization – The Modern Art of Economics
How the music sounds is not the point." -Arnold Schoenberg
Let’s look at the atomic level of globalization. What actually happens? Answer: a modern, high-tech, safe, clean, efficient, profitable factory providing middle-class jobs for American citizens is moved out of the country and converted into a backward, low-tech, dangerous, pollution-spewing sweatshop burning through hapless peasants as fast as it can wear out their bodies. Income is redistributed from the formerly profitable, tax-paying American workers to the tax-dodging traitorous oligarchs.
Is there anything about that process that can be called progress? Of course not. Globalization is, in fact, a regressive process – a de-evolution away from America’s middle-class utopia and back toward an archaic slave dystopia.
Globalization is the economic equivalent of some horrible work of modern art: it is not designed to uplift you; it is designed to erode your mortal soul.
When you study the entire globalized system of production and distribution from a high level, it becomes obvious that it is a system “of the psychopaths, by the psychopaths, and for the psychopaths.” It is designed to grind humans into dust – a profitable dust. Like slave plantations where slaves were worked to death as fast as possible when replacements were readily available at economical prices, the modern sweatshop system does the same – only on a global scale.
Slave plantations, sweatshops, maquiladoras, cults, prison factories, concentration camps – these are all systems of a variety that might be called the “Rock-a-Box” – named in honor of David Rockefeller, the Father of Globalization and Neo-Liberalism. A Rock-a-Box is any system of production designed to squeeze as much profit as possible out of human labor without regard to consequences. If the used-up “labor inputs” have to be buried in a mass grave out back, then so be it. At least that way you don’t have to contribute to their unemployment compensation.
American gadgets are made in Chinese sweatshops operated by companies like Foxconn that have horrendous turn-over rates. There are plenty of people in China, so workers can be pushed as hard as possible. It doesn’t matter how quickly they quit because there are plenty more where they came from. That’s why the sweatshops are in China and not Iceland.
When the gadgets arrive in the USA, they move through a warehouse system that drives workers just as hard as Foxconn. The warehouses are set up to burn out workers as fast as possible – before they qualify for pay-raises and vacation time. You do not “work your way up” in these sweat-warehouses.
The gadgets are then sold in retail stores like Walmart operated by workers making the lowest possible legal wage. And, of course, Walmart has an horrendous turn-over rate, made possible by the USA’s program of mass immigration.
All three of these institutions: factory, warehouse & retail store are Rock-a-Boxes, and the system as a whole is one giant, globe-spanning Rock-a-Box.
The psychopaths who designed this system are, no doubt, very pleased with how efficiently the little plebs move through it, and how thoroughly it milks them of their labor. However, they likely dream of even further efficiencies: lower pay, or no pay at all, more sadistic practices sanctioned for overseers, attack dogs approved for use on the factory floor, etc. An oligarch can dream, can he not?
The Psychopathic Psychology of Laissez-Faire Ideology
The Rock-a-Box is made possible by laissez-faire ideology which holds that market forces should set the prices of goods and wages. So, since the world has a surplus of labor, wages should drop until the excess supply is worked off – even if it means that workers are not paid enough to buy food. This, of course, is why there is no such thing as a pure laissez-faire society: it is a system that only a psychopath could love.
Psychopaths are incapable of altruistic or beneficent behavior. McGilchrist (page 190):
"For highly un-empathic individuals, such as psychopaths, in whom this part of the brain is defective, and therefore for whom this aspect of the world is missing, they will devote themselves, like philosophers, to calculation."
This is why psychopaths are drawn to laissez-faire economics: because it deliberately excludes the human element which the psychopath cannot fathom. The "invisible hand" programs the actions of the humans, and everything automatically works out for the best. Of course, laissez-faire economics also conveniently disarms the sheep, and gives the psychopathic wolves license to prey upon them. It’s easy to heard the sheep into sweatshops when laissez-faire propaganda dissuades them from forming unions.
A laissez-faire economy is like an ant farm to a psychopath. All that he has to do is put the ants in, and they will take it from there. If any ants die, you just put fresh ones in. The ants are like little worker robots. It doesn’t matter if they live or die, they are just things, no more significant than paper clips or rubber bands.
The bible of the Oligarchy is the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand which sings the praises of laissez-faire capitalism. Literary critics have taken Rand to task for her stiff, cardboard-like characters. However, that was the best Rand could do. Like McGilchrist said in the quote above, "Atlas Shrugged" is all about philosophical "calculation" because that’s all that Ayn Rand was capable of – because she was a psychopath. Not able to fathom humans, she was unable to create convincingly human characters. All of the interaction between her characters was based on calculated self-interest.
As a young woman, Rand worshipped a psychopath – a sadistic murderer named William Edward Hickman who was said to have committed the most horrific crime of the 1920s. Hickman kidnapped, murdered, and mutilated the corpse of a twelve-year old girl. Rand planned to write a novel with the hero bearing Hickman’s arrogant attitude. She did not complete the novel, but there are echoes of Hickman in the Howard Roark character of her novel "The Fountainhead." For all the details, see New York Times writer Michael Prescott’s account.
In typical psychopath fashion, Rand’s entire philosophy rested upon the fact that humans were inherently greedy and self-interested. In fact, humans are just the opposite. We evolved to live in small bands of hunter-gatherers that worked together as a team, helping each other – not preying upon each other. Read more in Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies at Slate.com.
And so today we live with the horror of knowing that the global economic system that is mauling the American middle class was designed by psychopaths. But it gets worse: these powerful psychopaths are also rendered paranoid by their condition, and are compelled to watch us as closely as possible.
The Age of Psychopathic Surveillance
More and more, American workers – and even high-school students – are being tracked with electronic devices. Perhaps there are good reasons to track people. After all, having a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) chip in your dog’s collar comes in handy when he gets lost. However, there is evidence that the brain damage suffered by psychopaths makes them paranoid. How would leaders design a government if, like psychopaths, they could only rely upon the left hemispheres of their brains? McGilchrist speculates (page 548):
"Such a government would seek total control – it is an essential feature of the left hemisphere’s take on the world that it can grasp it and control it. Talk of liberty, which is an abstract ideal for the left hemisphere, would increase for Machiavellian reasons, but individual liberty would be curtailed. Panoptical control would become an end in itself, and constant CCTV monitoring, interception of private information and communications, the norm."
…whether such monitoring is effective or not; and apparently it is not. As reported by London’s Guardian newspaper: "Why CCTV has Failed to Deter Criminals." But it makes our psychopathic rulers feel better – it soothes their damaged, paranoid brains.
The Secret Order of the Psychopathic Elite
One of the things scientists do to study brain damage is to have patients make drawings. From McGilchrist (page 287):
"…schizophrenic subjects, whose psychopathology depends on a reflexive hyperconsciousness, and who often depict a detached observing eye in their paintings, show a relative hypofunction of the right hemisphere in relation to the left."
Note the "eye" paintings. Furthermore, (from McGilchrist page 73):
"Functional imaging of the brain shows that the left hemisphere takes a ‘God’s eye’, or invariant view, in its representation of objects, where the right hemisphere uses stored ‘real world’ views in order to group experience."
So, the brain damage of psychopaths causes them to draw eyes, and to also draw from a "God’s eye" perspective. Ring any bells? If not, flip over a U.S. dollar bill and take a look at the Great Seal of the United States:
Is the "Eye of Providence" or the "All-Seeing Eye of God" a result of the mad scribbling of the psychopaths at the top of the human pyramid?
The people residing at the top of the pyramid are also sometimes dubbed "The Illuminati" but what might be the psychological genesis of this concept of illumination? McGilchrist (page 429):
"The emphasis on ‘light’ in ‘Enlightenment’ suggests not just clarity and precision, but of course the banishment of the darker, more ‘negative’ emotions."
"…the left hemisphere sees things literally as lighter, and is more prone to ‘positive’ emotions."
Without empathy, the suffering of the puny human-things at the bottom of the pyramid cannot ruin a psychopath’s day. The Illuminatus floats above it all on a cloud of brain-damaged, chirpy, positive emotion, where everything is in order in his secret order. Here’s a pyramid in front of a U.S. government building:
"We the people" wallow in the black mass of the lower pyramid. But who floats above us in that "lighter" capstone? Could it be a coterie of rigid Ayn Rand supermen who are unable to discern shades of gray, but only black and white, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say? Either you are white or black, Illuminati or sheep, predator or prey, or as Steve Jobs used to say: "enlightened or asshole" (Isaacson, p.158). This brain-damaged psychology of psychopaths might also explain the tacky black-and-white checkerboard floor pattern found in Masonic lodges (click photo to enlarge):
Pyramids are sinister structures historically, often built by slaves, and the scene of human sacrifice. Pyramids are also a symbol of stasis – they don’t change. So, the dream of a psychopathic oligarch is to claw his way to the top of a human pyramid in a black-and-white struggle of predator versus prey – eating what he kills (as they say on Wall Street). His complete lack of scruples and psychopathic charisma give him an advantage in the ruthless people-manipulating skills required for the climb. Once at the top, he deploys his all-seeing electric eyes to make sure that the prey are not plotting against him. And as his well-ordered, human-powered Rock-a-Box funnels profits up to him, he achieves enlightenment, safely ensconced in his psychopathic utopia.
Yes, there are official explanations for the symbols discussed above. However, examining their visual, psychological appeal to the psychopathic mind deepens our understanding of what we are dealing with. Human nature is a constant; it does not change. Psychopath predators have always been with us. And slavery was widespread throughout human history until only relatively recently. The truth is that modern psychopaths would just as cheerfully own or trade slaves as our ancestors did – if they could get away with it – if it were socially acceptable. After all, psychopaths are a small minority easily thwarted by the normal population.
Psychopaths would excel in a resurrected slave economy because they are genetically incapable of any sort of empathy. Slavery may be extinct in the USA, but that doesn’t mean that mad scientists won’t find a way to bring it back, like the scientists in Jurassic Park brought back the dinosaurs. And make no mistake, they dream of the day. They can’t help it; their brains are broken.
From McGilchrist (page 545):
"…the appearance of clarity and certainty which the left hemisphere craves."
Sound familiar? Remember the oligarchs demanding "certainty" from President Obama on the issue of extending the Bush Tax Cuts? Wasn’t that odd? Certainty this, certainty that; it was almost like they suffered a collective concussion and had their vocabulary reduced to a single word – like the Smurfs – "We must have smurfainty!"
In August 2012, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill titled: The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012. So, the cravings of the psychopaths were enshrined in the very title of the bill! However, with trillions of dollars in sweatshop profits already squirreled away in the Cayman Islands, there was no politically conceivable tax-hike that could put more than a small dent into the oligarchs. And certainly not from Obama, who will be remembered by history as a minor functionary of the American Oligarchy. (Note: the bill mentioned did not become law. Instead, another one did: the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.)
In August 2010, the world was shocked by an incredible display of oligarchic paranoia from billionaire Steve Schwarzman who said of Obama’s discussion of higher taxes: "It’s a war. It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Not only was his statement crazy on its face, it was also crazy in its context. After all, Obama’s rhetoric will be seen by history as designed to make the bailout of Wall Street palatable to bloodthirsty voters. Only a year earlier, Obama told the bankers: "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." And indeed, Obama did not punish a single oligarch for their reckless operation of the financial system when he would have been deified for doing so by the people.
Safe Occupations for Psychopaths
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning…smells like victory."
The psychopath gene is probably part of human nature because vicious killers incapable of feeling fear or remorse have an advantage in combat, and thus survive to propagate their genes.
So, what should be done with psychopaths? Of course, we should strive for a cure, perhaps a surgical procedure could fix them. In the meantime, we might put them to work on assembly lines making harmless items like socks and mittens. But it is difficult to come up with safe occupations for them. For example, a psychopath bus driver could drive up on a sidewalk and mow down dozens of people. Nearly any job could provide opportunities for sabotage that would harm innocent people.
Perhaps psychopaths should be drafted into the military and kept on remote bases until their fearless brutality is needed in time of war. In peacetime, they could earn a living as mixed-martial arts fighters, competing in contests televised from their remote bases. They could build pyramid-shaped barracks, with the lower "orders" living below, and the enlightened officers living above. The pyramid would have a soothing black-and-white color scheme, as the lower orders "calculate" their future rise to power. Maybe we could give them terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo to do the construction work like Egyptian slaves.
Frivolity aside, psychopaths who are not abused as children appear to be able to lead peaceful, law-abiding lives. The psychopath genes don’t take over if the child’s early environmental conditions do not warrant an extreme response. So, it should not be too difficult to identify the people who must be kept from the levers of power.
Note: See an Ian McGilchrist video here.
Ending the Age of the Psychopath
The psychopaths among us are obviously a problem. However, the normal people acting like psychopaths will need to be addressed by a different approach. We humans are adapted to living in small bands of cooperating individuals. Certainly there was a pecking order in those ancient bands, but nothing to even approach today’s vast chasms of wealth and power.
We are simply not physically adapted to live as we currently do. Would we thrive better in a more egalitarian society? Maybe so. That’s exactly what seems to have happened in Finland. The Nordic nation’s students have been scoring above their counterparts around the world in recent years, and their secret is an egalitarian school system. (Read more in The Atlantic.)
By contrast, our oligarchs are trying to smash teacher unions and privatize schools. In Finland, all the schools are public, unionized, free, and provide free meals to students. All the schools are the same. Remarkably, the Finns did not set out with the goal of higher test scores, but only to make their system more egalitarian. The stellar test performance was an unexpected surprise. So, Finland’s model is crushing our model. Why? Perhaps because humans automatically function better in an egalitarian, cooperative environment because it is our nature.
Should we not emulate the Finns? Should we not immediately switch our school system over to their model? After all, the oligarchs are always preaching that we must have better-educated workers if they are ever to stop exporting jobs. Well, here is the solution – a proven solution that we could easily implement. So, the oligarchs must be rushing to make it happen, right? Wrong.
To a psychopath, there must be a social hierarchy. There must be lowly plebs available to be harnessed to his will. All functions of society must be available to be improved by his management "genius." Schools must train the plebeian children to be docile worker bees, and passive consumers. After all, how else could our psychopath do god’s work? The more plebs and resources under his command, the greater deeds he can do. And so, our psychopaths are more likely to declare war on Finland than they are to emulate that "socialist" nation.
Ironically, residents of Europe’s "socialist" nations vacation in Detroit to gape at the post-Apocalyptic landscape. The French artists Marchand and Meffre have published a book titled The Ruins of Detroit. You can see some photos from the book on their website. Here is a quote:
"Detroit presents all archetypal buildings of an American city in a state of mummification. Its splendid decaying monuments are, no less than the Pyramids of Egypt, the Coliseum of Rome, or the Acropolis in Athens, remnants of the passing of a great Empire."
American oligarchs counter that the blame for the appalling state of Detroit lies with the labor unions that have chased all the jobs away. However, if labor unions are inherently toxic (as presented in this CNBC video), why did the same thing not happen in Germany? Why does Stuttgart thrive while Detroit crumbles? Using oligarchic logic, one would think that things would be even worse in Germany where the law mandates that labor unions have a seat on the board of directors of large companies, a doctrine called co-determination. As usual, the oligarchs are intellectually bankrupt. Stuttgart defeats Detroit because there is more cooperation in Germany and no rapacious oligarchy looting with reckless abandon.
And of course, the carnage in the USA is not limited to labor-union strongholds like Michigan. There are numerous cracks in our system.
Can we continue to offshore millions of jobs, and import millions of immigrants without the system collapsing? No, we cannot. And huge cracks in the system are now visible.
Crack #1 – Mass Poverty
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that we have more people living below the poverty line (46.2 million) since they began keeping statistics in 1959 (click chart to enlarge):
The population has grown since then, and the poverty rate doesn’t look quite so dire, however at 15.1% it is still tied for the worst rate since President Johnson declared the War on Poverty in 1964:
The food-stamp data is reported in a more timely fashion and corroborates the poverty data:
What’s scary about this data is that it has not improved since the Great Recession ended in 2009. While the economy has been creating jobs since then, those jobs are obviously not enough to counter the continuing mass immigration and/or not paying well enough to keep workers above the poverty line.
On the other hand, corporate profits hit record highs during this period, so from the Oligarchy’s perspective, everything is just splendid.
Crack #2 – Student Protests
The United Kingdom has also been "hollowed out" by globalization. In 2010, student riots were ignited when the government tripled tuition fees as part of London’s austerity program.
During the Occupy Wall Street protests in the USA in 2011, students at 136 college campuses joined in to protest higher tuition costs and poor job prospects.
The 2012 Quebec student protests were the largest in Canadian history. The USA isn’t the only country that has lost manufacturing jobs since China was admitted to the World Trade Organization in 2001. As you can see on this chart, Canada has lost nearly 600,000 factory jobs:
And when you lose jobs, your government loses tax revenue, and Canada had to raise college tuition fees. You might call the higher fees a "globalization tax" being borne by today’s youth.
Today’s students are entering the world of work with more debt and fewer opportunities than the generation of their parents. This generation of students is the first pure crop of plebs to come of age during this new era of absolute, oligarchic rule. May god have mercy on their souls.
Will today’s students be able to pay off their student loans with the available low-wage jobs before it is time to send their children to college? Or will the progress of Western civilization come to an end at that point?
Crack #3 – The Urban Intifada
While college students are protesting, "teens" are rampaging. Smart phones and social media have enabled a high-tech version of the "wilding" crime genre that first came to light during the Central Park Jogger Case of 1989 in which Trisha Meili was assaulted and raped by five "teens" in New York’s Central Park.
Prior to smart phones and social media, these criminals could not build fan bases. But now, they can easily inform groupies of their planned attacks and attract sizeable crowds of spectators. So, a small group of psychopaths will tweet out a time and place, the mob will assemble, and then the psychopaths will entertain them by attacking whatever innocent victims who are at hand. The disturbing part of this is that wilding has become a spectator sport, a pastime where everybody laughs it up, enjoying the show, like it is a mixed-martial arts competition.
In most cases, the perpetrators of these crimes are described by the news media as merely "teens" with no mention of their race. However, these criminals are overwhelmingly African-American. Perhaps it is a good idea for the media to cover up the racial aspect in the hope that the problem can be solved before a racial backlash develops. After all, a revival of the Ku Klux Klan could not be viewed as a progressive development. On the other hand, everybody needs to know about this type of street crime because it is an issue of personal safety. Most people feel safe shopping at the local mall, but today, such a media-induced, uninformed sense of security can prove fatal.
This author hesitates to cite the following book, however due to the nature of the media’s coverage, there are no alternatives. Numerous examples of flash-mob crime can be found in "White Girl Bleed a Lot" by journalist Colin Flaherty. The book is very badly written, and contains factual errors, grammatical errors, formatting bugs, and typos in nearly every sentence as Flaherty appears to write in a state of blind rage and does not employ an editor. However, the book has a large number of Internet links to news stories, police reports, video, etc. The book takes its title from a flash-mob victim’s report of what her attackers said after they punched her in the face. That victim, Shaina Perry was attacked in Milwaukee in 2011. The Journal Sentinel newspaper reported the incident in "Flynn calls looting, beatings in Riverwest barbaric."
Here is a sample video of a melee in Milwaukee posted to YouTube.com by “Big Mike” who also reports such activity being widespread at public events in the area. And indeed, many public events around the country have had to be cancelled due to such mayhem.
The Wall Street Journal reported on one aspect this story in "Flash Robs Vex Retailers." (Notice how they use the phrase "swarms of teenagers.") The article reports: "Retail merchandise theft rose almost 8% last year to $27 billion." So, that would be a $2 billion increase for 2011. (The article was published in 2012.)
In the old days, retailers kept their merchandise behind the counter, and fetched items for customers. In order to reduce the number of clerks required, Clarence Saunders launched the first self-serve store in Memphis, Tennessee in 1916. A century later, we have constructed a vast impoverished class, 50-million strong, and perhaps retailers will be forced to revert to the behind-the-counter model. And it would serve them right since it was retailers like Walmart that exported so many jobs in the first place, thus bringing into being a large portion of the vast army of impoverished Americans.
Of course, we do not condone criminal activity, and what follows is not absolution. However, it is a fact that while offshoring and mass-immigration have harmed the middle class, those policies have pulverized the African-American working class. So, is it any wonder that street crime is reaching Intifada levels of intensity?
The primary goal of our mass-immigration policy is to wipe out labor unions, and redistribute income from workers to oligarchs. However, when most people think of unions, they think of well-paid, white auto workers – Michigan or Ohio UAW workers. But many unions of black working-class people have been wiped out. For example, fifty years ago, African-Americans held all the service jobs in Miami’s tourist industry. Today, they hold none; they have been totally displaced by immigrants from south of the border. This has happened all over the country in numerous industries like airports, construction, slaughter houses, hotels, restaurants, bars, janitorial services, etc. African-American citizens have been replaced by immigrants being paid lower wages.
And we are not talking about small change here. In 2006, Harvard economist George J. Borjas (a Cuban-American) wrote in a paper titled "The Impact of Immigration and the Labor Market":
"…immigration causes substantial wealth redistribution. By 2000, the model predicts that immigration reduced the total earnings accruing to native workers by about 2.8 percent of GDP and increased the income accruing to native employers by 3.1 percent of GDP. In 2002 dollars, workers lose around $278 billion while employers gain $300 billion."
The conflict between African-American and Latino immigrant workers is so serious that Berkley legal scholars plead with them to play nice together. See their paper: "Conflict and Solidarity Between African-American and Latino Immigrant Workers."
While conservatives like to castigate African-Americans as welfare recipients, the truth is that offshoring and mass-immigration are welfare programs for the Oligarchy funded by wages stripped away from the African-American community.
Note: Miami’s Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, Jamaicans, etc. are fine peoples. However, if the Oligarchy sees a chance to replace them with even cheaper workers, they won’t hesitate to do so. Nobody should be surprised if one day huge ships carrying impoverished people from Cambodia, Egypt, or Kenya begin to arrive at the Port of Miami. And nobody should be surprised if tax dollars are used to teach them English and train them to take service-industry jobs. In fact, some of this has already occurred in Palm Beach County where high-end resorts have brought in workers on H-2B visas instead of hiring locally.
When the Oligarchs are re-assessing their workforce, nobody is safe, and possessing American citizenship will not help you. Remember: Oligarchs regard the USA as a conquered province of their global empire, and the residents as just another natural resource to be exploited or discarded as they see fit. They don’t recognize citizenship because they don’t recognize national sovereignty.
In 2012, comedian DL Hughley made a mockumentary for Comedy Central titled: "The Endangered List" where he lobbies the EPA to have the African-American male declared an endangered species. During the show he lectures two members of the Bloods street gang about how violent crime makes all black people look bad. One of the Bloods, Kyon, replies:
"That’s life. That’s the way it is. …It was set up to be that way. Like it’s right here in this community. Give us no jobs…"
As a self-made man, Hughley was having none of it, however that doesn’t change the fact that what Kyon said is factually correct. As Cornell University labor economist Vernon Briggs pointed out, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Said Briggs in this essay:
"[the effort]…to raise disadvantaged urban black Americans out of poverty was undermined from the beginning by the flood of cheap foreign labor.”
For nearly a half-century now, African-Americans have had to compete with a never-ceasing, and ever-increasing tide of cheap labor, often flowing directly into their neighborhoods. After declaring a moratorium on immigration, and a moratorium on offshoring, and decriminalizing recreational drugs, then DL Hughley can lecture all he wants. And guess what? He will have moral authority because the system will now be supporting his people rather than steamrolling them.
"There’s a brother named Dave ina Corvette
Had a job at the U.P.S.
I ain’t dissin’ ’cause U.P.S. pays money
But Dave wants to kick it with the honeys"
-Sir Mix-a-Lot 
Here’s the key point: When well-paid jobs are available, nobody can even rationalize choosing a life of crime. Like Sir Mix-a-Lot said, working for The Man is not a problem when The Man is paying you well – like you are a man yourself – and not just a disposable labor input.
The emergence of angry rap music and hip-hop culture is a direct result of the Oligarchy’s mass-immigration and de-industrialization policies. One could make a case for reparations.
Crack #4 – Barbaric Living Conditions
"My idea of civilization is as much about sewage pipes as flying buttresses, if not more so, because without efficient public plumbing cities are death-traps, turning rivers and wells into havens for the bacterium Vibrio cholerae."
-Niall Ferguson 
As Ferguson was writing his book in 2011, civilization, by his definition, came to an end in Birmingham, Alabama. Some residents are going without indoor plumbing and running water after Jefferson County was looted by the Financial Oligarchy.
The Oligarch Media has almost completely ignored this story, but thanks to the BBC we know what has happened: retirees living on Social Security can no longer afford to pay the huge sewage bills that eat up 30-50% of their income. The bills are that high because local officials were bribed by banksters to overpay for a sewage system upgrade. According to the BBC story:
"Investment bank JP Morgan Securities and two of its former directors have been fined for offering bribes to Jefferson County workers and politicians to win business financing the sewer upgrade."
With Paul Ryan running for Vice President on the Republican ticket, "austerity" was one of the top issues of the 2012 presidential election. However, African-American retirees in Jefferson County were already "living the life" of outhouses and bottled water thanks to an austere retirement system, and roving bands of rapacious banksters.
On November 9, 2011 Jefferson Country filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. At $4.2 billion, it was the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.
Half the population of Birmingham fled a cholera outbreak in 1873. Will we degrade back down to that level? Time will tell, however civilization is crumbling all around the USA, and the Oligarchy shows no signs of ceasing its depredations.
Handy tip for American readers: Learn from the citizens of Detroit and add a rape alarm to your keychain to scare off packs of feral dogs.
Imagine a national ballot initiative: "Are you in favor of sending all middle-class jobs to Asia, and for jobs that cannot be sent, re-staffing them with low-paid immigrants?"
What are the chances that American citizens would vote "yes" on such an initiative? Zero. Such a "globalization and colonization" initiative would be crushed in a massive landslide. So, what we need to do is conceptually simple: have our political leaders implement the will of the people. And while the Oligarchy appears invincible, it is indeed possible to defeat them. We have actually done it before. On numerous occasions, We The People, have forced our political leaders to defy the Oligarchy and improve the nation. Some examples:
Women began their campaign for the right to vote at the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. Seventy-two years later they succeeded when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.
Sit-Down Strikes, and The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) established the minimum wage, the eight-hour workday, the forty-hour workweek, overtime pay, and abolished child labor and sweatshops. However, the FLSA was introduced in Congress in 1932. So, what took so long? Where was President Roosevelt during those six years? Wasn’t he pushing it? Apparently not. The bill did not become law until The People took matters into their own hands during the sit-down strikes of 1936-1937. Not only that, but these were "wildcat" strikes opposed by the union bosses, who only jumped on the bandwagon after the fact.
The Bonus Army
Having been paid practically nothing during World War I, soldiers had to protest to get paid. The protests began in 1932, and the soldiers were paid four years later in 1936. Again, President Roosevelt was no help. As a matter of fact, he vetoed the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act of 1936, and Congress had to override his veto.
Vietnam War Protests
The People put an end to the Military-Industrial Complex’s first "endless" war with mass protests during the 1960s and 1970s.
Civil Rights Movement
The civil rights enjoyed by African-Americans (and other minorities) today were not handed down by the Founding Fathers or any other politicians. They were won in hard-fought battles during the 1960s with protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, sit-ins, marches, etc.
This Time It’s Different
Never before in American history have reformers had to contend with an all-encompassing propaganda machine like the Oligarch Media. The spectacular disintegration of the Occupy Wall Street movement is a chilling testament to the Oligarch Media’s power. OWS didn’t elect a single member to Congress, or accomplish even the smallest of goals. It couldn’t even choose a goal. Contrast that to the reformers of the past, who were not the least bit confused about what they wanted to accomplish. The Oligarchy’s dumbing-down of the masses paid a nice dividend in 2011, helping them to dodge the OWS bullet. The Oligarch Media is the Information Age equivalent of the Berlin Wall.
It is also sobering to remember that the British people never threw off their oligarchy. The British Empire went from superpower to rust-bucket with shocking speed. The USA is physically much larger than the United Kingdom, and we have far more resources. So, perhaps we will not fall as far as they did, but make no mistake, we are falling. Fast. And time is running short.
We Must Win
It is critical that we break out of this appalling Age of Globalist Carpetbagging as soon as possible. After the British Empire’s fall, the United Kingdom retained a measure of its status and self-respect by virtue of its "special relationship" with the USA. It seems doubtful that the Chinese will be so generous with us. They are more likely to award a contract to Foxconn to march us into sweatshops and work off the trillion dollars that we owe them.
Appendix #1 – The Oligarchy’s Split Personality
One minute, the Oligarchy is sending factories to China as if their heads were on fire. The next minute, they are moving military forces to the Pacific to "contain" China. This contradictory behavior is caused by the two main wings of the Oligarchy. The Financial Oligarchy, lead by Wall Street, loves China and makes money by sending American jobs there. The Military Oligarchy views China as a potential threat, and wants to contain them.
When looking back at history, keep in mind that the Financial Oligarchy was repressed after they crashed the stock market in 1929, and inflicted a plague of bank failures on the nation during the 1930s. So, the Military Oligarchy reigned supreme for decades while the Financial Oligarchy agitated to be released from its stockade.
Once the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the Military Oligarchy receded a bit, and the resurgent Financial Oligarchy seized power. They reigned supreme during the 1990s, with their boy, Bill Clinton, signing NAFTA and bringing China into the WTO. Their plan to remove America’s borders, make it a dumping ground for their sweatshop products from the Third World, and de-industrialize in the process, was not resisted by the Military Oligarchy because they were tied down by their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Going forward, will the Military Oligarchy rebel against the hollowing-out of their industrial base by the Financial Oligarchy? Will they push the banksters aside and insist on re-industrialization? This might be the middle class’s only hope. And perhaps a peaceful solution could be found. After all, having a powerful industrial base, doesn’t automatically require more wars of conquest. A reasonable plan would be to have the Military Oligarchy reverse the trade policies of the Financial Oligarchy through peaceful means in the name of national security. We re-industrialize, put people back to work, and upgrade our worn-out military gear to state-of-the art defensive systems – the kind that can, for example, detect those Russian Akula-2 submarines.
Note: Of course, there is overlap between the different factions of the Oligarchy. For example, bankers are notorious war profiteers.
Appendix #2 – Fracking is not Enough
The USA’s "fracking" revolution has dramatically reduced natural gas prices and some chemical companies are moving back into the USA. Toy companies might be able to come back from China because they use a lot of plastic derived from natural gas. (Link) However, this is not something that we should count on to create our jobs. A stronger economy will increase demand, and may push gas prices back up. Other countries can copy our technology, produce more gas, and lure our plants back as energy costs equalize again.
Appendix #3 – Globalization is not Inherently Evil
During our Revolutionary Era, state militias were more eager to fight each other than they were to fight the British. It is a good thing that states no longer fight each other. It is also a good thing that the nations of the European Union no longer fight each other. And it would be a great thing if a global political union could be created so that no wars would be fought at all. And that might be feasible if the world did not have a vast oversupply of workers. But it does. And until that changes, economic integration, as currently practiced by the Oligarchy amounts to the USA being dissolved into a vast, global pool of poverty. Clearly, a fate not endorsed by the American People.
Appendix #4 – Ronald Reagan Was Not the Turning Point
Many Democrats like to use Ronald Reagan’s presidency as the watershed event that brought the Oligarchy to power. However, the Oligarchy had an agent in the White House before Ronald Reagan. As a matter of fact, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission had an entire management team in place: The Jimmy Carter Administration.
As we discussed earlier in the "The Trilateral Commission Fails" section, Carter tried, and failed, to implement Rockefeller’s international-trade policies. However, Carter was successful in advancing Rockefeller’s domestic agenda. Carter signed bills to deregulate airlines, railroads, and the trucking industry. So, as Michael Lind wrote in "Land of Promise" (Kindle 6178) the great dismantling of New Deal America was put into motion by the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Reagan is also associated with the religious right. However, Carter was the first president to run as a born-again Christian. That was in 1976, three years before Jerry Falwell founded his Moral Majority. Carter’s opponent, Gerald Ford, was also born-again, but he deliberately never politicized the fact. The Trilateralists were looking for somebody who would politicize the hell (ha, ha) out of it. That’s why they plucked Carter out of obscurity and got behind him: they saw the evangelical wave coming.
Why was the Trilateral Commission so attuned to the USA’s burgeoning evangelical movement? Because after being thrashed by the various protest movements of the 1960s and early 1970s, the Oligarchy was searching for a new horse to ride. That is one of the main themes of their 1975 book: The Crisis of Democracy. The Trilateralists were so desperate that they even considered ruling Europe through the Communists! From page 50:
"The communist parties have emerged more and more as the parties of order, whose leaders are the only ones able to make people work…"
And the praise goes on. Later, on page 159, they seem to have discussed the matter with the Communists and received assurances:
"In Europe, even the French and Italian communist parties have adapted themselves to the democratic game and at least assert that if admitted to power they will continue to play according to the rules of that game."
Such a romance! But it wasn’t meant to be because in the USA, something bigger was brewing: an evangelical Big Bang. The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision was turning many religious people into political activists. So, in an attempt to ride that wave, the Trilateralists recruited the religious Carter. However, the decision also caused religious people in the Democratic Party to migrate over to the Republican Party. Consider the findings of religion professors Mark Silk and Andrew Walsh:
"By the late 1960s, the old Catholic Democratic voter bloc was breaking up, following the dissolution of the old urban Catholic subculture. The Catholic working class was eroding under pressure and unhappy with the new social policies of both the church and the Democratic Party, a process accelerated by Roe v. Wade in 1973."
So, while the Oligarchy was quick to jump on the evangelical horse, with Jimmy Carter, it was the Republican party that would be the ultimate beneficiary seven years later. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was the lucky recipient of this political mass-migration. Read more in The Soul of Neoliberalism by Bethany Moreton.
The moral of the story is that long before Ronald Reagan took office, David Rockefeller had his neoliberal campaign going full blast. He had pet economists like Milton Friedman madly scribbling laissez-faire tracts at his "Chicago School" of economics. He was motivating the grass roots with an evangelical candidate three years before Jerry Falwell caught onto the idea. And he captured the White House in 1976, and began savagely slashing away at New Deal America.
Bashing Ronald Reagan actually helps to deflect blame from the Oligarchy, and Democrats should redirect their rhetoric. This is not a partisan issue. After all, Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama served the Oligarchy just as faithfully as any Republican ever did.
Appendix #5 – Solving the Psychopath Riddle
The genetic brain damage found in psychopaths appears to cause destructive behavior when a child carrying the "Warrior Gene" grows up in a violent environment. Our genes provide us with many behavioral options to adapt us to the environment in which we find ourselves born into. If you had been born into "interesting times" as the Chinese say, you might want to be a psychopath since that brain structure might help you to survive.
In peaceful times, child abuse appears to activate the Warrior Gene. So, in addition to Dr. Robert D. Hare’s PCL-R psychological test, we should be able to combine a person’s upbringing with brain scans and genetic testing to develop a pretty good psychopath test.
In 2011, the BBC’s "Horizon" show broadcast an episode titled "Are You Good or Evil?" in which a top neuroscientist, James H. Fallon, discovered that he himself had the brain structure of a psychopath. As he was studying psychopaths, family members suggested that he take a look at his own brain, and informed him that he was descended from Lizzie Borden. It’s a dramatic story, and has a happy ending because Fallon had a happy childhood and his Warrior Gene never got him into trouble. So, this is a fascinating example of how a psychopath scientist expanded our knowledge of psychopaths.
Identifying psychopaths should eventually be pretty easy. What will be challenging is deciding how to keep them from doing damage to their fellow humans without incarcerating them.
On a sinister note, oligarchs might use psychopath testing to find employees more suitable to overseer jobs. Imagine if all the supervisor positions in a giant warehouse could be staffed with bona fide psychopaths. Would productivity, and thus profits, rise? Like any technology, psychopath testing could be used for good or evil, and for all we know, might already be employed in the service of evil.
Appendix #6 – Marine General Smedley Butler
If you look at American military history, you will see numerous interventions south of the border. What were all of those about? After he retired from the U.S. Marines in 1931, General Smedley Butler gave a speech shedding light on those conflicts. Here is a quote:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Butler was very popular and gave his speech all over the country. He later expanded it into a short book titled War is a Racket which is available from Amazon.com, and other places online. The names of the companies above are not in the book; probably because the publisher didn’t want to get sued. However, before the book, a pamphlet containing the speech was published. What is apparently the full text of the pamphlet is at the bottom of this page. General Butler also has a fascinating Wikipedia page.
Abramoff, Jack, Capitol Punishment.
Butler, Smedley War is a Racket.
Chayefsky, Paddy, Network.
Coll, Steve, Private Empire.
Conard, Edward, Unintended Consequences.
Faux, Jeff, The Servant Economy.
Ferguson, Niall, Civilization: The West and the Rest.
Friedman, George, The Next 100 Years.
Flaherty, Colin, White Girl Bleed a Lot.
Fletcher, Ian, and William Shearer, The Conservative Case Against Free Trade.
Freeland, Chrystia, Plutocrats.
Fuller, R. Buckminster, Critical Path.
Gladwell, Malcolm, Outliers.
Goldsmith, Sir James, The Trap.
Hoffman, William, David.
Johnson, Chalmers, Blowback.
Lind, Michael, Land of Promise.
Mandelbrot, Benoit, The (Mis)Behavior of Markets.
McGilchrist, Iain, The Master and His Emissary
Moreton, Bethany, To Serve God and Wal-Mart.
Moreton, Bethany, The Soul of Neoliberalism.
Mazzocco, Dennis, Networks of Power.
Perkins, John, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Ritholtz, Barry, Bailout Nation.
Rockefeller, David, Memoirs.
Stein, Judith, Pivotal Decade.
Trilateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy.
Wang, Chun Yu, Chicken Feathers and Garlic Skin.
Willens, Howard, and Deanne Siemer, An Honorable Accord, (about Saipan).
Wriston, Walter, The Twilight of Sovereignty.
 Edward Conard, Unintended Consequences, Kindle location 1362.
 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Kindle location 8137.
 Trilateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy, page 158.
 Most southern states adopted Right-to-Work laws in the 1940s & 1950s. See the list here. The 1965 "Canada-United States Automotive Products Agreement" or the "Auto Pact" sent a large number of U.S. auto plants to Canada. At the time, wages were
lower in Canada, so that was a cheap-labor deal also. Canadian wages subsequently rose to parity with American wages, and the Canadian Auto Workers earned a reputation for being more militant than the UAW. Most of the plants moved went across the river from Detroit into Windsor & southern Ontario.
 Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, Kindle location 3226.
 Hong Kong has a new $3.60 minimum wage, but it is unlikely to help much in such an expensive city. The woman who was featured in the documentary was already making $4 per hour working at a 7-11 store.
 The Matrix (1999) at the 0:43:25 mark.
 Erik Barnouw, The Image Empire, page 285.
 John Train, The Midas Touch, page 22.
 Steve Coll, Private Empire, Kindle location 5034.
 Paddy Chayefsky, Network (1976). In the film, Arthur Jensen is the CEO of the television station where broadcaster Howard Beale works. In an enigmatic scene, Jensen commands Beale to stop his "mad as hell" tirades.
 Walter Wriston, The Twilight of Sovereignty, page 100.
 F.W. Brownlow, Chronicles Magazine, February 1993, page 17.
 Dimitry Anastakis, Auto Pact, page 104.
 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Kindle location 9763.
 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Kindle location 7425
 Judith Stein, Pivotal Decade, Kindle location 185.
 George Friedman, The Next 100 Years, page 125.
 Edward Conard, Unintended Consequences, Kindle location 245.
 Edward Conard, Unintended Consequences, Kindle location 251.
 Bethany Moreton, To Serve God and Wal-Mart, Kindle location 245.
 Barry Ritholtz, Bailout Nation, Kindle location 2167.
 Sir Mix-a-Lot, "Sprung on the Cat" from Mack Daddy (1992).
 Niall Ferguson, Civilization: The West and the Rest, page 2.