The following abstract from a June 13, 2011 article written by Daniel Ellsberg is, I believe extremely important in the context of creating world peace. We continue to wage wars in the Middle East based on “False Flag” reasons and government lies. Anybody familiar with the mission statement of the PNAC (Partnership for a New American Century) will clearly understand that the US goal is to control all energy assets in most of the world by economic or forceful means. Let’s be clear folks, we have not invaded Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be other Muslim nations for “Freedom & Liberation”. Our primary goals in these illegal and preemptive wars are the control of fossil fuel assets, drugs, metals used in hi-tech manufacturing, and removal of leaders who advocate government owned banks that threaten the profits of the international banker cabal.
Ellsberg writes the following:
“While we go on waging un-winnable wars on false premises, the Pentagon papers tell us we must not wait 40 years for the truth.
The declassification and online release Monday of the full original version of the Pentagon Papers - the 7,000-page top secret Pentagon study of US decision-making in Vietnam 1945-67 - comes 40 years after I gave it to 19 newspapers and to Senator Mike Gravel (minus volumes on negotiations, which I had given only to the Senate foreign relations committee). Together with the newspaper coverage and a government printing office (GPO) edition that was heavily redacted but overlapped the Senator Gravel edition, most of the material has been available to the public and scholars since 1971. (The negotiation volumes were declassified some years ago; the Senate, if not the Pentagon, should have released them no later than the end of the war in 1975.)
In other words, today's declassification of the whole study comes 36 to 40 years overdue. Yet, unfortunately, it happens to be peculiarly timely that this study gets attention and goes online just now. That's because we're mired again in wars - especially in Afghanistan - remarkably similar to the 30-year conflict in Vietnam, and we don't have comparable documentation and insider analysis to enlighten us on how we got here and where it's likely to go.
What we need released this month are the Pentagon Papers of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya). We're not likely to get them; they probably don't yet exist, at least in the useful form of the earlier ones. But the original studies on Vietnam are a surprisingly not-bad substitute, definitely worth learning from.
Yes, the languages and ethnicities that we don't understand are different in the Middle East from those in Vietnam; the climate, terrain and types of ambushes are very different. But as the accounts in the Pentagon Papers explain, we face the same futile effort in Afghanistan to find and destroy nationalist guerrillas or to get them to quit fighting foreign invaders (now us) and the corrupt, ill-motivated, dope-dealing despots we support.
As for Washington, the accounts of recurrent decisions to escalate in the Pentagon Papers read like an extended prequel to Bob Woodward's book, Obama's War, on the prolonged internal controversies that preceded the president's decisions to triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan.
In accounts of wars 40 years and half a world apart, we read of the same irresponsible, self-serving presidential and congressional objectives in prolonging and escalating an un-winnable conflict: namely, the need not to be charged with weakness by political rivals, or with losing a war that a few feckless or ambitious generals foolishly claim can be won. Putting the policy-making and the field realities together, we see the same prospect of endless, bloody stalemate - unless and until, under public pressure, Congress threatens to cut off the money (as in 1972-73), forcing the executive into a negotiated withdrawal.
To motivate voters and Congress to extricate us from these presidential wars, we need the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East wars right now. Not 40 years in the future. Not after even two or three more years of further commitment to stalemated and unjustifiable wars.
Yet, we're not likely to get these ever within the time frame they're needed. The WikiLeaks' unauthorised disclosures of the last year are the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers (and even surpass them in quantity and timeliness). But unfortunately, the courageous source of these secret, field-level reports - Private Bradley Manning is the one accused, though that remains to be proven in court - did not have access to top secret, high-level recommendations, estimates and decisions.
I've long regretted that it didn't even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an "unequivocal, unprovoked" (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the "evidence beyond any doubt" of nonexistent WMD’s in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
Senator Morse - one of the two senators who had voted against that unconstitutional, undated blank cheque for presidential war in 1964 - told me that if I had provided him with that evidence at the time (instead of 1969, when I finally provided it to the senate foreign relations committee, on which he had served): "The Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee; and if it had been brought to the floor, it would have been voted down."
That's a heavy burden for me to bear: especially when I reflect that, by September, I had a drawer-full of the top secret documents (again, regrettably, not published until 1971) proving the fraudulence of Johnson's promises of "no wider war" in his election campaign, and his actual determination to escalate a war that he privately and realistically regarded as unwinnable.
Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office - which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath "to support and defend the constitution of the United States" - that terrible war might well have been averted altogether. But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation - not five or seven, or even two, years after the fateful commitments had been made.
A lesson to be drawn from reading the Pentagon Papers, knowing all that followed or has come out in the years since, is this. To those in the Pentagon, state department, the White House, CIA (and their counterparts in Britain and other Nato countries) who have similar access to mine then and foreknowledge of disastrous escalations in our wars in the Middle East, I would say:
Don't make my mistake. Don't do what I did. Don't wait until a new war has started in Iran, until more bombs have fallen in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. Don't wait until thousands more have died, before you go to the press and to Congress to tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. Don't wait 40 years for it to be declassified, or seven years as I did for you or someone else to leak it.”
It is important that patriotic citizens of America demand transparency from their government, support the Bradley Manning’s, Julian Assange’s, and Daniel Ellsberg’s who have the courage to put their lives on the line to out corporate and government corruption, cover-ups, and fascist behavior.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Military Industrial Complex, sustainability, and us
I wish to focus on our next industrial/technological revolution, that being sustainability. There is incredible opportunity for reducing our dependence of fossil fuels, reducing our need for natural resources, creating a tremendous positive engine for domestic employment, and responsible stewarding of our environment for generations to come. Moving into this next exciting technological revolution will require citizen passion and commitment, ergo political will, and a redirection of financial and intellectual resources. So the question is where will the money, scientific, engineering, and manufacturing talent come from?
In reality we are spending over 8% of our GDP, ballooning our national debt, including direct Department of Defense, interest, veteran’s benefits, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and subsidies to city and state law enforcement for quasi-homeland security issues. We are talking money, that could be better spent on alternative energy research, development, and implementation; all mostly domestic employment. Our attempt to improve health care has been a superficial strategy that is really about the welfare of the drug, insurance, and general health care purveyor industry, and ultimately Wall Street. Health care industry jobs and services usually improve people’s lives and create domestic employment. Our declining position as a modern country in the world is decaying in part due to our reduced industrial manufacturing sector and inadequate training and educational resources, as well as staying behind in finding ways to use those resources more effectively. Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, parks, inland waterways and levees are in need of major upgrading and improvement; all domestic employment opportunities that provide positive societal benefits.
The ultimate cause of the growth of the insidious destructive immoral Military Industrial Complex is corporate greed and our own amoral complicity. How many people who work in the defense industry would give up their lucrative jobs in order to support better humanitarian uses of financial and intellectual resources? How many of us will write a letter, telephone our legislators, write an article in a tabloid in protest of our misplaced priorities for defense? How many people are afraid to stand up to our government leaders because some of the electorate are apathetic citizens, indolent, or fearful of being labeled Anti-American, “Pinko”, or unpatriotic? How many people would support the closure of their local military base, even though it would mean a short term loss to local city or town’s economy? Unfortunately the economic tentacles of defense spending serve to enrich many people both in the public and private sectors at the expense of more important and beneficial stakeholders. So before we layoff responsibility on corrupt bankers, greedy defense contractors, and deceitful prostituting politicians we need to get our own ethical and moral houses in order. Are we really serious about peace, or do we just like to mouth the abstract words? If we choose to opt for short term economic gain over morality, how can we expect our own politicians to be moral creatures?
Falling behind in sustainability progress is a greater real security priority to our nation than the manufactured need for a bloated military killing colossus. There is a requirement in general in the interest of national security, that all military defense hardware be manufactured in America by legal citizens of this country, but in reality our domestic corporations are the major beneficiaries of this major economic charade. If we make sustainability a national security priority, all those employed in alternative energy, recycling, energy auditing and engineering, re-adaptation of energy systems, “Green Industries”, and anything else directly related to the above would have to be made in America by naturalized citizens. In reality death and disintegration will come to our nation if we do not have the energy resources, we continue to foul our environment, and we do not focus on all elements and stakeholders that add actual positive benefits to our society.
The structure of the military and its results are the antithesis of a sustainability model. The military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels. The military is exempt from many environmental laws that govern civilian society. The testing and actual use of military hardware and munitions leaves devastation and environmental contamination wherever it is used. The inherent wastefulness and corrupt purchasing practices of the Pentagon are an example of the very poor use of financial, intellectual, raw materials and energy. There is no major single societal service or product that comes to mind that is less sustainable than the Military Industrial Complex.
America is incredibly resourceful and a “Can do” nation. When one reflects on how quickly we ramped up our engineering talent and manufacturing resources to produce liberty ships, planes, uniforms, munitions, and military base infrastructure and support for WWII; why can’t we use that same talent, focus, and energy to produce for the nations good, not destructive ends? It is estimated that over half of the scientists and engineers in this country are connected directly or indirectly to the design and production of military hardware. Just think of the good that could be produced by our society if a major portion of these talented people were used to support sustainability projects instead of murder and destruction?
Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. I believe that we buy into the Military Industrial Complex fraud for greed, self interest, and a manufactured fear that we need major military security. When we spend money motivated by fear, be it for insurance, our military, emergency health care, or other reasons that may interfere with our thoughtful and rational thinking processes we are less mindful of the cost. After our initial invasion of Iraq typical gains in stocks for the defense industry increased at double the rate of non-defense stocks. If we choose to invest our money in killing hardware, how can we call our leaders and politicians immoral, when we in fact out of our own greed are equally complicit in our immoral economic decisions?
What can I do as an ordinary American to effect a change? Firstly think about selling all your investments in the defense industry and reinvest them in sustainability industries. If you are a member of a union or pension group lobby, I suggest you lobby your representatives to divest themselves of all investments of the plans in the defense industry, and reinvest in positive domestic industries. If you are employed by the defense industries try and seek employment in other industries, even if it requires a minimal pay reduction. Write your legislative representatives discouraging them from funding pork barrel legislation that funds war industries. If there is a convention in your area that is used to market military hardware, try to discourage your city from hosting it. If there is such a convention in your locale, organize a large group of protesters to draw media attention to the wasteful use of our countries resources.
Be active, encouraging your children and any students of college or high school age to stop military recruitment on campus, blocking ROTC programs, and generally resisting the expansion of the military in your area. If they show recruitment advertising, before the major movie in your local theater threaten the movie house owner that you and your friends will not be a continuing movie patron unless the misleading deceptive recruitment advertising is eliminated.
So believe it or not, we do have the power and ability, as ordinary citizens to create a peace loving mindset in this country and the world if we are truly sincere and manifest our passion. Do not forget that it was major protests in the 60’s and 70’s that brought the Vietnam War to an end. Apathy, cowardice, and inaction are more dangerous to a society than guns and swords.
In reality we are spending over 8% of our GDP, ballooning our national debt, including direct Department of Defense, interest, veteran’s benefits, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and subsidies to city and state law enforcement for quasi-homeland security issues. We are talking money, that could be better spent on alternative energy research, development, and implementation; all mostly domestic employment. Our attempt to improve health care has been a superficial strategy that is really about the welfare of the drug, insurance, and general health care purveyor industry, and ultimately Wall Street. Health care industry jobs and services usually improve people’s lives and create domestic employment. Our declining position as a modern country in the world is decaying in part due to our reduced industrial manufacturing sector and inadequate training and educational resources, as well as staying behind in finding ways to use those resources more effectively. Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, parks, inland waterways and levees are in need of major upgrading and improvement; all domestic employment opportunities that provide positive societal benefits.
The ultimate cause of the growth of the insidious destructive immoral Military Industrial Complex is corporate greed and our own amoral complicity. How many people who work in the defense industry would give up their lucrative jobs in order to support better humanitarian uses of financial and intellectual resources? How many of us will write a letter, telephone our legislators, write an article in a tabloid in protest of our misplaced priorities for defense? How many people are afraid to stand up to our government leaders because some of the electorate are apathetic citizens, indolent, or fearful of being labeled Anti-American, “Pinko”, or unpatriotic? How many people would support the closure of their local military base, even though it would mean a short term loss to local city or town’s economy? Unfortunately the economic tentacles of defense spending serve to enrich many people both in the public and private sectors at the expense of more important and beneficial stakeholders. So before we layoff responsibility on corrupt bankers, greedy defense contractors, and deceitful prostituting politicians we need to get our own ethical and moral houses in order. Are we really serious about peace, or do we just like to mouth the abstract words? If we choose to opt for short term economic gain over morality, how can we expect our own politicians to be moral creatures?
Falling behind in sustainability progress is a greater real security priority to our nation than the manufactured need for a bloated military killing colossus. There is a requirement in general in the interest of national security, that all military defense hardware be manufactured in America by legal citizens of this country, but in reality our domestic corporations are the major beneficiaries of this major economic charade. If we make sustainability a national security priority, all those employed in alternative energy, recycling, energy auditing and engineering, re-adaptation of energy systems, “Green Industries”, and anything else directly related to the above would have to be made in America by naturalized citizens. In reality death and disintegration will come to our nation if we do not have the energy resources, we continue to foul our environment, and we do not focus on all elements and stakeholders that add actual positive benefits to our society.
The structure of the military and its results are the antithesis of a sustainability model. The military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels. The military is exempt from many environmental laws that govern civilian society. The testing and actual use of military hardware and munitions leaves devastation and environmental contamination wherever it is used. The inherent wastefulness and corrupt purchasing practices of the Pentagon are an example of the very poor use of financial, intellectual, raw materials and energy. There is no major single societal service or product that comes to mind that is less sustainable than the Military Industrial Complex.
America is incredibly resourceful and a “Can do” nation. When one reflects on how quickly we ramped up our engineering talent and manufacturing resources to produce liberty ships, planes, uniforms, munitions, and military base infrastructure and support for WWII; why can’t we use that same talent, focus, and energy to produce for the nations good, not destructive ends? It is estimated that over half of the scientists and engineers in this country are connected directly or indirectly to the design and production of military hardware. Just think of the good that could be produced by our society if a major portion of these talented people were used to support sustainability projects instead of murder and destruction?
Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. I believe that we buy into the Military Industrial Complex fraud for greed, self interest, and a manufactured fear that we need major military security. When we spend money motivated by fear, be it for insurance, our military, emergency health care, or other reasons that may interfere with our thoughtful and rational thinking processes we are less mindful of the cost. After our initial invasion of Iraq typical gains in stocks for the defense industry increased at double the rate of non-defense stocks. If we choose to invest our money in killing hardware, how can we call our leaders and politicians immoral, when we in fact out of our own greed are equally complicit in our immoral economic decisions?
What can I do as an ordinary American to effect a change? Firstly think about selling all your investments in the defense industry and reinvest them in sustainability industries. If you are a member of a union or pension group lobby, I suggest you lobby your representatives to divest themselves of all investments of the plans in the defense industry, and reinvest in positive domestic industries. If you are employed by the defense industries try and seek employment in other industries, even if it requires a minimal pay reduction. Write your legislative representatives discouraging them from funding pork barrel legislation that funds war industries. If there is a convention in your area that is used to market military hardware, try to discourage your city from hosting it. If there is such a convention in your locale, organize a large group of protesters to draw media attention to the wasteful use of our countries resources.
Be active, encouraging your children and any students of college or high school age to stop military recruitment on campus, blocking ROTC programs, and generally resisting the expansion of the military in your area. If they show recruitment advertising, before the major movie in your local theater threaten the movie house owner that you and your friends will not be a continuing movie patron unless the misleading deceptive recruitment advertising is eliminated.
So believe it or not, we do have the power and ability, as ordinary citizens to create a peace loving mindset in this country and the world if we are truly sincere and manifest our passion. Do not forget that it was major protests in the 60’s and 70’s that brought the Vietnam War to an end. Apathy, cowardice, and inaction are more dangerous to a society than guns and swords.
Leave Religion Improve your Sex life
A recent study by Dr. Darrel W. Ray of 14,500 secularists concluded that people who leave religion have a healthier attitude about their sex lives as opposed to some who feel bound by their religion. Dr. Ray is an organizational psychologist, consultant and author of “The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture” and founder of the organization Recovering from Religion. For the first 10 years of his career he practiced as a clinical psychologist before moving into the corporate world where he has had an international consulting practice since 1986. Some the text of my following article is from The Humanist magazine of critical and social concern.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
Quotes by Harvey Rifkin
"It is not the big powerful people that I fear most; but the many ignorant childlike fearful masses who find safety in delusion, and who are so easily led like sheep, while allowing themselves to be deceived by government propaganda and religion"
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
Osama bin Laden has been dead for 9 years
One thing we know is that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset used to recruit Muslim fundamentalists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. We also know that his family had very close ties to the US government and more specifically to the Bush family. In 2001 he was terminally ill with kidney disease. The day that the news flashed about bin Laden’s death I immediately said, based on previous information, “Here goes our leaders fabricating more lies again for political gain or electorate distraction”.
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
U.S. Corporations+Fascism=cozy bed fellows
Corporations do not see Fascism as an end game or some ideological principle, but rather as a convenient and profitable delivery system in order to bolster profits for their stockholders. Corporations are not in business to create jobs, become the altruistic benefactor of society, care for the working class, but only to make money for their investors by any means that they can legally achieve, and in some cases illegally without regard to the health and safety of the consumer or the environment. In the following article I will detail egregious examples of how many of our major corporations have partnered up with dictators, despots, and people who we deem to be a threat to our nation.
There has been a continuing trend, since the Reagan years for all branches of government to favor the corporation and financial sectors over the benefits of the purchasing public. The latest decision by a Supreme Court that has been packed by corporate shills such as Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy, who ruled that corporations had the equivalent of “Personhood”, was not the intention of the Founding Fathers, nor does this decision inure to the benefit of an open and working democracy. We are seeing corporate favoritism in deference to the benefits of the mass electorate when it comes to consumer protections, stewardship of the environment, and tax payer paid corporate socialism when corporations fail, but free market capitalism when they make money.
My objective is not to malign corporations as a final objective, but rather to bring to the attention of the public that a corporation is like a venomous snake or killer shark that should be watched closely and regulated with reasonable boundaries so that it causes little harm to the public. Corporations should not be allowed to merge and become so big that their financial failure would cause a major disaster to our economy. Snakes, sharks, and corporations perform a useful purpose in society and should not be exterminated, but reasonably contained and regulated.
Corporations, bankers, and even labor unions form favored alliances that do not always benefit the public, with government that we characterize as “Crony Capitalism”. Wars, defense networks, and even the welfare state create a means to transfer tax payer dollars, not necessarily at will, but many times through fear and threats into hands of the corporate denizens. The populace many times will cry out in frustrated reaction to government legislation by demonizing politicians with the word Socialist, Marxist, Communist, or even Fascist many times not really understanding the true definition of the concept or ideology. As with all government stakeholder projects, they were not done by the government, they were done by private companies with funding from the government. This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit.
Corporations have no or little commitment to ideology, patriotism, nationalism, or humanity; they move their capital, hire and fire workers in any country that can maximize their bottom line. As a public relations gesture in order to make their products, services, or branding appear positive and attractive, they will emphasize a few gratuitous positive gestures as a means to gain increased market share.
Some of the primary and more famous American companies and individuals that were involved with the Fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.
I.G. Farben was critical in the development of the German economy and war machine leading up to WWII. During this time I.G. Farben's international holdings along with its international business contracts with companies like Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical were crucial in supplying the Nazi regime with the materials needed for war, as well as financial support.
Ford and GM supplied European Fascists with trucks and equipment, as well as investing money in I.G. Farben plants. Standard Oil supplied the fascists with fuel. US Steel and Alcoa supplied them with critically needed metals. American banks gave them billions of dollars worth of loans. American banks and businesses continued to support the Fascist regimes of Europe legally up until the day Germany declared war on America and the activities were stopped under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Despite this, some companies and individuals still maintained a business relationship with the Third Reich.
In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....
Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....
After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...
Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.
Perhaps one of the most egregious contributors to the Nazi cause was IBM under the direction of Thomas J. Watson. IBM knowingly helped to setup Nazi census databases through the use of data sorting machines that enabled the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to. Point blank, IBM increased the size and scope of the Holocaust, and did it for profit." Thomas Watson was awarded a medal by Adolph Hitler for his role in assisting in the Nazi regime, and Watson expressed, "the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people, and their leader Adolph Hitler." He also expressed, "the highest esteem for Hitler, his country, and his people."
After WWII, corporations such as United Fruit, ITT, BP, Chevron, DuPont, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Shell, and many others have been complicit in over throwing democratically elected governments in other countries in order to continue their oppression, rape the land of natural resources, and keep the indigenous populations in slaved in sub-standard wage conditions.
It is easy to put all the blame for a lack of ethical and moral behavior just on the corporations who support Fascist policies, but we as ordinary citizens are also complicit in being part of Fascist policies. We can mostly agree that the corporation is about profit, not compassion, fairness, humanity, or stewardship of the environment. When we own stock in these corporations, supply these companies, work for banks that lend to these companies, seek employment with these companies, or buy their products or services we are culpable participants in furthering Fascism. When we vote, we need to be cognizant of politicians who are owned by Big Business and avoid them. One of the most critical decisions one can make as a voter is who will or will not appoint judges that are owned by corporations. We as ordinary citizens need to set a benchmark for ethical behavior before we jump to just accuse the “Fat Cats” and politicians.
There has been a continuing trend, since the Reagan years for all branches of government to favor the corporation and financial sectors over the benefits of the purchasing public. The latest decision by a Supreme Court that has been packed by corporate shills such as Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy, who ruled that corporations had the equivalent of “Personhood”, was not the intention of the Founding Fathers, nor does this decision inure to the benefit of an open and working democracy. We are seeing corporate favoritism in deference to the benefits of the mass electorate when it comes to consumer protections, stewardship of the environment, and tax payer paid corporate socialism when corporations fail, but free market capitalism when they make money.
My objective is not to malign corporations as a final objective, but rather to bring to the attention of the public that a corporation is like a venomous snake or killer shark that should be watched closely and regulated with reasonable boundaries so that it causes little harm to the public. Corporations should not be allowed to merge and become so big that their financial failure would cause a major disaster to our economy. Snakes, sharks, and corporations perform a useful purpose in society and should not be exterminated, but reasonably contained and regulated.
Corporations, bankers, and even labor unions form favored alliances that do not always benefit the public, with government that we characterize as “Crony Capitalism”. Wars, defense networks, and even the welfare state create a means to transfer tax payer dollars, not necessarily at will, but many times through fear and threats into hands of the corporate denizens. The populace many times will cry out in frustrated reaction to government legislation by demonizing politicians with the word Socialist, Marxist, Communist, or even Fascist many times not really understanding the true definition of the concept or ideology. As with all government stakeholder projects, they were not done by the government, they were done by private companies with funding from the government. This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit.
Corporations have no or little commitment to ideology, patriotism, nationalism, or humanity; they move their capital, hire and fire workers in any country that can maximize their bottom line. As a public relations gesture in order to make their products, services, or branding appear positive and attractive, they will emphasize a few gratuitous positive gestures as a means to gain increased market share.
Some of the primary and more famous American companies and individuals that were involved with the Fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.
I.G. Farben was critical in the development of the German economy and war machine leading up to WWII. During this time I.G. Farben's international holdings along with its international business contracts with companies like Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical were crucial in supplying the Nazi regime with the materials needed for war, as well as financial support.
Ford and GM supplied European Fascists with trucks and equipment, as well as investing money in I.G. Farben plants. Standard Oil supplied the fascists with fuel. US Steel and Alcoa supplied them with critically needed metals. American banks gave them billions of dollars worth of loans. American banks and businesses continued to support the Fascist regimes of Europe legally up until the day Germany declared war on America and the activities were stopped under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Despite this, some companies and individuals still maintained a business relationship with the Third Reich.
In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....
Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....
After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...
Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.
Perhaps one of the most egregious contributors to the Nazi cause was IBM under the direction of Thomas J. Watson. IBM knowingly helped to setup Nazi census databases through the use of data sorting machines that enabled the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to. Point blank, IBM increased the size and scope of the Holocaust, and did it for profit." Thomas Watson was awarded a medal by Adolph Hitler for his role in assisting in the Nazi regime, and Watson expressed, "the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people, and their leader Adolph Hitler." He also expressed, "the highest esteem for Hitler, his country, and his people."
After WWII, corporations such as United Fruit, ITT, BP, Chevron, DuPont, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Shell, and many others have been complicit in over throwing democratically elected governments in other countries in order to continue their oppression, rape the land of natural resources, and keep the indigenous populations in slaved in sub-standard wage conditions.
It is easy to put all the blame for a lack of ethical and moral behavior just on the corporations who support Fascist policies, but we as ordinary citizens are also complicit in being part of Fascist policies. We can mostly agree that the corporation is about profit, not compassion, fairness, humanity, or stewardship of the environment. When we own stock in these corporations, supply these companies, work for banks that lend to these companies, seek employment with these companies, or buy their products or services we are culpable participants in furthering Fascism. When we vote, we need to be cognizant of politicians who are owned by Big Business and avoid them. One of the most critical decisions one can make as a voter is who will or will not appoint judges that are owned by corporations. We as ordinary citizens need to set a benchmark for ethical behavior before we jump to just accuse the “Fat Cats” and politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)