The Worldwide Financial Oligarchy--who owns the world?
06-23-2006, 03:04 PM
The Worldwide Financial Oligarchy--who owns the world?
Ok, this is kinda dense, but good. Basically I see him saying a few things
1) Imperialism uses consumerism and mass media in order to 'pacify' the populace, thereby blunting resistance and indefinitely extending its hegemony.
2) The US media and entertainment industry exports a set of values to the rest of the world...this increasingly serves as the dominant paradigm for world values and ideas, as well as govts
3) Quote: "Only about 4,300 individuals—two one-thousands of 1 percent of the population—exercise formal authority over more than one half of the nation’s industrial assets, two thirds of all banking assets, one half of all assets in communications and utilities, and more than two thirds of all insurance assets."
4) Consumerism as an instrument of imperialism promotes false consciousness, by making good available to a wider and wider net of social classes, while cutting work benefits, health benefits, etc. These commodities link to producers, they brand people with a positive association with various companies, and thereby make consumerism seem inherently good and rational, or at least, harmless.
5) Consumption becomes an alternative to protest, or protest becomes incorporated into commodification
6) Quote: “we live capitalism through its commodities, and by living it, we validate and invigorate it.”
Wow, thats a powerful statement. I mean, I buy stuff at CVS, buy groceries at Giant, pay my cell phone bill, buy clothes (as cheaply as I can, usually ) If the act of buying things means that the system is perpetuated, then my question is: what do I need to stop buying? And what should I look to start producing?
Los Angeles Independent Media Center
Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/30123.php Print comments.
The social construction of consciousness
by anonymous (me) Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 11:47 PM
This paper gives a theoretical discussion of the source and methodology of the social construction of consciousness. The first section introduces the piece. The second establishes the relationship between "interests" and "consciousness." The third describes growing inequality in the US. The fourth develops the structural source of consciousness. The fifth details the interlocking nature of politics and economy in the US. The sixth section discusses how our consciousness can be constructed. The final section offers some solutions.
The purpose of this essay is to understand the development of false consciousness in the United States. Therefore, the author hopes to develop an understanding of consciousness as it emerges dialectically, in order to grasp the inherent complexities of “advanced Capitalism.” In the first section, the author will describe general tendencies of globalization and develop an appropriate level of abstraction from which to examine false-consciousness. Furthermore, this section will address the US’s leading role as an archetype in the formation of the world economy. Thus, it will substantiate the United States as a prudent focus for a study of false-consciousness, in light of our changing world order. The second section will determine the unity between interests and consciousness is not always a given; that “false-consciousness” develops in the cognitive realm between “social development” and human agency and that consciousness is always bound to history. In summation, the second section is an attempt to establish a foundation on which to build an understanding of “false-consciousness.”
Consistent with these developed imperatives, the third section is a descriptive, rather than analytical, discussion of emerging social development in the US. The author will show that, rather than building strong unions or organizing on a large scale, labor offers capital incentives that increase levels of exploitation. Finally, the author will document how the current mode of accumulation is manifest in distributive data. The fourth section develops a lexicon to discuss various impediments to the unity of objective interests—stemming from the previous section—and consciousness. The author will discuss a structural and functional-epistemological understanding of false-consciousness, which are inexorably linked and always historically specific as the latter flows from the former. Subsequently, the author will introduce Gramsci’s notion of hegemony as an articulation of structural and functional-epistemological hegemony. “America’s structural hegemony” documents cohesion between elements of government and civil-society so that the “State” is the amalgamation of government and civil society. Specifically, the author will examine American foundations, Political Action Committees, think-tanks and the communications media to demonstrate that cohesion exists between the directorates of these elements of civil society and other governmental appendages, as well as, corporations.
The final section, “Functional-Epistemological Hegemony: hegemony as false-consciousness,” is an illustration of ways in which hegemonic ideology can work by epistemology to legitimize both the form of hegemonic structure and its ramifications with regard to inequality. Rather than offering an exhaustive account (something that may be impossible do to the omnipresence of hegemony), the author will explore five subheadings to facilitate this analysis. First, the author will examine ways in which Polyarchy equates with democracy through the dubious notion of pluralism. Second, the author will examine media profit motives as facilitators of false-consciousness through a-political reporting, and the elevation of substantive political issues (i.e. globalization) to the level of common sense. Third, the author will develop “meritocracy” as an ideology that detracts from structural causes of inequality, and therefore, interprets them as “natural” normal and justified. Fourth, the author will study the co-optive power of functional hegemony through its ability to invite the re-reading of malignant ideas to induce pleasure, and therefore, pacify discontent. Finally, the author will approach “consumerism as a way of life” in order to show that, in a multiplicity of ways, consumerism has transcended the need for epistemic justification by incorporating the underprivileged into the material process through which the conditions for their exploitation are perpetuated.
Globalization and the Role of the US
Globalization is a growing phenomenon and impacts every individual and nation-state in both the core and periphery. Research points to the fact that this process erodes many of the structures that have facilitated political and social development throughout history, while at the same time, it is integrating the economy at an ever growing rate. In addition, because this process is so rapid, it is forever changing the contours of political and social interaction for many people within the nation-states involved. Consequently, some areas are experiencing a rise in ethnic, religious and nationalistic backlashes against this very process. Furthermore, those who strategize and implement this process, a growing transnational capitalist class, are also those who benefit from it, often at the expense of the world majority. However, due to the inherent complexity of globalization, it is difficult to find the appropriate level of abstraction to glean an understanding of “the way things are.” For our purposes, we will focus on the most generalized level—those who benefit from globalization (the privileged) and those who do not (the underprivileged). Thus, the author acknowledges the simplicity of this generalization in light of what, in reality, is a much more complicated process.
Furthermore, as this essay focuses on the US in light of Globalization, an explanation is in order. First, as Stephen Gill points out, the main protagonist in this process is American led capital, which uses the hegemonic status of the US to prepare the way for rapid globalization. Second, this process is made possible in part by the exportation of a system of governance similar to that in the United States—Polyarchy—that enables greater consent and legitimacy among those who do not benefit from Globalization in the periphery. Third, the US culture industry is also an essential player in the unification of the world economy as evinced by Hollywood’s transcendent and particular appeal (transcendent with regard to the “universalization” of ideals, particular with regard to its adaptation to context). Finally, “[t]he American political system, long considered an aberration because its two main parties embrace liberal capitalism, now looks like the model for the developed world.” Therefore, the US, as the leading economic, cultural and political archetype, is a prudent focus for our study of consciousness.
Consciousness: a dialectical progression
Georg Lukacs wrote “History and Class consciousness” at a time when, for various reasons, Marxian philosophy was in a state of flux. Conflict generated in response to deterministic interpretations of Marxian theory. Rather than reading Marx in this vein, various parties and intellectuals were attempting to understand Communism as the result of human agency, consistent with their efforts to actualize it. The Bolshevik party, for example, believed that the underdeveloped workers in Russia were prone to non revolutionary praxis, and therefore, felt the revolutionary role “had to be played by the party, an organization of professional revolutionaries, whose action as the collective engineer of the revolution would implant a socialist consciousness in the working class.” Consistent with the spirit of the time, Lukacs’ contribution involved a focus on both the distinction and interrelatedness between subjective and objective class-consciousness:
By relating consciousness to the whole of society it becomes possible to infer the thoughts and feelings which men would have in a particular situation if they were able to assess both it and the interests arising from it in their impact on immediate action and on the whole structure of society. That is to say, it would be possible to infer the thoughts and feelings appropriate to their objective situation…Now class consciousness consists in fact of the appropriate and rational reactions imputed in a particular typical place in the process of production.
Implicit in Lukacs’ work, then, is the idea that there are objective class interests in any given moment, and therefore, it is possible to formulate what an appropriate consciousness would be. However, by necessitating the imputation of the appropriate consciousness, it becomes clear that appropriate thoughts and feelings are not necessarily a given. Thus, to the extent that people's thoughts and feelings are inappropriate to the objective situation, they can be said to have “false-consciousness,” the understanding of which is the focus of this paper.
Building on this foundation, one cannot hope to grasp a relevant conception of consciousness, whether false or otherwise, without a study that focuses on its development through a dialectical lens. In other words, any study should try to understand the relationship between class interest and class consciousness, under capitalism, as two sides of one conflicting tendency, of which
one side, is the ‘unconscious’ character of capital determined by a specific form of social development which compels it, ‘against its will’, to produce its opposite [and] on the other, the necessity, through its manifestation in the form of practical need, which gives rise to self-consciousness.
This is to say that an understanding of false consciousness must come from 1) an understanding of objective interests, conditioned by “social development” and 2) social factors that prohibit the development of subjectivities toward these interests. Furthermore, any notion of consciousness cannot escape its historical context and, when understood from these imperatives, one can only hope to explain, rather than define false-consciousness, as it is always sensitive to the continuous progression of “social development.” Consequently, consciousness is always dependent upon objective and subjective aspects, for to equate consciousness with interests is to deny human agency. In keeping with these ideals, what follows is a discussion of American social development, characterized by the globalization of Capitalism.
Effects of Globalization in the US
The United States of America is the most advanced nation in the developed world. She boasts of the most dominant corporations and highest GNP. The inherent tendencies of global capitalism are producing a rigid social distinction between those who directly benefit from globalization (manifested in stable or increasing income and living standards), and those who do not (coupled with a corollary reality characterized by income instability and a declining standard of living). America has managed, however, to maintain legitimacy, despite the increasingly polarized nature of American social structure. Furthermore, much research points to the United States as the leading hegemon in the creation of a global economic order, which makes an analysis of American society, as the archetype of legitimization, a prudent focus. Therefore, what follows is an outline of some of the specific structural aspects of American society, with regard to increasing polarization and inequality, as facilitated by the expansion of advanced Capitalism.
In an age of corporate libertarianism, growing sectors of Americans engage in a “race to the bottom.” This race has provided incentives for corporations to cross international borders in an effort to cut labor costs and increase profits. Consequently, the ability of US corporations to retain a competitive advantage when remaining within domestic borders stems from their ability to boost productivity without cutting into profits. Heston and Summers capture this reality well:
What lets Americans live better…than their Japanese [and German] rivals is productivity. Contrary to the widespread view that the Japanese economy is vastly more efficient, every comparison shows that output per employee is 40 percent greater in the United States.
To summarize, American workers are producing more and taking home less income, which speaks to an increase in exploitation of surplus value and, to a certain extent, acceptance on the part of labor.
The ability of corporations to extract this higher level of productivity comes, in part, from limited options of those they employ. Indeed, initiatives like NAFTA have made easier for corporations to produce a situation in which competing regions offer tax breaks, less environmental regulation and other benefits to attract or retain corporations. Workers contribute through contracts that stipulate “wage concessions, productivity linked benefits, and greater flexibility concerning plant work rules.” The effects of these situations are such that corporations benefit from what wage earners sacrifice in order to gain or maintain employment. The ability of small business owners to compete is also decreased through the cumulative effects of reductions in community markets, inability to keep prices low and lack of access to billions of dollars in corporate welfare so that, as Marx and Engels stated,
the lower strata of the middle class—the small trades-people, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen…—sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which modern industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists… Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
In other words, the cumulative effects of globalized capitalism are such that polarization and asymmetrical distribution exacerbate at an increased rate.
Income distribution statistics are possibly the easiest variable by which to make an argument for increased inequality and polarization. As Thomas Dye notes:
Only about 4,300 individuals—two one-thousands of 1 percent of the population—exercise formal authority over more than one half of the nation’s industrial assets, two thirds of all banking assets, one half of all assets in communications and utilities, and more than two thirds of all insurance assets.
Furthermore, A 1995 New York Times issue stated that the top twenty percent of the nation's population owns eighty percent of the wealth, leaving only five percent to the bottom quintile of the population. Clearly, the income inequality in this nation is increasing at alarming rates. In an article written in 1998 for the publication Extra, Norman Solomon cites The Nation:
The working poor are losing ground. In constant dollars, average weekly earnings for workers went from a high of $315 in 1973 down to $256 in 1996, a decline of 19 percent.
Income inequality is increasing. Last year, the poorest fifth of families saw their income decline by $210, while the richest 5 percent gained an average of $6,440 (not counting their capital gains.)
The US Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports shows that at the poorest end of the economic spectrum, fifteen percent of the population live below the poverty line, including approximately three million homeless. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of American children under six live in poverty. These statistics are harder to digest when viewed in juxtaposition with the wealth generated by the nation as a whole (7.25 Trillion in 1997) . Though statistics on income inequality are convincing, they do not allow us to understand why inequality persists with little resistance. Therefore, in order to understand how inequality becomes legitimate, we will examine American society through a structural lens.
Structure and Epistemology
The following section of this paper draws largely from Robert Perrucci and Earl Wysong’s 1999 publication “The New Class Society,” as an attempt to develop hypotheses regarding false-consciousness. Perrucci and Wysong designed their system as a tool to understand the distribution of privileges and advantages inherent in the American system. In their analysis, class division embodies four distinct features. First, the class system is organizationally based, “large organizations—through various levels and groups of ‘gatekeepers’ within them—direct, channel and legitimate the distribution of resources to individuals and groups.” Second, “class location reflects the extent to which people possess combinations of four [interrelated] forms of generative economic and social resources—investment, consumption, skill and social capital.” Third, the large organizations mentioned above are also “centrally involved in legitimating the distributional processes as well as the class inequalities that arise from them,” through the production of “various forms and kinds of idea systems and explanations that justify the [asymmetrical] distribution of the four forms of capital.” Finally, the result of this system is such that “the US class structure is increasingly polarized by class inequalities into two broad class divisions.” Thus, this mode of class analysis, though abstracted at a level below production relationships, mirrors the asymmetrical income distribution and increased proletarianization that occurs under the normative logic of capitalism (M—C—M) developed by Marx.
For our purposes, we will focus on the first and third features of this system to glean an understanding of false consciousness. Specifically, the first feature—that American class system is organizationally based—provides a context for the introduction of a structural understanding of false-consciousness. The third feature of their system—that these organizations legitimize inequality—provides for an understanding of a functional or epistemological aspect of false-consciousness. Thus, the structural aspect materializes as the apparatus in which privileged class interests formulate, translate into policy and provide the ideological parameters that instruct a legitimizing-epistemology . Furthermore, this allows us to develop hypotheses regarding the impact of this epistemology on the formation of non-privileged class-consciousness. Therefore, false-consciousness inexorably links to this structure, as far as those of us, who are not privileged, internalize its epistemology.
America’s Structural Hegemony
In order to formulate hypotheses regarding structural and functional-epistemological legitimacy, an analysis of politics is necessary. Consequently, the work of Antonio Gramsci is beneficial in this regard. Through his theory of hegemony, he was able to understand the interelatedness of the state and civil society, so that the state (or government) is actually “both the juridical-administrative system and civil society.” Furthermore, Hegemony on the ideological level refers to those ideas, value systems and cultural practices etc. that dominate a society at any given moment in history. Marx believed that these ideologies “serve to justify the social (superstructure) and economic (infrastructure) framework which develops out of the given relationships of production and which comprises the social regime.” That is to say that the dominant ideologies in any stratified society are always the “isms” of the privileged class and flow in part from the structural apparatus in which they inhabit. Therefore, a thorough concept of hegemony would involve an ideological (functional-epistemological) understanding, as well as a demonstration of levels of structural cohesion within the state apparatus.
Subsequently, we should expect to find that privileged-class individuals share positions within civil and political institutions, and that these institutions have a mutually reinforcing, symbiotic role in the maintenance of privileged class power. Furthermore, we should expect to find that these institutions are able to construct modes of legitimization, which foster ideas that are “the vital function of preserving the ideological unity of [the] whole social bloc,” and legitimate inequality.” What follows is a discussion regarding the symbiotic nature of the state and civil society.
The group that explicitly benefits from globalization is the same group that occupies the Gramscian State in the U.S. Consequently, this group is in a position to exert control through dominant power structures, and thereby construct “strategic class consciousness.” Specifically, our structural analysis will examine two categories of power within American society: civil society and government: the Gramscian State. For our purposes, we will examine civil society through foundations, “think-tanks,” Political Action Committees (PAC), communications media, as well as other institutions. Through our analysis of the state, we are interested in documenting, superficially at least, the interlocking nature of governmental and non-governmental directorates. It is important to note that these agents are not involved in any conspiracy in the sense that they operate behind closed doors or are directly interested in duping the public. As C Wright Mills put it, they are
probably [individuals] of solid integrity—as sound as a dollar. [They are members] of the professional corporate elite…[they] represent the wealth of the higher corporate world.
Therefore, one can assume they only act in ways consistent with their own perceived interest, an act commensurate with any notion of class-consciousness.
Wealth at the disposal of foundations within civil society can have a dramatic impact on policy decision and implementation, elections, as well as fields of study in our nation’s institutions of higher learning. For example, following WWII when the world desired a return to economic prosperity and peace, American foundations were highly influential in the area of social science. Specifically, major U.S. foundations made generous endowments to social science programs at prestigious universities under the conviction that “fellowship recipients would contribute to the national interest by making their knowledge available to those responsible for foreign-policy formulation.” The result of these endowments included long lasting methodological approaches such as functionalism and behavioralism, which helped to maintain stable, well oiled political and economic machinery at home and abroad.
Furthermore, board members of these foundations often serve on the boards of powerful corporations, as elected or appointed political officials and in the administrations of prestigious universities. Through the ongoing research at Florida State University, researchers are able to document that chairpersons for both the Ford and Rockefeller foundations have served on the boards of Dow Jones and Co, Walt Disney and Chase Manhattan, as well as many other corporations. They have served as secretary of defense, on the Council on Foreign Relations, as members of Congress and in the Trilateral Commission. Additionally, these foundation directors have served as top administrators for leading universities such as Cal Tech, Yale, and the University of California system. Consequently, foundations play a significant role in civil society, through both direct implementation and creation of policy, as well as, serving in governmental positions and in directorate positions for the nations leading corporations and Universities.
PAC’s and think tanks have a dramatic impact on the formulation of policy. Much literature has been written in reference to “iron triangles,” the Tri-Lateral commission and other governmental and non-governmental agents who influence policy. Much like foundations, these groups are funded by big money, money in the hands of powerful corporations or other privileged class institutions. As such, privileged class individuals who occupy or have occupied strategic positions in other areas of government and civil society often direct these highly influential PACs. The most important aspect of these organizations has to do with their direct involvement in policy, however it is important to note their interlocking character in order to demonstrate a level of cohesion.
Perrucci and Wysong site “five superclass-connected and politically influential ‘centrist’ organizations:” The Business Roundtable, the Brookings Institute, the RAND Corporation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The main purpose of these elite organizations is to inform the evaluation and implementation of domestic and foreign policy. Further research shows there are also ten “conservative think-tanks” that are increasingly influential in policy decisions and, though they share general economic ideals with their “centrist” counterparts, are deemed conservative for their repudiation of policies traditionally associated with America’s “liberal” establishment. The members of both types of these organizations have served on the boards and in administrative positions for General Foods, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Motor Co., and the New York Stock Exchange, as well as other corporate and financial institutions. They have held political appointments as directors of the CIA, FSA, as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of State etc. Furthermore, they have held positions at Universities such as M.I.T, Northwestern and SUNY to name a few. Therefore, these privately funded institutions exemplify further the concentrated and interlocking nature of the established power structures in the U.S.
With the advancement of communication technology, media has become an increasingly influential actor on public consciousness. The case of media in the United States is especially important due to its consolidation in the private sector, and consequently, the profit imperative driving its production. Furthermore, media content comes from seven major firms that own broadcast networks and cable TV systems. Not surprisingly, many of the names previously discussed with regard to the interlocking directorates among corporate, political and civic entities reemerge in the discussion of media’s condensed nature. T.C.I., Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, General Electric Viacom and CBS together control nearly 90 percent of what is viewed on television, whether through the networks, cable or the growing satellite-television industry. The content of media dissemination, discussed later, contributes to the seemingly smooth and little contested evolution of the American system, partly through a focus on sensationalism as an effort to attract large audiences.
Functional-Epistemological Hegemony: hegemony as false consciousness
The media is the easiest medium of analysis by which to demonstrate the mechanics of ideological hegemony ascribed by Antonio Gramsci. In order to facilitate conciliatory consciousness, hegemonic ideology “permanently attempts to cast all competing perceptions and definitions of reality within [its] particular frames.” Thus, hegemony functions based on consent through the provision of illusionary choice. This is not to contend groups and individuals do not exercise choice in their decisions, from television shows to public policy. Rather, it is the idea that options from which to chose are contained within ideological parameters, set up by the privileged class through structural hegemony, that enable the continuation of the existing status quo. What follows is a discussion of various aspects of functional-epistemological hegemony. This is not an exhaustive account, rather it should demonstrate the potential impact of ideology on epistemic processes and thereby, false-consciousness.
Polyarchy refers to a form of “low-intensity democracy,” in which the privileged class rules on behalf of capital. Thus, the previously mentioned PACs transmogrify to special interest groups that compete for policy favorable to their particular agenda. Furthermore, these “special interest” groups are understood in light of their differences rather than similarities. This enables the perception that American democracy is “pluralistic” and ultimate equilibrium results from the competition between these groups. However, as discussed previously, most influential PACs are fully occupied and funded by the privileged class and at most, any conflict stems from disagreements on implementation or extent of various policies, all of which favor privileged class interests over those of everyone else. Thus, when the media covers PAC influence at the level of policy, it enables the viewer to understand that conflicting interests—the checks and balances—contribute to greater democracy, and in so doing, masks the influence of the privileged class as a whole.
Other evidence suggests “ pluralism” has had a significant impact on the democratic process in areas not limited to policy. Justin Lewis contends that the entire political process in the United States is essentially right leaning, and this fact diminishes in significance through the media’s focus on elections from a “left verses right framework of political reporting.” This framework includes, much in the same way as coverage of PACs, a downplaying of convergence with regard to economic issues, while highlighting less substantive issues such as abortion and gay rights. Therefore, by focusing on social issues in place of larger economic issues, the myth of plurality persists through the competition between Republicans and Democrats. In the end, “democracy” prevails, though its true essence is completely hollowed out.
Another way that hegemonic epistemology functions to facilitate false-consciousness is through the creation of social beings who are ignorant of the structural mechanisms around them and become depoliticized. Concurrently, David Sallach contends that hegemony has produced a majority of working class Americans that suffer from fragmented, confused and inconsistent value systems. Michael Parenti believes that this in part a consequence of the imperatives driving media dissemination:
These corporations [that own the media] are highly concentrated capital formations whose primary functions are (1) capital accumulation: making a profit for their owners and investors and (2) ideological legitimation: supporting and opinion climate that is favorable, or at least not hostile, to the continuation of profit-making, and corporate economic dominance.
Consequently, rather than reflecting the world as it really is, the media is concerned with making reality palatable for mass consumers.
An example of this manifests in coverage of modern elections when “the spin doctors, marketers, handlers, and other damage control experts have become the political antiheroes of the age. In this upside-down world, the campaign becomes evaluated according to a perverse aesthetics of media mastery.” Another illustration turns up in media coverage of the actions taken against the WTO during the Seattle round. Instead of using the opportunity to educate the public about the current mode of global accumulation and its inhumane consequences, coverage focused on limited violence, causing real political issues to become meaningless. Consequently, protesters were marginalized as rebellious individuals and were pushed to the fringe, rather than portrayed as a group who understood and meant to address the inhumane consequences of globalization.
To conclude, the over all message conveyed to the public is one that focuses on irrelevancies stemming from personal character (of either a candidate or a protestor) instead of pertinent political problems associated with the current mode of transnational-capital accumulation. In summary, through a focus on sensational over substantive political phenomena, the ultimate fuel driving both the WTO and mainstream American politicians, namely the increased liberalization of the world economy, elevates to the level of common sense.
Meritocracy refers to the notion that ones status in life reflects their individual character. Epistemologically, this ideology filters social phenomena through the rubric of competition, equal opportunity and individualism. Therefore, egalitarianism in the American context “…implies that achievement should reflect ability, justifies higher differentials in reward and rejects taxing the successful to upgrade the less advantaged.” Furthermore, as hegemonic ideas, they can define the experiences of the normal individual in ways that legitimize the privileged-class because of their position. In other words, these ideals, which have become a mainstay of American political and economic thought, are able to foster a consciousness that enables one to perceive inequality as individually, rather than structurally determined.
Through journalistic investigation informed by ideological biases, the media obfuscates social phenomena that would connect inequality to its structural causes. Subsequently, media attention to issues of poverty and its proliferation are rare. When stories on poverty do appear, the underprivileged contextualize within the axiom of personal choice or unavoidable misfortune. Frequently, however, they are seen as undeserving and simply experiencing the consequences of their own laziness. Hence, those who are among Americas privileged class become deserving simply by the fact that they are successful. Success speaks to individual character traits (i.e. innate intelligence or hard work) and the privileged become mythical symbols of what it means to be a success—the definition of success. Therefore, those who, because they are victims of endemic processes, are perpetually underprivileged become—by definition—lazy, unintelligent and therefore deserving of their subjugated status. Far from the elevation of consciousness, meritocratic ideology posits inequality as “natural,” normal and justified.
Hegemony also fosters “false-consciousness” by pacification and the elimination of counter-ideologies. Gillian Epstien’s analysis of Beverly Hills 90210 enables her to formulate a brand of “media politics.” This form of “media politics” is able to “naturalize” the presence of media within the private sphere. Furthermore, once it is in place, the media is able to “educate” viewers with regard to appropriate media behavior. Subsequently, the viewer is encouraged to abandon their political views in favor “media politics,” through the act of “re-reading” media narratives to be consistent with one’s own views. Finally, the ultimate goals of these “media politics” are to both script and facilitate an enjoyable media experience, which becomes an end in itself. Therefore, this analysis of “media politics” illustrates the co-optive power of hegemonic epistemology, which can eliminate resistance through the pacification of struggle.
Co-optation speaks to the versatility of hegemony and its ability to adapt to changing conditions evolving from the often-contradictory concessions it incorporates. Consequently, what follows is a discussion regarding the creation of a consumer based society, through which the privileged class is able to simultaneously co-opt discontent and benefit from the accumulation of social value in commodities. Herbert Marcuse is worth quoting at length with regard to the power of consumerism:
The productive apparatus and the goods and services which it produces ‘sell’ or impose the social system as a whole. The…[commodities] carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits, certain intellectual and emotional reactions which bind the consumers more or less pleasantly to the producers and, through the latter, to the whole. The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness…And as these beneficial products become available to more individuals in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry…becomes a way of life…and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change.
By speaking about the ability of embedded “attitudes and habits” to “militate against qualitative change,” the question becomes: To what extent are consumeristic ideologies able to incorporate subaltern classes into the status quo by producing a consumeristic value system that seems mutually beneficial?
George Ritzer claims that what is understood as advantages about consumer society has to do with elements he terms “McDonaldization.” Using McDonalds as a metaphor to discuss aspects of modern society, Ritzer holds that society is increasingly characterized by the rationality of every day life in the form of efficiency, quantification, calcubility, predictability and greater control. Thus, when the consumer partakes of a McDonaldized world, they are meant to experience benefits such as saved time, greater ability for positive cost/benefit analysis and a reduction in consumer anxiety. Furthermore, Ritzer contends that because McDonaldization has begun to characterize most aspects of life in modern—consumer—society, the irrationality of McDonaldization is a consequence of being controlled by consumption, from which human reason is squelched, and therefore, the ability to critique society is diminished.
The material conditions that gave rise to the powers of Consumerism stem from the advent of Fordism and Taylorism in the early twentieth century. Indeed, these methods of production greatly resemble McDonaldiztion as far as they promoted the deskilling of workers, highly routinized work roles and the homogenization of commodities they produced. Subsequently, the boost in low cost production that spawned from these and other aspects of Fordism/Taylorism enabled workers to afford many of the commodities they produced. Therefore, with a growing number of citizens able to participate in consumption, the social significance of the demand side of economics was greatly increased. Hence, the embedded attitudes and behaviors of consumerism are essential to understanding the consciousness that militates against qualitative change.
It is in this context, the transition from the rationality of production to the rationality of consumption, that we can begin to explore how consumerism masks exploitation and domination, while it simultaneously militates against qualitative change. Indeed, the fast pace, changing nature of modern society trumpets the value of saving time and greater control. Thus, so the story goes, the values of McDonaldization seem to be self-explanatory. Who, in their right mind, would rather spend more money or more time accomplishing a task than need be? Returning to Ritzer, however, the question becomes “Efficiency for whom?” Much in the same way that the rationalization of production offered owners increasing profit margins, the rationalization of consumption does as well. In this case, the rationalization of society has placed a larger burden of surplus-value creation on the consumer through the solicitation of unpaid labor in the performance of tasks previously done by paid labor. Therefore, in this sense, we can understand one aspect of consumerism that simultaneously exploits and invites consumers to reap an illusionary benefit.
Another aspect of consumerism is its annunciation, by some, as a salvific cure for society’s ills. Thus, by offering a wide array of choices from which to consume, consumer-capitalism claims to have finally incorporated all of society into a Deified market. Subsequently, the alienation so prevalent in modern society, manifested in lack of interpersonal bonds or feelings of loneliness and depression, can be cured by the consumption of fetishized commodities (i.e. dial-a-porn or Hawaii.com). Furthermore, consumption becomes the alternative to protest through the purchase of commodified forms of resistance, such as a Che Guevara or Malcolm X T-shirt. In this sense, “consumerism as a way of life” can be more aptly termed “commodification as a way of life.” Thus, by drawing people into the market, consumerism is able to perpetuate the necessary conditions for accumulation through the commodification of every day life, and therefore, “we live capitalism through its commodities, and by living it, we validate and invigorate it.” Finally, if “consumerism as a way of life” is as prevalent as researchers claim, it has transcended the need for epistemic justification, and it is plausible to argue that to this extent, false-consciousness has garnered a material force of its own.
In answering the “what” of false consciousness, the author has shown a connection between social development and consciousness. The former provides the parameters or possibilities for both the latter and the action(s) that are often necessary consequences of consciousness, whether false or otherwise. For example, one cannot overlook the social, political, and economic events following WWII, which certainly allowed for a certain advancement of “Americanism” and traditional liberal-economic ideals. In this sense, we might do well to focus our attention on both the material and ideational developments that have best served the structural aspect of hegemony in the United States.
In order to answer the “who” of false consciousness, the author has demonstrated a level of privileged class cohesion within the Gramscian State. This allows the author to formulate the hypothesis that false-consciousness is best understood as a function of hegemony. In this respect, false-consciousness, though sensitive to social development, is a product of strategic implementation by those who are in a position to exert control over various disseminatory appendages. Moreover, this suggests that false-consciousness permeates the fabric of every day life and understanding for the average American citizen. Thus, rather than “testing” false consciousness through questionnaires and surveys (something that would include both a definition of false consciousness and the assumption that participants can escape it in order to answer questions), researchers may fare better engaging in what Paulo Freire terms “critical epistemology.”
Critical epistemology includes the effort to unmask social relations that produce the dominant ideas in a given society, as well as, reaffirm their historical production. Peter McLaren is worth quoting at length, regarding the power of critical epistemology:
Critical epistemological practice not only examines the content of knowledge but also its method of production. It seeks to understand how ideological constructions are encoded and administered, how metonymic and synecdochial gestures are performed so as to obscure relations of domination and oppression, how the interpretive and interpellative frameworks by which we organize our sentiments construct ruling stereotypes and how the governing categories of our everyday discourse render invisible and obscure real social relations of exploitation.
Finally, this critical-epistemological praxis would be incomplete without the appropriate social scientific understanding of the processes that spawn and perpetuate social development. Again, if one can accept the interconnection between social development and consciousness, one can also expect consciousness to progress dialectically. George Lukacs helps us to understand there are ways to decode interests in any given situation and make the connection between interests and consciousness that would exist if false-consciousness did not. As Bertell Ollman notes, this stage of capitalism is “characterized by far greater complexity and much greater change and interaction than existed earlier,” and “the efforts to keep us from grasping what is taking place have never been so systematic or so effective.” In order to understand fully “the way things are,” we must participate in Ollman’s six step dialectical method. The actions that would flow from an informed consciousness would involve all aspects of social life—political, economic, leisure etc.
It is from these perspectives, an understanding of “the way things are,” where they are going and “what is to be done,” that one can hope to begin to bridge the gap between interests and consciousness. In the end, educators, researchers, politicians and community members can hope to address the alienation and inequality experienced by growing segments of the United States by putting into practice both the study and redress of false consciousness. A better society is conceivable when we finally illuminate the appropriate consciousness and render false consciousness helpless in both its epistemic and material formations.
Allen, Michael Patrick. “Elite Social Movement Organizations and the State: The Rise of the Conservative Policy-Planning Network.” In Moore and Whitt, Research in Politics and Society, vol. 4
Barber, Benjamic R. “Jihad Vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic Monthly. March, 1992, 53-63
Barnet, Richard J, and John Cavanagh. Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994
Bates, Thomas R. “Gramsci and the theory of Hegemony.” Journal of the History of Ideas V36, n2 April-June-1975, 351-366
Bennett, Lance W. The Governing Crisis: Media, Money and Marketing in American Elections. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992
Berman, Edward. The Ideology of Philanthropy: the influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983
Buechler, Steven M. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000
Buttigieg, Joseph A. “Gramsci on Civil Society.” Boundary 2 N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995 v22 n3,
Cox, Robert W. “Civil Society at the turn of the Millennium: prospects for an alternative world order.” Review of International Studies. V25, n8, Jan. 1st- 1999, 3-28
Current Population reports: Consumer Income 1993, Series P-60, no. 185, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington D.C., 1992
Deudney, Danier and G. John Ikenberry. “Realism, Structural Liberalism, and the Western Order.” In Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold War. Ed. Kapstein Ethan B. and Michael Mastanduno New York: Columbia University Press, 1999
Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America?: Power and Politics in the year 2000. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing, 1998
Durrant, Thomas J Jr. and Kathleen H. Sparrow. “Race and class consciousness among lower-and middle-class balcks.” Journal of Black Studies. V27, n3, Jan.-1997, 334-351
Dye, Thomas R. Who’s Running America? The Clinton Years. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1995
Epstein, Gillian. “Crafting the Politics of ‘Special Space’: 90210’s Scripting of Media Enjoyment in the Private Sphere.” American Studies. V39, n2, Summer, 1998, 129-139
Fantasia, Rich. “From class consciousness to culture, action, and social organization.” Annual Review of Sociology. V21, 1995, 269-288
Fiske, John. Understanding Popular Culture. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989
Gill, Stephen R. American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990
Gill, Stephen R. and David Law “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital.” International Studies Quarterly. V33, 1989, 475-499
Gill, Stephen R. “The Global Panopticon? The Neoliberal State, Economic Life, and Democratic Surveillance.” Alternatives. V20, n1, 1995, 1-49
Goodwin, Paul B. Jr. (author/editor) Latin America. Sixth ed. Guilford, CT.: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998
Goldmann, Lucien. “History and Class Consciousness” in Aspects of History and Class Consciousness. Ed. Istvan Meszaros New York: Herder and Herder New York, 1972
Heston, Alan and Robert Summers. “What We Have Learned about Prices and Quantities from International Comparisons: 1987.” American Economic Review. May 1998
Ikenberry, G John. “Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony.” Political Science Quarterly. v104, n3, 1989, 375-400
Ikenberry, G John. “A world economy restored: expert consensus and the Anglo-American postwar settlement.” International Organization. V46, n1, Winter, 1992, 289-321
Kellner, Douglas. “Ideology, Marxism, Advanced Capitalism.” Socialist Review. N42 November-December-1978, 37-65.
Korten, David C. When Corporations Rule the World. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 1995
Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: The Guilford Press, 1996
Lipset, Simour. American Exceptionalism. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1996
Lipset, Simour. “Still the Exceptional Nation?” The Wilson Quarterly. Winter, 2000, 31-45
Lukacs, Gerog. History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press, 1971
Lurie, Yuval. “The Metaphysics of Communism.” Ratio. V111, June, 1990 21-39
Lewis, Justin. “Reproducing Political Hegemony in the United States.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication. V16 n3, Sept. 1999, 251-267
Mantsios, Gregory. “Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.” In Race, Class and Gender in the United States. Ed. Rothenfeld New York: St Martin’s Press, 1995 409-417
Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Ed by Samuel H. Beer, Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson Inc., 1955
McLaren, Peter. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000
Meijer, Irene Costera. “Advertising Citizenship: an essay on the performative power of consumer cluture.” Media, Culture & Society. V20, n2, 1998, 235-249
Meszaros, Istvan. “Contingent and Necessary Class Consciousness.” In Aspects of History and Class Consciousness. Ed. Istvan Meszaros New York: Herder and Herder New York, 1972
Miller, Mark Crispin. “TV: the nature of the beast.” The Nation. v266, n21 June 8, 1998, p11-13
Miles, Steven. Consumerism—as a Way of Life. London: Sage, 1998
Mills, C Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. 1956
Mintz, Beth. “United States of America.” In The Capitalist Class: An International Study. Ed. Tom Bottomore and Robert J. Brym. New York: New York University Press, 1989, 207-236
Ollman, Bertell. “How to Study Class Consciousness, and Why We Should.” The Insurgent Sociologist. V14, n1, Winter-1987, p57-96
Ollman, Bertell. “Why Dialectics? Why Now?” Science & Society. V62, n3, Fall 1998, 338-357
Parenti, Michael. Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992
Perrucci, Robert and Earl Wysong. The New Class Society. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 1999
Ritzer, George. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press, 1993
Rivera-Perez, Luis. “Rethinking Ideology: Polysemy, Pleasure and Hegemony in Television Culture.” Journal of Communication Inquiry. V20, n2, Fall-1996, 37-56
Robinson, William I. “Globalization, the world system, and ‘democracy promotion’ in U.S. foreign policy.” Theory and Society. V25 n5, October, 1996, 615-665
Sallach, David L. “Class Domination and Ideological Hegemony.” The Sociological Quarterly. v15. 1974, 38-50
Semati, Mehdi M. and Patty J. Sotirin. “Hollywood’s Transnational Appeal: Hegemony and Democratic Potential?” Journal of Popular Film & Television. V26, n4, winter-1999, 176-188
06-23-2006, 03:13 PM
From Secrets of The Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
LaRouche 39 tells us that on February 5, 1891, a secret association known as the Round Table Group was formed in London by Cecil Rhodes, his banker, Lord Rothschild, the Rothschild in-law, Lord Rosebery, and Lord Curzon. He states that in the United States the Round Table was represented by the Morgan group. Dr. Carrol Quigley refers to this group as "The British-American Secret Society" in Tragedy and Hope, stating that "The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led by Lazard Brothers (in 1901). "40
William Guy Carr, in Pawns In The Game states that, "In 1899, J.P. Morgan and Drexel went to England to attend the International Bankers
38. George Wheeler, Pierpont Morgan and Friends, the Anatomy of a Myth, Prentice Hall, N.J. 1973
39. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Dope, Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, N.Y. 1978
40. Dr. Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan Co., N.Y.
Convention. When they returned, J.P. Morgan had been appointed head representative of the Rothschild interests in the United States. As the result of the London Conference, J.P. Morgan and Company of New York, Drexel and Company of Philadelphia, Grenfell and Company of London, and Morgan Harjes Cie of Paris, M.M. Warburg Company of Germany and America, and the House of Rothschild were all affiliated." 41
Apparently unaware of the Peabody connection with the Rothschilds and the fact that the Morgans had always been affiliated with the House of Rothschild, Carr supposed that he had uncovered this relationship as of 1899, when in fact it went back to 1835. *
After World War I, the Round Table became known as the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The leading government officials of both England and the United States were chosen from its members. In the 1960s, as growing attention centered on the surreptitious governmental activities of the Council on Foreign Relations, subsidiary groups, known as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers, representing the identical financial interests, began operations, with the more important officials, such as Robert Roosa, being members of all three groups.
06-23-2006, 03:17 PM
From Secrets of The Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but here is the blueprint for imperialism laid out...line by line...also look at Cecil Rhodes involvement with all this (see previous post)
According to William Guy Carr, in Pawns In The Game, 42 the initial meeting of these ex-officio planners took place in Mayer Amschel Bauer’s Goldsmith Shop in Frankfurt in 1773. Bauer, who adopted the name of "Rothschild" or Red Shield, from the red shield which he hung over his door to advertise his business (the red shield today is the official coat of arms of the City of Frankfurt), (See Cover) "was only thirty years of age when he invited twelve other wealthy and influential men to meet him in Frankfurt. His purpose was to convince them that if they agreed to pool their resources they could then finance and control the World Revolutionary Movement and use it as their Manual of Action to win ultimate control of the wealth, natural resources, and manpower of the entire world. This agreement reached, Mayer unfolded his revolutionary plan. The project would be backed by all the power that could be purchased with their pooled resources. By clever manipulation of their combined wealth it would be possible to create such adverse economic conditions that the masses would be reduced to a state bordering on starvation by unemployment... Their paid propagandists would arouse feelings of hatred and revenge against the ruling classes by exposing all real and alleged cases of extravagance, licentious conduct, injustice, oppression, and persecution. They would also invent infamies to bring into disrepute others who might, if left alone, interfere with their overall plans... Rothschild turned to a manuscript and proceeded to read a carefully prepared plan of action.
1. He argued that LAW was FORCE only in disguise. He reasoned it was logical to conclude ‘By the laws of nature right lies in force.’
2. Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. In order to usurp political power all that was necessary was to preach ‘Liberalism’ so that the electorate, for the sake of an idea, would yield some of their power and prerogatives which the plotters could then gather into their own hands.
3. The speaker asserted that the Power of Gold had usurped the power of Liberal rulers.... He pointed out that it was immaterial to the success of his plan whether the established governments were destroyed by external or internal foes because the victor had to of necessity ask the aid of ‘Capital’ which ‘Is entirely in our hands’.
4. He argued that the use of any and all means to reach their final goal was justified on the grounds that the ruler who governed by the moral code was not a skilled politician because he left himself vulnerable and in an unstable position.
5. He asserted that ‘Our right lies in force. The word RIGHT is an abstract thought and proves nothing. I find a new RIGHT... to attack by the Right of the Strong, to reconstruct all existing institutions, and to become the sovereign Lord of all those who left to us the Rights to their powers by laying them down to us in their liberalism.
6. The power of our resources must remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such
42. William Guy Carr, Pawns In The Game, privately printed, 1956
strength that no cunning or force can undermine it. He went on to outline twenty-five points.
Number 8. dealt with the use of alcoholic liquors, drugs, moral corruption, and all vice to systematically corrupt youth of all nations.
9. They had the right to seize property by any means, and without hesitation, if by doing so they secured submission and sovereignty.
10. We were the first to put the slogans Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity into the mouths of the masses, which set up a new aristocracy. The qualification for this aristocracy is WEALTH which is dependent on us.
11. Wars should be directed so that the nations engaged on both sides should be further in our debt.
12. Candidates for public office should be servile and obedient to our commands, so that they may readily be used.
13. Propaganda--their combined wealth would control all outlets of public information.
14. Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of one world government."
The Rothschild family has played a crucial role in international finance for two centuries, as Frederick Morton, in The Rothschilds writes:
"For the last one hundred and fifty years the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing extent the backstage history of Western Europe." 38 (Preface)... Because of their success in making loans not to individuals, but to nations, they reaped huge profits, although as Morton writes, p. 36, "Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations." 43
E.C. Knuth writes, in The Empire of the City, "The fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, is beyond question." 44
The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, states, "The clearest example of a personal linkup (international directorates) on a Western European scale is the Rothschild family. The London and Paris branches of the Rothschilds are bound not just by family ties but also by personal link-ups in jointly controlled companies." 45 The encyclopaedia further described these companies as international monopolies.
The sire of the family, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, established a small business as a coin dealer in Frankfurt in 1743. Although previously known as Bauer *, he advertised his profession by putting up a sign depicting an eagle on a red shield, an adaptation of the coat of arms of the City of Frankfurt, to which he added five golden arrows extending from the talons, signifying his five sons. Because of this sign, he took the
43. Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds, Fawcett Publishing Company, N.Y., 1961
44. E.C. Knuth, Empire of the City, p. 71
45. Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, Edition 3, 1973, Macmillan, London, Vol. 14, pg. 691
* "The original name of Rothschild was Bauer." p. 397, Henry Clews, Twenty-eight years in Wall Street.
name ‘Rothschild" or "Red Shield". When the Elector of Hesse earned a fortune by renting Hessian mercenaries to the British to put down the rebellion in the American colonies, Rothschild was entrusted with this money to invest. He made an excellent profit both for himself and the Elector, and attracted other accounts. In 1785 he moved to a larger house, 148 Judengasse, a five story house known as "The Green Shield" which he shared with the Schiff family.
The five sons established branches in the principal cities of Europe, the most successful being James in Paris and Nathan Mayer in London. Ignatius Balla in The Romance of the Rothschilds 46 tells us how the London Rothschild established his fortune. He went to Waterloo, where the fate of Europe hung in the balance, saw that Napoleon was losing the battle, and rushed back to Brussels. At Ostend, he tried to hire a boat to England, but because of a raging storm, no one was willing to go out. Rothschild offered 500 francs, then 700, and finally 1,000 francs for a boat. One sailor said, "I will take you for 2000 francs; then at least my widow will have something if we are drowned." Despite the storm, they crossed the Channel.
The next morning, Rothschild was at his usual post in the London Exchange. Everyone noticed how pale and exhausted he looked. Suddenly, he started selling, dumping large quantities of securities. Panic immediately swept the Exchange. Rothschild is selling; he knows we have lost the Battle of Waterloo. Rothschild and all of his known agents continued to throw securities onto the market. Balla says, "Nothing could arrest the disaster. At the same time he was quietly buying up all securities by means of secret agents whom no one knew. In a single day, he had gained nearly a million sterling, giving rise to the saying, ‘The Allies won the Battle of Waterloo, but it was really Rothschild who won.’" *
In The Profits of War, Richard Lewinsohn says, "Rothschild’s war profits from the Napoleonic Wars financed their later stock speculations. Under Metternich, Austria after long hesitation, finally agreed to accept financial direction from the House of Rothschild." 47
06-23-2006, 03:36 PM
Treasury Dept peeping at bank records
US defends secret money tracking
Tens of thousands of transactions were scrutinised
US Treasury Secretary John Snow has defended a secret programme which has been tracking international money transactions for nearly five years.
"This programme is an effective weapon in the larger war on terror," he said.
The scheme, which has sifted huge amounts of data from an international banking consortium, was revealed by the New York Times newspaper on Friday.
The US treasury says the programme was strictly confined to the records of suspected foreign terrorists.
Although there is no direct connection, the programme has echoes of a recently revealed US surveillance programme in which millions of international and domestic phone calls and e-mails were monitored, correspondents say.
They say that although the US government insists it acted on a firm legal footing, this programme is likely to elicit similar charges of enfringement of civil liberties.
"This programme is making a real difference," Mr Snow said. "It works. It's based on appropriate legal authorities, it has built-in safeguards and controls."
He said the treasury was using "the tools that Congress has given us to follow the flow of terrorist money".
"These flows ... lead to the terrorists themselves," he said.
The financial tracking scheme began in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US using emergency powers invoked by President George W Bush, the New York Times revealed.
The administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data... is a matter of public interest
New York Times
The newspaper spoke to some 20 anonymous current or former government officials or industry executives.
The government used powers of administrative subpoena to compel the Brussels-based banking co-operative, Swift, to open its records.
Swift - the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication - links about 7,800 financial institutions around the world, including virtually every major bank and brokerage.
It provides banks with instructions on how to transfer funds - instructions which include information on the individuals sending money and the amount of money sent.
The treasury department said it had carried out "tens or hundreds" of thousands of name searches on the data.
Mr Snow said the programme had been implemented in a "highly responsible" manner, with corporate and external auditors observing the process.
In a statement on its website, Swift said: "Swift takes its role as a key infrastructure of the international financial system very seriously and co-operates with authorities to prevent illegal uses of the international financial system. Where required, Swift has to comply with valid subpoenas...
Messenger on fire
Officials quoted by the newspaper said the programme had helped in the capture of Hambali, blamed for a string of bombings across South East Asia.
But some expressed reservations, suggesting it was inappropriate for an urgent, apparently temporary programme to remain in operation for years without formal or congressional authorisation.
Others familiar with the programme told the paper they believed it exploited a "grey area" in the law.
We are disappointed that once again the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified programme that is working to protect Americans
White House spokeswoman
Meanwhile, the New York Times came under fire from the White House for revealing the programme.
"We are disappointed that once again the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified programme that is working to protect Americans," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.
But the newspaper's executive editor Bill Keller said: "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
07-02-2006, 01:47 PM
yea.. i'm past my conspiracy theorist days.
we should be skeptical i agree. but getting consumed with the details just wastes time i think.
but this quote is right on:
Quote:“we live capitalism through its commodities, and by living it, we validate and invigorate it.
that's what i was tryin to say about me driving my toyota... we are all guilty in some way.
this apples also in the swift boat thing we discussed.
i went to go see "the war tapes" last night and it reaffirmed what i was saying about kerry.
these soldiers are like robots... i mean they are smart people, but like the dude says... they are trained to fight and it becomes instinct to fight... so when they get the chance they go.
we could argue that we are robots in our daily lives. we are trained to consume... and so we do. and we justify it becaue it feels natural and well... is it really our fault? lol... just like the soldier who's been trained to kill. it's not ALL his fault, but we are all at fault... we are all faulty.
the challenge is to support eachother in our capacity to questions and think and resist that which we are trained to do when it is destructive.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)