How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions 


An Interview with John Perkins
November 28th, 2004

John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described "economic hit man." He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our studio. 

JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here. 

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it. 

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. 

AMY GOODMAN: How did you become one? Who did you work for? 

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950's, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew of government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time's magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed -- well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government. 

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Explain the company you worked for. 

JOHN PERKINS: Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan–let's say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador–and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure–a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you're not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we're going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It's been extremely successful. 

AMY GOODMAN: You say because of bribes and other reason you didn't write this book for a long time. What do you mean? Who tried to bribe you, or who -- what are the bribes you accepted? 

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I accepted a half a million dollar bribe in the nineties not to write the book. 

AMY GOODMAN: From? 

JOHN PERKINS: From a major construction engineering company. 

AMY GOODMAN: Which one? 

JOHN PERKINS: Legally speaking, it wasn't -- Stoner-Webster. Legally speaking it wasn't a bribe, it was -- I was being paid as a consultant. This is all very legal. But I essentially did nothing. It was a very understood, as I explained in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, that it was -- I was -- it was understood when I accepted this money as a consultant to them I wouldn't have to do much work, but I mustn't write any books about the subject, which they were aware that I was in the process of writing this book, which at the time I called “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.” And I have to tell you, Amy, that, you know, it’s an extraordinary story from the standpoint of -- It's almost James Bondish, truly, and I mean-- 

AMY GOODMAN: Well that's certainly how the book reads. 

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, and it was, you know? And when the National Security Agency recruited me, they put me through a day of lie detector tests. They found out all my weaknesses and immediately seduced me. They used the strongest drugs in our culture, sex, power and money, to win me over. I come from a very old New England family, Calvinist, steeped in amazingly strong moral values. I think I, you know, I’m a good person overall, and I think my story really shows how this system and these powerful drugs of sex, money and power can seduce people, because I certainly was seduced. And if I hadn't lived this life as an economic hit man, I think I’d have a hard time believing that anybody does these things. And that's why I wrote the book, because our country really needs to understand, if people in this nation understood what our foreign policy is really about, what foreign aid is about, how our corporations work, where our tax money goes, I know we will demand change. 

AMY GOODMAN: In your book, you talk about how you helped to implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of dollars of Saudi Arabian petrol dollars back into the U.S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and successive U.S. administrations. Explain. 

JOHN PERKINS: Yes, it was a fascinating time. I remember well, you're probably too young to remember, but I remember well in the early seventies how OPEC exercised this power it had, and cut back on oil supplies. We had cars lined up at gas stations. The country was afraid that it was facing another 1929-type of crash–depression; and this was unacceptable. So, they -- the Treasury Department hired me and a few other economic hit men. We went to Saudi Arabia. We -- 

AMY GOODMAN: You're actually called economic hit men --e.h.m.’s? 

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq. 

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how Torrijos died? 

JOHN PERKINS: Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama. Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter much -- and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story–how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos -- tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problem, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which -- I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There's no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most -- many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country. 

AMY GOODMAN: So, where -- when did your change your heart happen? 

JOHN PERKINS: I felt guilty throughout the whole time, but I was seduced. The power of these drugs, sex, power, and money, was extremely strong for me. And, of course, I was doing things I was being patted on the back for. I was chief economist. I was doing things that Robert McNamara liked and so on. 

AMY GOODMAN: How closely did you work with the World Bank? 

JOHN PERKINS: Very, very closely with the World Bank. The World Bank provides most of the money that’s used by economic hit men, it and the I.M.F. But when 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart. I knew the story had to be told because what happened at 9/11 is a direct result of what the economic hit men are doing. And the only way that we're going to feel secure in this country again and that we're going to feel good about ourselves is if we use these systems we’ve put into place to create positive change around the world. I really believe we can do that. I believe the World Bank and other institutions can be turned around and do what they were originally intended to do, which is help reconstruct devastated parts of the world. Help -- genuinely help poor people. There are twenty-four thousand people starving to death every day. We can change that. 

 

 

 

THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND MASS SUBSERVIENCE TO TYRANNY
And The Consequent Rise of the Fourth Reich
by C.L. 

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln

Everyone likes to say, "Hitler did this," and "Hitler did that." But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the death camps to WWII, was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who, because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

The German people of the late 1930s imagined themselves to be brave. They saw themselves as the heroic Germans depicted by the Wagnerian Operas, the descendants of the fierce Germanic warriors who had hunted wild boar with nothing but spears and who had defeated three of Rome's mightiest legions in the Tuetenberg Forest.

But in truth, by the 1930s, the German people had become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery was both salve and slavery. Germans were required to behave as if they were brave, even when they were not.

It's easy to look back and realize what a jerk Hitler was. But at the time, Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could, and more importantly, could not do.

Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy's choir of a monastery in his youth.

The reality was that the German people, as individuals, had lost their courage. The German government preferred it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But the German people didn't wish to lose their self-image of courage.

So, when confronted with a situation demanding individual courage in the form of a government gone wrong, the German people simply pretended that the situation did not exist.

And in that simple self-deception lay the ruin of an entire nation and the coming of the Second World War.

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged by Hitler himself. They were afraid to. But so trapped were the Germans by their belief in their own bravery that they willed themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes so that they could nod in agreement with Der Fuhrer while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoided the one situation which most required real courage; to stand up to Hitler's lies and deceptions.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the "terrorists", the German people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed. The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed.

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to Hitler's deceptions, did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war.

But Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Hitler copied the parade regalia of ancient Rome to remind the Germans of the defeat of the legions at the Tuetenberg Forest. Talismans were added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fell in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WWII not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler.

Sent into battle by that false image of courage, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

I remember as a child listening to the stories of WWII from my grandfather and my uncles who had served in Europe. I wondered how the German people could have been so stupid as to have ever elected Hitler dog catcher, let alone leader of the nation. Such is the clarity of historical hindsight.

And with that clarity, I see the exact same mechanism that Hitler used at work here in this nation.

The American people imagine themselves to be brave. They see themselves as the heroic Americans depicted by Western movies, the descendants of the fierce patriot warriors who had tamed the frontier and defeated the might of the British Empire.

But in truth, by the dawn of the third millennium, the American people have become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery is both salve and slavery. Americans are required to behave as if they are brave, even when they are not. The American people assume they are safe. They live in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government can, and more importantly, cannot do. Their leader is a devoutly religious man.

The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way, as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don't wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage to challenge a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist. Cherished illusions supercede hard reality.

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the U.S. Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the U.S. Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently. But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government's lies and deceptions.

The vast majority of the American people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to the government's deceptions, never question why Afghanistan would have done something so stupid as to attack the United States, and as a result, Americans find themselves in a war.

Now the U.S. Government has requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the "terrorists". The American people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing. The temporary powers recently conferred will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany.

The U.S. Government knows they rule a nation of cowards. The government has had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards can fight. The government has decorated the troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Talismans are added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fall in battle.

Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, the United States government has spent vast sums of money on wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, cruise missiles, and guided missiles, weapons that kill at a distance so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they are doing.

As I mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man of the Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celebrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back - after what they have done becomes known.

The German people did not stand up to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse.

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war. No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over.

The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

It is naive, not to mention racist, to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we're Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people.

And unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgment with which we look back on the 1930s Germans.

###

PS -- With this understanding, consider the 4 generations of the Bush Family and the repeating pattern of behavior that the American people, in their striving to be brave, completely deny, ignore, and by default, embrace.

The Bush Family oil investments and military-industrial stocks of the Carlisle Group (WWIII) stand to make billions .  George Bush Sr. (son of Prescott), made billions on kickbacks from Sadaam's sale of oil to the U.S. Prescott Bush made millions doing the financing and banking for Hitler's military-industrial complex (WWII). Prescott's Father made millions selling Remington Arms to both sides during WWI. With all the above in mind, consider the mass psychology in the following statements by Bush Jr. Since 9/11

November 10, 2001 - President Bush to United Nations:

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror."

http://usembassy.state.gov/togo/wwwhlmesppb.html

NOTE This is the same Machievellian provocateur who made several 9/11 speeches saying first, "If you're not with us, you're against us"... and later saying, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." And while whipping up patriotic frenzy for total compliance with their war agenda on one hand, the other hand slipped in stealth legislation under guise of the "Patriot Act" and Executive Orders that could arrest any dissidents, suspending their Constitutional rights as "potential terrorists" or "enemy combatants". In short, the fast-tract for tyranny and war has been expedited in the name of peace and security; it's a 4th Reich replay of massive 3rd Reich war collaboration of Grandaddy Prescott Bush and John.D. Rockefeller with the Nazi war machine. -CR

And here's Bush Jr. at a recent Address to the Nation at the World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia

"I recently received a letter from a 4th-grade girl that seemed to say it all "I don't know how to feel,' she said, 'sad, mad, angry. It has been different lately. I know the people in New York are scared because of the World Trade Center and all, but if we're scared, we are giving the terrorists all the power.' In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. (Applause.) Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination. We have refused to live in a state of panic -- or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated -- and this great nation will never be intimidated." (Applause.)

Adolph couldn't have "emotionally blackmailed" our subservience better!

BOTTOM LINE QUOTABLES

"A theory floating through the media these days has it that Son Bush is making war on Iraq to "finish the job" left undone by Father Bush. This is utterly preposterous. Father Bush left the job "undone" to perpetuate the division the world government totalitarians always want. The men running the show now are motivated by the same thing that motivates Father Bush the goal of world government. Turning the country into a police state to "protect" us from terrorism is part of the process, in which criticism can be quelled by calling it disloyalty." --by Alan Stang, stangfeedback@hotmail.com, from an excellent article published originally at www.EtherZone.com

As for the Common Sense that the Big Lie makes uncommon...

"We have a duty to look after each other. If we lose control of our government, then we lose our ability to dispense justice and human kindness. Our first priority today, then, is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption that have come between us and our self-governance." 
- Doris Haddock - Taken from her website at www.grannyd.com

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." 
--Albert Einstein

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up." 
--Pastor Martin Neimoeller

"Evil will succeed only if enough good people do nothing." 
-Edmund Burke

Deadly Connections: Corporate Globalization, Space and War 
by Carol Brouillet 

The Earth is not dying; it is being killed, not by corporations or institutions, although they certainly play their roles, but by real people, with names, faces and addresses,(1) whose actions and decisions mean “war,” “death,” “starvation,” “illness,” “deforestation,” “flooding,” “drought,” “the expansion of the Ozone Hole,” “climate change,” “violent storms,” “the end of the Cenozoic Era.”(2) … Fascism and the struggle against fascism shaped the twentieth century. Ostensibly, we have been told, “Democracy triumphed.” But the anti-fascists in Europe, after World War II, were soon labeled “communists” and crushed in country after country, while Nazi’s and their intelligence network were absorbed into the “Central Intelligence Agency.” 

The C.I.A. has continually overturned “democracy” in country after country for the benefit of corporation after corporation.(3) According to the dictionary, “Fascism is a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with a belligerent nationalism.” Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany are the classic examples of “fascist countries.” During the “Cold War” the C.I.A. consistently exaggerated the Soviet threat to justify the build-up in nuclear weapons and frighten Americans into supporting the misnamed “Defense Department.” 

With the emergence of powerful “transnational corporations” and “transnational institutions”- created by the Bretton Woods Agreement (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank,…), later the World Trade Organization, (not too mention the less formal Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum ), military alliances such as N.A.T.O. , and the growth of “U.N. peacekeeping forces,” a new “transnational fascism” has come into being. Allegiance to any particular country is superceded by an allegiance to corporate profits, dividing the global elites from the vast majority of the world’s people. The collusion between corrupt elites in Third World countries who sell off their countries’ natural and human resources and the corporate elite in industrialized countries who maximize profits, by taking full advantage of cheap labor in other countries and downsizing their operations in the United States (or England or Japan or Germany, where “labor costs” are high) show that economic status reveals more about loyalties than nationality. 

While economics paints itself as far too complex for most people to fathom, there is a great simplicity to the evolving corporate dominated economic system which places the highest possible value on “profits” or “money” and does not value “human lives” or “the ecosystems” upon which all Life depends. The heart of the global economy remains a “war economy ” which is the most lucrative business on the planet; it is in the economic interests of all the major powers to have a war going on.(4) Enemies, particularly “terrorists” justify the “police state” and the construction of more weapons and “defense systems.” Despite the horrific loss of life during all the conflicts in the twentieth century, more people were killed by their own governments than by any wars between nation states. The more “military training” the U.S. offers its’ friends, the greater the human rights’ abuse in those friends’ countries- Colombia is a prime example of this. More and more, war itself is being “privatized,” outsourced to mercenaries. The giant oil companies depend upon the military or private armies to aid in the construction and defense of their operations. Cheney’s, Halliburton,(5) serves the oil industry and the military providing "support services,” living off of US wars and "counter-insurgency" operations in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Kuwait, Nigeria, Russia, Rwanda, and Somalia and elsewhere. Just recently its offshoot, Brown and Root, won the lucrative supply contract for the operations in Afghanistan, hardly a surprise in the revolving door between the government and the major military contractors. 

There is little moral qualm to selling arms to both sides in a conflict, particularly in the “Third World” where the understated concern of the “elite” is “over-population”- not “over-consumption.” Subtly the racist nature of institutions encourages the idea that “resources are limited,” “there are too many people,” “fewer of ‘them’ means ‘more for us,’” “wars, while unpleasant, aren’t so bad, if they benefit ‘us.’” Control is paramount, peace, justice, democracy our luxuries to be sacrificed, if they hinder or threaten the dominant powers. 

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has had to struggle to create the “enemies” necessary to justify its outrageous military budget. The C.I.A. created the ‘monsters’- “Noriega, Hussein, Osama bin Laden,”… In the book, Dollars for Terror- The United States and Islam, Richard Labeviere, chronicles the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and their joint effort to create the Al Qaeda network, “Mercenaries for Corporate Globalization. ”(6) Al Qaeda complements corporate control. They are conveniently a target in Afghanistan where we wish to construct bases and control the regions oil and drugs, but Al Qaeda is quietly supported by the U.S. military in Chechnya, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia where their agenda dovetails perfectly with U.S. aims. The Bin Laden family itself has close financial links with the the Bush family and the Carlyle Group (the 9th largest defense contractor in the U.S) illustrates how both families profit financially from the new “War.” Whilst 1600 innocent people of Middle Eastern descent are rounded up for questioning in the wake of 9-11, the supposedly “estranged Bin Laden family” are escorted and flown out of the country on a military plane (when no one else in the country can even fly), and certainly not “questioned by the F.B.I.” despite the finger waving at the supposed “mastermind,” Osama Bin Laden.(7) 

Just what role did the C.I.A. play in 9-11? Why was the head of Pakistani Intelligence, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, in the U.S. meeting with the C.I.A. at the time. Bush sent him to Afghanistan to demand “Osama bin Laden.” We know that what Bush really wanted was war, troops were moved into place, the plans had been crafted well before September. When this was printed in the Times of India: 

The US authorities sought “Ahmad’s” removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

Ahmad lost his job, but he was not apprehended or questioned by U.S. authorities.(8) The mounting evidence, from the fact that no planes were scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes, in complete violation of standard FAA procedures, to the lies of top officials, and the fake evidence used to target selected “culprits” lead me to believe that the U.S. was complicite in the September 11th attacks. 

For decades the C.I.A. has waged a relentless propaganda campaign to persuade Americans that “their security lies in an overwhelming technologically superior military force.” For decades the C.I.A. has had “practice” terrorizing and taking over smaller countries. One third of its budget is devoted to “propaganda” and much of that is directed towards influencing the American public. No matter that “Star Wars” isn’t technologically feasible or that it would spur a new arms race, or that is has been designed to overtly allow the “U.S.” to dominate and control the world,(9) the boondoggle means profit to a small global elite, and will allow that global elite to threaten and terrorize the rest of the world. 

At this point, the words “us” “them” “we” “U.S.” “transnational elites” become a bit cloudy, just as fascism has evolved from a couple of countries to a phenomena recognized as “Corporate Globalization” which institutionalizes the dominance of corporations over governments, removes decision making from elected officials to unelected trade bureaucrats, allows corporations to sue governments to wipe out any environmental or pesky labor laws which stand in their way of “profits.”(10) Military pressure is applied to gain local (sometimes state or national) compliance with the transnational corporate agenda. Global elites, such as Henry Kissinger, play dual roles, guiding the hand of the C.I.A. to overthrow “out of line” heads of state, (such as Allende), orchestrating the bombing of Cambodia and other countries (when that seems “necessary”), then putting on a new “hat,” advising Chinese oil companies, in the wake of 9-11.(11) While Clinton was in power, the Bush gang were investing billions and making deals with the countries of Asia. (12) These global statesmen, certainly are not thinking of “America” first… as they create the architecture for a “New World Order” where corporations rule. Despite the rhetoric that demonizes our enemies, including China, on September 17th, China quietly joined the World Trade Organization; the Chinese elite and the American elite have far more in common with each other (making profits and controlling the masses) than differences. 

It is ominous to think of the occult symbolism of 9-11, the anniversary of the Chilean coup, a sacred day for Nazi’s, and the U.N. declared “International Day of Peace.” Orwell’s 1984 is echoed in the rhetoric and behaviour of the White House, and sadly in Congress, who but for a few wonderfully brave examples seem to blithely go along with the “Big Lie” unquestioningly. 

On September 11th and the following day, I was more terrified by the media beating the drums for war, than the actual event. It was months before I was able to put the pieces together, to see that the best historical parallel to 9-11 is that of the Reichstag Fire which enabled Hitler to eliminate his opposition, consolidate his power, wipe out democracy in Germany, and install himself as dictator.(13) 

The Patriot Act, the Anti-Terrorist Act, the Homeland Security Act are direct assaults upon the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Democracy.(14) Worse, these pieces of legislation are being mirrored worldwide to criminalize and discourage dissent everywhere. The War on Communism, was replaced by the War on Drugs, and now by the War on Terrorism- broadly defined as any opposition to official power. No matter if the U.S. is the only country to be convicted of Terrorism by the World Court, or that our behaviour as a nation is blatantly illegal and evokes the world’s anger; this will not be mentioned by a subservient press. We’ve lost so much, regressing to before the Magna Carta, to the time of the Inquisition, the times of torture, secret evidence, and secret executions. The heart of the Magna Carta is that no man- even the king- is above the law. 

The lies and secrecy which shroud the occupant of the Oval Office, the “National Security Council,” violate this fundamental principal, and permit known criminals to wield great power and public office. We have learned that Bush illegally obtained office through a systemic purging of legitimate black voters in Florida,(15) plus the blatantly political ruling of a biased Supreme Court. 

The only real visible beneficiaries of 9-11 appear to be the military-industrial-complex/the Bush Administration/multinational oil corporations/drug traffickers, and regimes such as Israel who feel justified in using military force against “dissent/terrorists” within their borders. The corporate press has swallowed the whole story, hook, line and sinker, refusing to ask hard questions, cheerleading an attack by the wealthiest country in the world against the poorest, silent on the startlingly mercenary motives (installing ex-Unocal representatives to head the Interim government and represent “U.S.” interests in the region), and virtually denying access to information that would reveal the magnitude of the suffering, deprivation and death which has befallen the Afghan people, as a result of the war. 

Not heartening are the assurances that this is only stage one of a long war which the U.S. wants to expand to countless other countries, Iraq being the favored target, while even more repressive legislation is being pushed through Congress and the States. The politicians assure us that there will be more terrorist attacks and prepare “smallpox vaccines” for every citizen in the U.S.. We are being psychologically prepared for the next assault. 

I think the greatest threat to “the Powers that be” are an informed American public. Only an informed American public could rein in the “War on Terrorism,” bring to heel an unelected politician whose catastrophic policies threaten all people, everywhere. Granted, I doubt if “W” thought up all this stuff, all by himself, but he is going along with it. Occasionally his dad calls him up to tell him when he messed up, and to get him to remember what he is “supposed to do or say.” Those of us, within the U.S., have an especially great responsibility right now, to prevent our government from committing even worse “Crimes Against Humanity.” 

They are capable of staging “another terrorist attack” in the U.S. to expand the war to Phase Two, both abroad and here. So time is of the essence. Michael Ruppert and Dr. Len Horowitz have warned people about the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, which would allow governors to declare an emergency, force vaccinations, quarantine or isolation upon people, as well as seize of property, and require people to actively “provide services” during an emergency.(16) Are the deaths of fourteen of the world’s top microbiologists a warning that designer communicable disease is being prepared for release?(17) The draconian legislature is bad enough, but the companies that are coming up with “smallpox vaccines for the entire U.S. population” bear scrutiny. They are the same that provided poison gas for Hitler’s gas chambers,(18) linked to the contaminated vaccines that spread AIDS in Africa,(19) and linked to the infected blood that killed thousands of hemophiliacs in industrialized countries.(20) 

Consider the monopolization of land, money, food, communications, energy, water by transnational corporations, and the global elite. Are they monopolizing the world’s resources that human life depend upon for the benefit of humanity or to increase their wealth and power? What does the track record show? 

How do the legal, financial, and medical systems mirror the political system? 

The companies- BASF, Bayer and Hoechst were responsible for Hitler’s dash for power, as well as the main beneficiaries of his conquests, they were the 100% owners of IG Auschwitz, the largest industrial complex outside Germany. The concentration camp Auschwitz was a forced labour camp for this company. IG Farben Board member, Fritz ter Meer testified during the Nuremberg trials that “There was no harm done to the prisoners, because they were to be killed anyway.” He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for “slavery and looting.” He was released in 1952. From 1956-1964 he was the chairman of the board of Bayer AG. In 1962 he was one of the architects of the Codex Alimentarius commission which is sponsored by the United Nations and the World Health Organization, and supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Codex Alimentarius Commission wants to BAN all current over the counter sales of herbs, vitamins, amino acids, minerals, and all other supplements. The pharmaceutical companies are planning a global takeover of the vitamin-herb industry, and within a few short years, they will have succeeded by pushing competitors out of the field. They are planning to do it very quietly and carefully through GATT and the Codex Commission. Will our lives and health be sacrificed again for profits, and control?(20) 

I used to wonder whether those in power were really stupid or evil. It seems so short-sighted to kill the planet, if you want to live. Someone kindly pointed out to me that “Evil is applied stupidity.” Dr. M. Scott Peck wrote “I defined evil as 'the exercise of political power that is the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion in order to avoid...spiritual growth'". 

I can’t agree with Bush’s “Axis of Evil” definition. “Racism, Poverty and War” strike me as the real evils on the global scale. 

But people are making the decisions, and on a personal level, we need to ask “Why?” How could someone knowingly cause the deaths of hundreds, thousands or millions of other people? 

Aung Sung Suu Kyi wrote: "It is not power that corrupts, but fear -- fear of losing power and fear of the scourge of those who wield it." 

Those in power live in fear, and the dominant system depends upon Fear and Greed to control humanity. 

Much as I abhor the policies of the Bush Administration, I do feel sorry for “Dubya,” imagine having Bush Sr. as your father, Director of the C.I.A…, getting initiated into the Skull and Bones at Yale. I fear that the global elite were traumatized as children, and never really bonded with their parents or learned to love. I believe it is our love of life which makes us human, and care so deeply about others, the planet. 

Psychologist Erich Fromm defines the struggle between Good and Evil as biophilia (the love of life) vs necrophilia (the love of death). "The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically as if all living persons were things," he writes. "The necrophilous person can relate to an object - a flower or a person - only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a threat to himself... He loves control and in the act of controlling he kills life... 'Law and order' for them are idols..." I believe that it is the inability to love “oneself,” the hatred of oneself, which makes someone incapable of loving others, that allows one to condemn “humanity” as evil and rationalize the manipulations, controls or elimination of people perceived to be “uncontrollable” or a “threat.”

Our challenge, those who love life and care deeply about the future, humanity, justice, peace is how to transform people, society, and institutions from those which are concentrating wealth and power, destroying the Earth in the process, to those which respect, honor, and value life and nourish peace, freedom, healthy relationships between all Life. Humor, Love, Courage, Truth, Hope and Compassion, are the most powerful tools that we have. 

In New York, when we demonstrated against the World Economic Forum, we used humor, song, art to convey our messages. #1- Another World is Possible! #2- They are all Enron; We are all Argentina. The forces of life must rein in the forces of death. The War on Terrorism is a Big Lie; it is truly a War on Democracy, Peace and Freedom everywhere. True national security means healthy relationships between all people, a thriving biosphere, meeting the needs of all, as declared in the International Declaration of Human Rights; secrecy, weapons of mass destruction, designating the bulk of humanity’s resources and intellectual ability towards the military is a “threat” to all. 

Last February there was a national day of solidarity with the “disappeared in America;”(21) we wore blue triangles to remind people of that time when…


“In Germany first they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to speak up.” explained Pastor Martin Niemoller (who ended up in a concentration camp.)

NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP!
Loudly, clearly, with love, humor, passion, creativity to awaken those living in fear or denial to their connection with the human race, to our responsibility, to our mutual dream and hope for a peaceful, just, joyful, healthy world. 

I wear many hats; I am a member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, but I also work with a multitude of groups challenging corporate rule, militarism, injustice. One of these groups hopes to nurture a national movement of solidarity on June 6th and encourages people to organize events along this theme: 
Not In Our Name: The Pledge to Resist 

We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government, in our names 

Not in our name will you wage endless war there can be no more deaths no more transfusions of blood for oil 

Not in our name will you invade countries bomb civilians, kill more children letting history take its course over the graves of the nameless 

Not in our name will you erode the very freedoms you have claimed to fight for 

Not by our hands will we supply weapons and funding for the annihilation of families on foreign soil 

Not by our mouths will we let fear silence us 

Not by our hearts will we allow whole peoples or countries to be deemed evil 

Not by our will and Not in our name 

We pledge resistance 

We pledge alliance with those who have come under attack for voicing opposition to the war or for their religion or ethnicity 

We pledge to make common cause with the people of the world to bring about justice freedom and peace 

Another world is possible and we pledge to make it real 

Footnotes- 
(1) Utah Phillips 

(2)"400 Biologists agreed that at the current rates of extinction, we are at the end of Cenozoic Era." Source: Elisabet Sahtouris, Evolutionary Biologist 

(3) Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies, and Global Economics 

(5) from The United States of Oil by Damien Caveli (among others) 

(6) Dollars for Terror- The United States and Islam, Labeviere, Algora Publishing, New York, 2000 

(7) See The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks by Michel Chossudovsky 

(9) Best articulated by the U.S.Space Agency, itself! Exposed by Karl Grossman's outstanding work, as well as the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. "Weapons in Space are the Police of Globalization." 

(10) See Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch to get more information on the W.T.O. and regional trade pacts which are advancing the W.T.O. agenda. 

(11) Associated Press, Hong Kong, October 29, 2002 

(12) The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection? by Ron Callari, Albion Monitor, February 28, 2002 

(13) The Reichstag Fire 

(14) No War Against Afghanistan!by Francis Boyle 

(15) The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast 

(16) The Model Emergency Health Powers Act Threatens Health and Democracy, California Bill 1763 is challenged March 21, 2002. 

(17) A Career In Microbiology Can Be Harmful To Your Health by Michael Davidson and Michael Ruppert (18) US GAO TO REPORT ON LABORATORY BIRTH OF AIDS by Dr. Boyd E. Graves 

(19) Bayer... knowingly selling HIV-tainted Blood to Hemphiliacs murdering thousands. 

(20) The Pharmaceutical Republic of Germany -- From "Arbeit mach frei" to "Codex Alimentarius" 

(21) National Day of Solidarity With Arab and Muslim Immigrants February 20, 2002 

(22) Not in Our Name- Pledge of Resistance June 6, 2002 

(Sequential) Collectivism vs. (Simultaneous) Individualism 
Contradictory Forms of Planetary Civilizations: Some Notes
1 November 2004

Individual and Society

"The fundamental issue in political philosophy concerns the relationship of the individual to society. Objectivism holds that the individual is prior to society, because the mind belongs to the individual as such, and acts of thought must be performed by individuals. Although men learn from their predecessors and are interdependent in various ways, they still have to exercise their rational capacities as individuals. This position, known as individualism, is opposed to collectivism, which treats society as if it were a super-organism existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form (e.g., tribe, race, or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value. 

Extract from an Interview:

"Our nation (or any nation) is really controlled by what sociologists call the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and organizations through which people work and act, and in many cases they actually think homo sapiens are a kind of herd animal. He has this “herd” instinct. We have leaders and we seek leaders and we follow leaders. And leaders pretty much tell us what to do. In many cases, they tell us what to think. If we are led to believe that consensus is important, and if somebody does a poll and they say “Well, 60% of the population is all for this measure,” we have a tendency because of our nature, to say, “Well, if 60% of the population is for it, it must be okay. I should be for it, too.” That’s the way people think. So, what I’m driving at is that the collectivists who have really captured control of most of the governments of the world today have done so not by military means, and they don’t even represent a large percentage of the population. They represent, in most cases, less than three percent of the population - and in some cases, even less than one percent of the population. Yet, they can dominate the whole nation because they are in control of the power centers of society. 

I’m talking about the political parties, labor unions, church organizations, schools - all the organizations that add up to the sum total of power in a nation. And if you've noticed, in many cases these organizations have leadership with a point of view or an agenda, which is totally removed from the point of view of the rank and file members. And the members often wonder, “How did this guy get to be the president?” Or, “Where did these people on the board of directors come from? They don’t represent me and my way of thinking.” Well, this happened because there were people who had an agenda for many decades now. They've known that in order to put their political views into place and to dominate a society, they had to control those power centers. They use their energies, their time, and in many cases, huge amounts of money in order to capture control of the power centers.

What is happening to our monetary system is disastrous to the future of the country. It’s a disaster to the monetary system. I don’t see how it could survive without falling apart. It’s a disaster to the freedom issue. I don’t see how people can continue to have this system and maintain their personal freedoms. I’m really alarmed about that. I believe that sooner or later, the bubble has to burst. Now, let me qualify that by saying - and I think I said this in the book - there is one condition under which we would not have a collapse of the monetary system. That would be a condition in which no one would dare say that we had one. In other words: totalitarianism. 

If we had no freedom of speech, no freedom in the marketplace, no freedom to buy or sell as we wished, then all of the forces of supply and demand would be paralyzed. Under those conditions, there would be no collapse of the monetary system. There would just be slavery. And what concerns me is we may be moving into that scenario.

The Federal Reserve is manipulating the market. I’m convinced that there are mechanisms they are using. They’re using the hidden taxation of inflation, and the creation of money out of nothing to sustain the stock market to create the ILLUSION of continued prosperity. That is a terrible thing, when you can intervene in the free market like that and literally paralyze it. So what I’m concerned about is that we are moving very close into a condition where it might be comparable to the Soviet Union twenty years ago. If we had lived in the Soviet Union twenty years ago, no one would have said that they were having economic problems because the official line from the state was “everything is improving”. They had five-year plans, ten-year plans, everything’s on target, employment is up, prosperity is up; the value of the ruble is up. All the official pronouncements were positive and nobody DARED say that they were lies. I think we're coming to the point - if we aren't there already - where we're looking that kind of a thing smack in the face.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is guided by this ideology and they believe the best way to bring about change is by engaging in war. Let’s talk about the pillars of collectivism.

I've identified actually five philosophical foundations for collectivism, three of which are probably the most important. Three of them are very easy to recognize. The other two require a little more analysis. By the way, when you take these pillars of collectivism and you turn them upside down, they’re the pillars of individualism. So we find that on these five points, the world is divided. You either have to be one way or the other, if you've given any thought to it at all. The most important thing that people will recognize is that collectivists believe that the group is more important than the individual --- that the individual must be sacrificed, if necessary, for the greater good of the greater number.

Now that is at the core of all of the mischief of collectivist systems such as Communism, Nazism, Socialism, or Fascism. If you look at any of those, you'll find the underlying belief that the numbers are important - that if we can justify that this particular deed is good for a greater number, then we can sacrifice the smaller number. It’s simply a question of a head count. And under such a system, there really is no foundation for individual rights because nobody has a right if the 'greater good of the greater number' is 'served' by denying that right. 

I'll give you an example. I think everyone is beginning to recognize today that we didn't get into WWII as a result of a surprise attack by Japan. For years, everybody denied that. They thought that was a scandalous concept for people to suggest that President Roosevelt and people high in the military and in the State Department of the American government would stand by and not only allow the Japanese to attack, but to goad them into it, to encourage them. What an awful thing to suggest! Well now, of course, all the history has come out, the smoking gun has been found, and there aren't many of us today who even question that anymore - although a lot of people still haven't heard it. But the defenders of the Roosevelt regime today don’t say that he didn't do this or that they didn't do that. What they say today is, “Well, yes it’s true, but he was justified in doing so because it was for the greater good of the greater number.” It was worth sacrificing a mere two or three thousand American lives at Pearl Harbor in order to wake up the nation to the necessity of getting into the war and fighting against Hitler at a time when it was easier to do than later. In other words, it was okay to lead three thousand people to their death in order to get us into a war that was for the greater good of the greater number.

It’s definitely applicable today. You see, nobody could talk about it during WWII because they were living through it. Now, you know, because its history, we can talk about it. Well, it’s happening in the war on terrorism, too - but you can’t talk about it today because people are too emotionally involved in it.

Right now, it seems that the greater majority of the American people are solidly following the concepts of their leaders - even though it’s pure collectivism - from top to bottom. They don’t understand that and they’re being fooled. They don’t have the information like we’re talking about. Therefore, they are unable to make intelligent decisions about what is right and what is wrong. As long as that condition continues, then we are going to continue to follow the policies of the people who presently control the government. And that does not look too good. I think that the goal of the present government is to continue to expand their military presence throughout the world. They have written about this. They want to establish what they call “Pax Americana”, similar to “Pax Romana”. In other words, they see themselves as leaders of a new Roman Empire to dominate the world. Beyond that, they see that as a stepping-stone to being the most influential voice in the creation of a world government. That’s the ultimate goal for them all. They want to be the top dogs in that world government. That’s where we’re headed, and unless we can turn it around, I’m afraid we’re going to find ourselves locked up in a world government based on the model of collectivism. And I can assure you we're not going to like it."

G.E. Griffin

"Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
~ Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 ~

Defining and contrasting individualism and collectivism (planetary societies) 

Individualism and collectivism are conflicting views of the nature of humans, society and the relationship between them. 

Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not something over and above them. 

Collectivism holds that the group---the nation, the community, the proletariat, the race, etc.---is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the reality of the individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is determined by the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is constituted essentially of relationships with others. 

Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are just one aspect of reality. Collectivists see people dealing primarily with other people; reality is dealt with through the mediator of the group; the group, not the individual, is what directly confronts reality. 

Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no person should be sacrificed for the sake of another. Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires. 

Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While not denying that one person can build on the achievements of others, individualism points out that achievement goes beyond what has already been done; it is something new that is created by the individual. 

Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of society. In this view, an individual is a temporary spokesman for the underlying, collective process of progress. 

To further clarify the difference between individualism and collectivism, I'd like to discuss two widespread misconceptions about individualism. 

Isolation 

The first misconception is that individualism means isolation---being alone, being outside society. This misconception is reflected in the popular images of ``individualism,'' images that stress being isolated, such as those of the lone cowboy, the fearless gumshoe, and the isolated prairie family. Such images can be exciting and heroic, but isolation is not the essence of individualism. 

In fact, the concept of individualism does not make sense in the absence of other human beings. Individualism and collectivism are contrasting views of the relationship between the individual and the group. Individualism is called ``individualism'' not because it exhorts the individual to seek a life apart from others, but because it asserts that the individual, and not the group, is the primary constituent of society. 

The belief that individualism means being alone leads people to say that individualism is incompatible with cooperation. If one is too much of an ``individualist,'' people say, one cannot ``get along with groups,'' one is not a good ``team player.'' Actually, a person who doesn't listen to others, the person who would rather do things an inefficient way as long as it's ``my way,'' is not being an ``individualist''---he's being closed minded. A true individualist wants the best for himself, so he seeks out the best, no mater who is the source. To the individualist, the truth is more important than any authority, including himself. 

Living in society, cooperating with other people---these are tremendous benefits. Individualism does not deny this. But not all arrangements of living and working with other men are beneficial to the individual; the arrangement faced by American slaves is one example. Individualism is a theory of the conditions under which living and working with others is, in fact, beneficial. 

Balance 

Another widespread misconception about individualism is that it can somehow be mixed with or tempered by collectivism. In this view, neither ``extreme'' individualism nor ``extreme'' collectivism are correct. Rather, wisdom and truth lie somewhere in the middle. 

Individualism and collectivism are contradictory positions---there is no middle ground between them. Collectivism maintains that the group is an entity in its own right, a thing that can act upon people. Individualism denies this. Collectivism sees us being influenced by the group; individualism sees us being influenced by other individuals. Collectivism sees us cooperating with the team; individualism, with other people. Collectivism sees us building on the ideas and achievements of society; individualism, on the ideas and achievements of individuals. These are contradictory positions; it's either-or. 

To accept the ``balance'' point of view is to accept collectivism. No collectivist has ever said that every single need of every individual must be frustrated for the sake of the society---if so, there wouldn't be any society left to serve. Collectivism is the balance point of view; it is a matter of fine-tuning here and there, constraining individuals when their interests get out of line with the ``good of society.'' 

Indeed, the main debate between the ``left'' and the ``right'' today is not a debate over collectivism and individualism---its a debate over two forms of collectivism. The ``left'' holds that the needs of society lie in the materialistic realm, so they are into regulating that aspect of individual affairs. The ``right'' holds that the needs of society lie in the spiritual realm, so they are into regulating the spiritual aspect of individual affairs. 

Collectivism is, by its nature, an act of balancing the need of the individual against the need of ``society.'' Individualism denies that society has any needs, so the issue of balance is not relevant to it. 

Philosophic implications of individualism and collectivism 

Both collectivism and individualism rest on certain values and certain assumptions about the nature of man, which is what I want to explore next. 

Responsibility vs. the safety-net 

The first issue I want to explore is responsibility versus the social safety-net. 

A primary element of individualism is individual responsibility. Being responsible is being pro-active, making one's choices consciously and carefully, and accepting accountability for everything one does---or fails to do. An integral part of responsibility is productivity. The individualist recognizes that nothing nature gives men is entirely suited to their survival; rather, humans must work to transform their environment to meet their needs. This is the essence of production. The individualist takes responsibility for his own production; he seeks to ``earn his own way,'' to ``pull his own weight.'' 

Collectivism doesn't disparage responsibility; but ultimately, collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking---these actions are called ``social problems'' that ``society'' has to deal with. Thus, collectivists seek to build a social ``safety-net'' to protect individuals from the choices they make. To collectivism, responsibility is only to be expected of the productive, and consists of doing one's part in keeping the social ``safety-net'' in tact. 

Regarding production, collectivism sees society, not individuals, as the agent of production. As a result, wealth belongs to ``society,'' so collectivists have no trouble dreaming up schemes to redistribute wealth according to their visions of ``social justice.'' 

Egoism vs. altruism 

The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism. 

Altruism holds ``each man as his brother's keeper;'' in other words, we are each responsible for the health and well-being of others. Clearly, this is a simple statement of the ``safety-net'' theory from above. This is incompatible with individualism, yet many people who are basically individualists uphold altruism as the standard of morality. What's going on? 

The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of ``altruism'' and ``egoism.'' 

The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live. 

The second confusion is to confound selfishness with brutality. The common image of selfishness is the person who runs slip-shod over people in order to achieve arbitrary desires. We are taught that ``selfishness'' consists of dishonesty, theft, even bloodshed, usually for the sake of the whim of the moment. 

These two confusions together obscure the possibility of an ethics of non-sacrifice. In this ethics, each man takes responsibility for his own life and happiness, and lets other people do the same. No one sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. The key word in this approach is earn: each person must earn a living, must earn the love and respect of his peers, must earn the self-esteem and the happiness that make life worth living. 

It's this ethics of non-sacrifice that forms a lasting moral foundation for individualism. It's an egoistic ethics in that each person acts to achieve his own happiness. Yet, it's not the brutality usually ascribed to egoism. Indeed, by rejecting sacrifice as such, it represents a revolution in thinking on ethics. 

Two asides on the topic of egoism. First, just as individualism doesn't mean being alone, neither does non-sacrificial egoism. Admiration, friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But these values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the deepest sense of the word. 

Second, I question if brutality, the form of selfishness usually ascribed to egoism, is actually in one's self-interest in practice. Whim worship, dishonesty, theft, exploitation: I would argue that the truly selfish man rejects these, for he knows that happiness and self-esteem can't be stolen at the cost of others: they must be earned through hard work. 

Reason: The third issue I want to explore is reason. 

The philosophic defense of individualism rests on the nature of reason and the role it plays in human life. 

Reason is the faculty of conceptual awareness; reason integrates the evidence of the senses into a higher-level of awareness. But beyond simple cognition, reason plays a key role in imagination, emotions, and creativity. Every thing we think, feel, imagine and do is based on our awareness and our thoughts. Our character, personal identity, and history of achievement are defined by our thoughts. Our very survival depends on reason. Our food, clothes, shelter, and medicine---all are products of thought. Reason is at the core of being human. 

Reason is individualistic. No person can think for another; thought is an attribute of the individual. One can start with the ideas of another, but each new discovery, each creative step beyond the already known, is a product of the individual. And when an individual does build on the work and ideas of others, he is building on the work of other individuals, not on the ideas of ``society.'' 

Individualism, then, is based on the fact that humans are rational beings, and that reason is an attribute of the individual. Humans can get together and share the products of reason, which is beneficial, but they cannot share the capacity to think. 

Collectivist philosophers go out of their way to attack reason. One broad method of attack is skepticism, the denial that reason even works. This attack is illustrated in bromides like ``you can't be sure of anything.'' A more sophisticated attack on reason aims at turning reason into a product of the group. Each nation, race, economic class, creed, or gender has its own concept, logic, and truth. But in the end, all attacks on reason have a common result: they deny or confuse the role reason plays as the foundation of individualism. 

Political implications of individualism and collectivism 

The final issue I want to look at are the the political implications of individualism and collectivism. 

These implications should be fairly clear. Under collectivism, the individual, in whole or in part, is a means to satisfying the needs of ``society.'' The state is the instrument for organizing people to meet those needs. So it is the state, not the individual, that is sovereign. 

Under individualism, the individual is sovereign. The individual is an end in himself, whose cooperation is to be obtain only through voluntary agreement. All people are expected to act as traders, either voluntarily agreeing to interact or going separate ways; it's either ``win-win, or no deal.'' The government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion is banished from human relations, that ``voluntary'' is really voluntary, that both sides choose freely to deal and both sides live up to their agreements.